[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

MJ Ray wrote:
"R. Armiento" <reply-debian-05@armiento.net> wrote:
I just want to bring bug #311683 to "public awareness" and

You reported it yesterday. Why bounce it so soon?

I discovered and reported it yesterday. My personal feelings about the issue isn't that strong, and apparently neither is the feelings of the maintainers that have had the time to look at it so far. However, given the recent debacle about explicit content in debian (the "hot-babe" issue) I expect there to be people out there who do feel very strongly about it and perhaps even think it is a sarge release showstopper. I felt that it was fair to at least give these people a chance to comment on the issue before sarge is released. This was my motivation to posting this thing to the list this soon.

discussion. Since it is a bit of a "sociopolitcal" and policy
issue, I suspect there may be people out there who feel
strongly about this one way or the other, and with
Policy issue? Which bit of policy? I searched debian-policy for
porn and didn't find any.

Isn't the lack of policy also a policy? I did not mean policy issue in the sense of "this surely breaks current policies" but in the sense of "is there any current policy that applies to this?", and "should there be a policy to govern it?".

(Btw: "I searched debian-policy for porn and didn't find any." is just such a great quote when taken out of context ;)...)

The issue is:
1. The WebCollage screensaver "...makes collages out of
random images pulled off of the World Wide Web. It finds
these images by doing random web searches...". The result is
a screensaver that often shows sexually explicit images. [...]
Can you quantify "often" please?

That depends of course on the user's definition of "sexually explicit images". In my current workplace environment, I would feel embaressed for about 1 out of 10 images. This means that in almost every Collage there are a few images involving nudity or 'worse'. But don't take my word for it; start it up and mesure it according to your own standards. If the general feeling is that "this is not so bad", I suppose that makes the bug a non-issue.

Really, any site that gives a toss about accidental images
should be using a filtering proxy, IMO, so I don't agree
that this should lose anyone their job. normal not important.

Good argument. However, there are workplaces out there who do not
run filtering proxies, or become upset when people trigger the filters.
It just might not be enough comfort for a person who get in trouble for this, that you don't agree with his company's policy.


Reply to: