Free flow of information?

Hey people. I'm starting this thread in relation to this:
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1293992141/1-40

 I think the flow of information is a MASSIVE issue that is not beeing discussed enough.

So, do you think the flow of information should be totaly unrestricted? Or do you believe there should be laws that protect people from malicious use.

Personaly I would like to see fully unrestricted flow of information one day, but i think that a sudden change in the way we currently manage it could be catastrophical. I believe an good order of abolishing restrictions would be to

a) abolish all copiright and intelectual property laws.
b) make all bank transactions available online
c) enforce transparency in bussinesses and states by forcing them to release all info they manage - including all their financial info.
d) allow some 20 years for the world to digest itself

Please feel free to attack my point of view and add your own. Scepticism is a bless...

>>15
My apologies.  Your two ideas blended together and the only assumption I could make was you were trying to transition the topic to Greece.

Instead we have to work in order to acquire the [possession] of the technology
That's because we do not live in a post-scarcity society and there is, as of yet, no easy avenue to achieving a post-scarcity world.  Until such a situation arises where it is feasible, realistically and economically, to give people whatever they want at the drop of the hat, creating no serious or consistent strain upon another person, personal effort and desire, the demonstration of how much you are (legally) willing to risk to accomplish things, is the only fair way to judge the distribution of goods.  Currency follows from this concept, as do economy.

If we are talking about education or such intangible things, we apply the same heuristics above to indicate that the represented professors and instructors live within this frame of a limited world and must, for their skills, request/demand some compensation to survive.  (Don't get me wrong; they get compensated way too much in my country in my opinion.)

If you think anything of the above has gone too far away from your point, bear with it nonetheless.

As to your question I am going to provide an enigmatic answer: there is no way to draw the line between what kind of information should be public and what kind should be private or, more to the point, what kind of information is important for someone to know and what kind of information is unimportant for anyone else to know.  In this matter, all choices are arbitrary and subjective and inherently selfish.  The drive to want to know something within equally arbitrary constraints called a "system" is the judge of whether or not the subject deserves to learn any information that is not handed to them freely.  A search engine can teach you that easily enough: querying common things is simple, but the more uncommon or more specific the queries become the harder you have to work to extract a useful result.

Note that, by bridging the my above remarks on material technology with your question about access to information, I am not implying that information is limited or that human ambition is limited.  Rather, the delivery system(s) is limited and that is an inescapable fact.  Information does not exist raw, without ink and breath and electricity to convey it.