(Calamart.org) Le Blog de Stéphane Dalmard
(Calamart.org) Le Blog de Stéphane Dalmard
Picidæ
samedi 28 janvier 2012, par
A l’heure où des lois liberticides mettent en péril l’avenir de l’internet, des outils comme Picidæ permettent de contourner tout logiciel de censure.
Accès direct au Web Proxy Picidæ.
Pour un internet libre
En plus de préserver votre anonymat le Web Proxy Picidæ renvoi une requette http sous forme d’image .png (au lieu d’un .html) permettant anisi de contourner toute censure.
Voici l’image renvoyer par Picidæ de la page d’accueil de ce blog. (image réduite de 50% compresser en .jpg).
Pour plus d’info ref : Wiki free.korben.info.
Un message, un commentaire ?
Archives
Messages
1. Picidæ, 17 avril 2012, 13:05, par Andreea
Ute Man et.al. I think it’s moot to invoke pricavy here, because the internet isn’t private.Once upon a time, blokes used to tell their racist/sexist/offensive/religious jokes to each other quietly in the backyard shed over a few bottles of homebrew. That’s pricavy, and employers still can’t hear you in your shed. Yet.But as for the internet : The infrastructure isn’t private, the servers don’t belong to you, and neither do the websites you post on. And the guy uploaded content onto a website where the entire point is to broadcast stuff.So how is this a pricavy issue ?I’d suggest you’d be on surer ground if you want to talk about employer/employee sanctions and power relationships. Even there, it’s problematic. As a teacher, I work under a very onerous Code of Conduct (which I actually support and believe to be A Good Thing no, really, stop laughing, I do) that carries some very far-reaching proscriptions about my behaviour in what most people in most jobs would consider to be their private time .As for the well, it wasn’t offensive to him (or to me so that’s alright the guy has at best demonstrated a very limited level of intersubjective awareness. At law, for example, an offense of bullying or intimidation or harrassment occurs if the target feels bullied, intimidated or harrassed, regardless of the intent of the speaker. He put the stuff out in public and a bunch of people were offended by it (so we are told, anyway, by some reporters ). They are entitled to be offended, and at law their reaction matters more than his intention.The fact is that certain speech acts are proscribed by law. We don’t have an untramelled right to act like tools on YouTube, not even in our own time. And that isn’t QUT’s fault. I don’t see much point in invoking high principle here.
href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003405769172
2. Picidæ, 18 avril 2012, 10:27, par Steph
You are right but in my opinion, the bad intentions of some should not harm the freedoms of others.