Discussion re Proposed Internet Filtering

[atuanui]

Look what I found! :)
You may all ready have it
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

[kanook]

When Gillard took the top job I let myself believe that she would ditch this policy, but alas we have another leader that will not listen to the experts or the community.

Greens will be getting my vote.

[wearestardust]

A Labor government without a majority senate is what we need to aim for.

You can be pretty confident of that. At the moment ALP + Greens + Xenophon + Fielding = majority of 1 over the coalition (in its various guises) 37 seats in the Senate. My guess is that ALP will go backwards and Fielding is dead (Xenophon not up for election this time around) and so the interesting thing is: what happens with Coalition.

However: what would be preferable is if Greens could hold the balance of power by themselves. To do that we need to see the Coalition go backwards; it will be amusing, but not actually helpful, for the Greens to take seats off ALP but not the Coalition.

[atuanui]

I wander if Conroy likes little boys?
There is something fishy about him
hmm

[atuanui]

Conroy = Dr. Joseph Goebbels

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Enlightenment_and_Propaganda

[Phroso]

Gillard has backed the filter;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/07/2946907.htm



Very disappointing!! I had hoped that Ms Gillard would have shown better judgement.

There is one point I'd like to make. In view of the impending Internet Filter, many posters on the topic are suggesting that various software packages will allow the filter to be sidestepped.

I'm wondering if that will solve the problem. Remember, when speed cameras were introduced, many motorists installed radar camera detectors in their cars but the government simply made such devices illegal.

If the Internet Filter is legislated, I forsee a situation where bypassing the government internet filter will simply be made an illegal act in Australia and installation of the necessary software will be forbidden.

Draconian penalties would make installation of the necessary bypass software extremely risky.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Like religion, atheism does not stop people from being dickheads.
Unlike religion, atheism does not force people into being dickheads.

[RealityRules]

This seems to sum it all up -

... the biggest mistake here is imagining government policy would change if Lundy replaced Conroy.

Senator Conroy is certainly the public face of the internet filter, and Labor's Plan for Cyber Safety issued just before the November 2007 federal election lists Conroy as the author. But as Crikey's Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane put it recently, Conroy is just doing his job as a professional politician to implement policy, and the filter is still ALP policy today:

"Look ten years down the track, or twenty years, when Conroy has left politics and he's written his memoirs, for all we know he'll reveal that he absolutely hated the filter and it infuriated him every time he had to defend it... You don't get a choice about these things. There is such a thing as cabinet solidarity which means that you do what you're told."

Gillard may well open the subject for cabinet discussion - after all, Kevin Rudd was a keen supporter of mandatory internet filtering and he's gone.

But it's also widely believed that the filter was part of a Senate preferences deal between Labor and Family First that led to Conroy being elected in the first place.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2941395.htm

I didn't know Kate Lundy had a potential conflict of interest: from the same article -
Kate Lundy is also married to David Forman, executive director of the Competitive Carriers Coalition, the "everyone-but-Telstra" lobby group led by Optus. While this isn't necessarily a show-stopper, it'd be difficult for Lundy to avoid allegations of a conflict of interest.

[owheelj]

Yep I agree. Judging individual politicians on government policy decisions is silly. It's the same as the criticisms against Peter Garrett for being a sell out etc. Actually the actual decisions in politics are usually made behind closed doors, and what's presented to the public isn't necessarily the views of individuals. If somebody were pragmatic and wanted to actually achieve the kinds of things Peter Garrett sang about, then they'd probably do exactly what he's doing.

However, voting out the minister who is publicly responsible for a particular policy is a great way of letting the government know how shit that policy is.

[Seamus]

I'm really going to feel sorry for my local ALP candidate, when I'm asked to place his election signs on my front fence.

For the first time in many years, it will be displaying Green signs (or maybe none at all.)

I may like the guy, but he's hitched to a party that's wandered away.

Indeed.I was a member of the ALp for over 25 years. I left the party when they elected that thug Latham as leader. It's been all downhill since then.

MY Labor party was the party of Whitlam, Cairns and Dunstan.

In comparison, Labor's current refugee policy makes Malcom Fraser look like a socialist. I find Gillard's hypocrisy disgusting but not unexpected. I will be voting against her shower.


TANGENT: I worked for Social Securuty. During the 19680's one of my jobs was dealing with refugees,mainly from SE Asia,but also from South and Central America and Eastern Europe.We admitted tens of thousands from SE Asia. I was and remain appalled at our treatment of Middle Eastern refugees. I can see no rational justification,only an hysterical anti muslim prejudice.

[Quintin]

It is not about protecting children it is about censorship.
You will have to have a rating on your web site or it will be 'Refused Classification' (blocked).
I suppose we will have to get our sites classified by the OFLC to be... "G" or "PG" or it will be blocked.

I don't think Conroy has any idea what he is doing.

[owheelj]

So the latest news is that the filter has been "put on the backburner" while a review can be done as to what classifies "refused classification." This conveniently means that the legislation will come up after this election, but well before the one after. The media and some people have been spinning this against the filter, but it actually means it is now positioned so that people are least likely to vote at an election based on this issue. In my opinion this is very cynical manoeuvring by the government in order to pass the filter and is no kind of backflip or backdown. This indicates that they recognise how unpopular it is, but are committed to passing it anyway.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

There's a reason for that. And it got nothing to do with protecting children.

[RealityRules]

The legislation was due to be in Parliament by the end of the year but Conroy said today it was on hold, pending a review of the types of websites the filter will block and a number of other measures which address the long-standing concerns of opponents, including appeals for classifications and an independent review of censored content.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/has-conroy-just-rolled-on-the-net-filter/

Hopefully that will result in an independent Review Board.


At last some decent specific anti-child porn action by the ISPs on behalf of the govt -

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy today admitted Australians were concerned about what kind of material could fall into that category, and said he would push for a review of the classification guidelines.

"Some sections of the community have expressed concern about whether the range of material included in the RC category, under the National Classification Scheme, correctly reflects current community standards," Senator Conroy said. "In order to address these concerns, the Government will recommend a review of the RC classification to state and territory ministers, be conducted at the earliest opportunity."

Today's announcement also included news that three of the country's largest ISPs had agreed to voluntarily block access to child abuse material. Telstra, Optus and Primus would censor a list of child abuse URLs compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, Senator Conroy said.

"I welcome the socially responsible approach taken by some of Australia’s largest ISPs," he said. "Between them they account for around 70 per cent of internet users in Australia."

Telstra public policy and communications executive David Quilty said the company had been approached by Senator Conroy to put the voluntary measures in place until a review of the RC classification was complete.

"Telstra is happy to do this and continue our strong industry leadership in cyber-safety," Mr Quilty said. "However, it is important for people to understand that there is no magic solution which will make the internet 100 per cent safe. As a result, we will continue to work closely with the Australian Federal Police, ACMA and other authorities to combat the abuse and exploitation of children."

Optus director of government and corporate affairs Maha Krishnapillai said the company was happy to work with other ISPs to combat child abuse material and it also welcomed a review of the RC classification.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/communications-minister-stephen-conroy-shelves-controversial-plan-to-censor-the-internet/story-e6frfro0-1225889790995

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Wanna protect children from pedos? Get rid of the fucking churches! It is highly likely that there are shitloads more pedos and sex offenders there than you'll ever find on the internet!

[owheelj]

Actually all the evidence suggests that priests are slightly less likely than the general population to commit sexual acts against children. The problem is that they have a support network that covers up their abuse when they do commit, while the general population gets no such protection. In terms of actual numbers, there are obviously far more people on the internet than working in churches, so obviously far more sexual predators targeting children on the internet.

[Xeno]

Actually all the evidence suggests that priests are slightly less likely than the general population to commit sexual acts against children.A sufficiently significant claim that I request a citation please.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Indeed, given the number of cases of sexual shit the priests/pastors/clergymen/archbishops/bishops etc. have committed.

[Senexis]

There's a reason for that. And it got nothing to do with protecting children.

What do you think the reason is? I know what I think it is, but I'm curious about your conclusions.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I don't know for sure what the reason is, but I suspect it is because of a nosey controlling religious government.

Putting a filter will never protect children: just slow the internet by a lot.

[mmurray]

Putting a filter will never protect children: just slow the internet by a lot.


This one might protect children

http://www.godblock.com/

Michael

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I guess we can make an exception for that filter then. :)

[Praxis]

Would you vote for a party that supports the internet filter?

Read the article and vote here http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/07/would-you-vote-for-a-political-party-that-supports-the-internet-filter/

(I'll cross-post this in the Election 2010 thread as well)

[Praxis]

Good for a giggle - funny because it's true!
http://www.movingaustraliaforward.com/index.php/our-advisors

[atuanui]

This is what Conroy, Abbot, Rudd, Family first would have us do:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican46.htm

[rosiemacduck]

Just found this news piece ...
Government plans for expert to check each banned web page

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/government-plans-for-expert-to-check-each-banned-web-page/story-e6frgakx-1225894267976

What's the betting the "expert" will be from the Australian Christian Lobby or other such erudite body!:eek:

[rosiemacduck]

This should be interesting ...
Conroy, Smith and Ludlam to debate on ICT in August

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/353606/conroy_smith_ludlam_debate_ict_august/

[Xeno]

Rosiemac, when you give a link, would you mind telling us a bit more of what it is about, please? I have no idea from the text you wrote and frankly could not be bothered following unreferenced links just to find out whether they were worth following.

thanks

[senectus]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/concern-at-lobby-groups-influence-as-christians-get-filter-plan-tip-off/story-e6frgakx-1225894280482?referrer=email&source=AIT_email_nl&emcmp=Ping&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

THE Australian Christian Lobby was briefed one day before Labor's major announcement on delaying its controversial internet filter plan.

On July 9, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced the government would ask state and territory ministers to review the refused-classification processes.

Senator Conroy's filter plan will force all internet service providers to block web pages on a government blacklist of RC content.

Lobby chief of staff Lyle Shelton confirmed that on July 8, the government told it there would be an announcement on ISP filtering within 24 hours.

"We received a briefing the night before July 9," Mr Shelton said.

"They said there would be an announcement the next day but didn't go into details."

He refused to say who tipped off the ACL.

A spokeswoman for Senator Conroy did not deny the minister, his staffers or department officials held talks with the lobby group on July 8.

So this shows where the drive is coming from, and what power lobbyist have.

With any luck, and Julia's "Open Gov" pledge we should have less of this going on.

[Phroso]

Would you vote for a party that supports the internet filter?
Read the article and vote here http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/07/would-you-vote-for-a-political-party-that-supports-the-internet-filter/

I find it hard to understand why the Internet Censorship issue has taken a back seat among election issues. Personally, I was quite pleased to see Julia take over from Kevin but my goodwill was massively tempered when I found out that she supported Internet Censorship.

Consequently, my vote may well go to an alternative party.

If sufficient outrage was publicly expressed at this time, it might force the major parties to see an opportunity to gain support and votes.

Where are the various campaigns and pressure groups?

[Praxis]

I find it hard to understand why the Internet Censorship issue has taken a back seat among election issues.
+1

Personally, I was quite pleased to see Julia take over from Kevin but my goodwill was massively tempered when I found out that she supported Internet Censorship.
+1 (and the no gay marriage thing too, while we're at it)

Where are the various campaigns and pressure groups?
It's discussed quite a lot in the Twitterverse, the Sex Party are certainly bringing it up a lot.

I think more people are across it than might seem at first glance, Phroso, and there will be a backlash.

I swear though, if Conroy survives and/or Abbott wins, the Praxis household will seriously consider moving across the ditch to NZ.

[Seamus]

Would you vote for a party that supports the internet filter?

Read the article and vote here http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/07/would-you-vote-for-a-political-party-that-supports-the-internet-filter/

(I'll cross-post this in the Election 2010 thread as well)


I don't vote FOR any party.I vote against the bigger shower(s) on offer.

Would I vote against a party on the basis of one issue? I haven't so far. Policy is not made on moral principle,but on expediency.

The internet filter system is a joke,thought up by some political hack who has no idea of the logistics and costs involved in maintaining such a system and of how ineffective it will be.

Liberals? I only hope there are not enough swinging voter stupid enough to vote for Abbott as PM. Ironically, I like him a lot more than that treacherous bitch currently in charge of Labor.

This year,for the first time, I'm voting against both major parties.I expect Labor to get back in with a reduced majority. However, I also expect The Greens to get a LOT more votes,and pick up a few seats.Enough to scare the crap out of Labor.

[Xeno]

Describing JG (Julia Gillard, not Jaar-Gilon :)) as a treacherous bitch seems to me not to have any sense of history, either of how she got there over a long time (and has been acknowledged as a probable future leader well before she was deputy) or about Abbott and his enthusiasm for his religious-right agenda.

Personally, I am very, very happy that Rudd is gone.

[Seamus]

Describing JG (Julia Gillard, not Jaar-Gilon :)) as a treacherous bitch seems to me not to have any sense of history, either of how she got there over a long time (and has been acknowledged as a probable future leader well before she was deputy) or about Abbott and his enthusiasm for his religious-right agenda.

Personally, I am very, very happy that Rudd is gone.


Gillard is a politician. I have no expectations of her and have been neither surprised nor disappointed by her behaviour.

Referring to her as a treacherous bitch was an honest assessment of her character.

I'm yet to be convinced Gillard will be a better PM,although I guess it would be pretty hard not to be. The way she fucked up the refugee issue does not bode well. As usual,happy to agree to differ :p

[Xeno]

Gillard is a politician. I have no expectations of her and have been neither surprised nor disappointed by her behaviour.

Referring to her as a treacherous bitch was an honest assessment of her character.

I'm yet to be convinced Gillard will be a better PM,although I guess it would be pretty hard not to be. The way she fucked up the refugee issue does not bode well. As usual,happy to agree to differ :pOh, I agree about political behaviour and in fact (cynically) I admire her timing. However, one must always make a relative decision, and the history of Abbott, in terms of his private (which he would call "understanding feelings in the community") agenda, is a complete crock.

[RealityRules]

I don't vote FOR any party. I vote against the bigger shower(s) on offer.

You vote against Gawd? (or just the rain-gawd?)

[Praxis]

90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate'

WTF?!!

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html?rand=1279849637950

[RealityRules]

90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate'

WTF?!!

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html?rand=1279849637950

Exactly - WTF??!! How can this be done if "government is by the people for the people"

Un #@$%^ believable! I would be really concerned that things that counter the status-quo, like atheism, are on the list of censored, moderated, or monitored list(s).

[Praxis]

It remains an enduring mystery why this topic doesn't get decent commercial media airtime. I suspect if they could ignore it totally, they'd be happy.

Thanks Pikkiwoki for teh interwebz where at least it is discussed hugely and word gets around very quickly.

Joolya needs to know - loudly - how anything other than scrapping this insane thing will cost Labor votes in a pretty major way.

[Seamus]

However, one must always make a relative decision, and the history of Abbott, in terms of his private (which he would call "understanding feelings in the community") agenda, is a complete crock.

Agreed.

However,for the first time in my life I'm unable to decide which [in my opinion] of the two major parties is the bigger shower. For me it's a matter of 'a pox on both of your houses'

I distrust the greens marginally less than either of the two major parties.However I trust no politician who presents as a patriot or tries to take a nonexistent moral high ground. Abbot and Gillard are attempting both at present.Pork barreling moves me not at all.

[DanDare]

Greens Communications spokesman Scott Ludlam said the excuse not to release the proposal in full was "extraordinary". Since finding out about the scheme, he has launched a Senate inquiry (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/senate-inquiry-into-online-privacy-debacles-20100624-z08h.html) into it and other issues.
We Greens are onto it. Tell Julia you will give us the primary votes and watch the thinking change real quick. ;)

[robertkd]

Umm does the (borrowed) phrase ring any bells?

"Go back to bed Australia your government is in control" :eek:

[rosiemacduck]

Looks like people will be decamping en masse from the big telcos if the filter goes ahead ... unfortunately I've just signed up with bigpond for my mobile service too for 2 years .... I'll be opting out if they continue to support it ...

http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/40659-isps-take-note-if-you-filter-you-lose-customers?start=1

[Agama]

+1


+1 (and the no gay marriage thing too, while we're at it)


It's discussed quite a lot in the Twitterverse, the Sex Party are certainly bringing it up a lot.

I think more people are across it than might seem at first glance, Phroso, and there will be a backlash.

I swear though, if Conroy survives and/or Abbott wins, the Praxis household will seriously consider moving across the ditch to NZ.

I wish more noise was made about it around the place. My wife and I are looking at Canada at the moment if this crap makes it through (plus the plans to log all activity - way to treat all citizens like criminals).

You would have thought the Gestapo made a new start in Australia after all these years.

[Phroso]

I wish more noise was made about it around the place. My wife and I are looking at Canada at the moment if this crap makes it through (plus the plans to log all activity - way to treat all citizens like criminals).

You would have thought the Gestapo made a new start in Australia after all these years.

I was aghast when I first read of the Internet censorship policy proposed for Australia.

Australia? I thought this country would be the last to consider such an invasion of intellectual freedom.

China? Yes. Iran? Yes. But Australia? Frankly, I still find it hard to believe.

The latest news is that Indonesia has Internet Censorship in the pipeline. Of course, they assume justification by referring to sexual material on the Net. However, I note that they are also aiming to prohibit web sites that contain "blasphemous" material! See: http://tinyurl.com/2f7w94d

In other words, anything that offends the Muslim state and might be seen to encourage members of the population to contemplate the stupidity of religion!

[RealityRules]

Jim Wallace has an opinion piece today Friday 31 July. Have a go ... here

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/internet-filter-puts-the-common-good-first-20100729-10x38.html

[davo]

Tor bundle

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOA???!?!!

[Praxis]

*wanders in with broom*

I'm going to sweep this thread into the Filter sticky :)

[RealityRules]

*wanders in with broom*

did you ride in or carry it in? :)

[Praxis]

did you ride in or carry it in? :)
I never fly it indoors anymore. Too many near-misses on the chandeliers.

[Seamus]

Tor bundle




I've been having trouble with Tor and the latest Firefox. I'm using a different application,which switches proxies every 30 minutes.

Haven't used Bigpond for several years;not competitive and I found their corporate attitude lacking. I was also appalled to discover they seem to have moved their help desk off shore.

I use an Adelaide ISP; Adam. Good pricing,reliable, and if I want,I can go into their office and actually speak with a real person.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I wish more noise was made about it around the place. My wife and I are looking at Canada at the moment if this crap makes it through (plus the plans to log all activity - way to treat all citizens like criminals).

You would have thought the Gestapo made a new start in Australia after all these years.I am going to start looking at either somewhere in the US/Canada or India even.

[RealityRules]

.. I was quite pleased to see Julia take over from Kevin but my goodwill was massively tempered when I found out that she supported Internet Censorship.

Its the Labour Caucus/Cabinet/Party. Perhaps they think the ACL has more sway than it does?

[DanDare]

Just this moment had a thought about an open letter to the PM that should wake a few people up on this subject. Have to go out imminently so I have to jot this down here.

The filter allows governments to secretly block sites without any proper review. We have tried to point out that governments with a religious bent could block atheists and opposing religions.

It just occurred to me the PM is an atheist, so the open letter should say "this filter would allow you as an atheist to hamper and block Christian attempts to reach out via the web".

Once the ASL dudes read that there will be a shit storm. Gotta go, back later.

[rosiemacduck]

Just heard about this ... anyone interested/able to go?


INTERNET FILTER ACTION FORUM
FACEBOOK EVENT

Date: Saturday, 7 August 2010
Time: 3:15 for 3:30
...Venue: Paddington RSL Club, Oxford Street, Paddington

Panel: Justin Milne, former Group Managing Director, Telstra Bigpond
Simon Sheikh, National Director, GetUp!
Malcolm Turnbull, MP for Wentworth, Federal Parliament

This forum is an opportunity for internet users to contribute to an informed discussion about the Gillard Government’s controversial Internet Filter.

The proposed filter is a hot issue in Wentworth, with many voters expressing concern over the Government’s plans. Some argue mandatory filtering of internet content is a breach of their civil rights and borders on censorship, while others question the plan’s technical feasibility and effectiveness.

Despite opposition from internet users, Internet Service Providers, legal and technical experts, many businesses and even the NSW Government, Communications Minister Steve Conroy recently confirmed the filter would go ahead if the Gillard Government is re-elected on August 21.

Informed discussion among forum participants will ensure community views on the filter are heard. The forum will also consider adopting Community Resolutions that capture these views. If adopted these Resolutions will be presented to Minister Conroy and Prime Minister Gillard as a reminder of the community’s determination to fight the proposal.

Each panelist will speak for 7-10 minutes and then the forum will be opened up to the audience for 30 minutes of discussion and Q&A.

This event follows on from the successful ‘Budget Explained’ Facebook event Malcolm held last year. Invitations will go out via Facebook to Malcolm’s Facebook and Twitter friends. Malcolm will also publicize the event via his iPhone application.

Panelists:

Simon Sheikh: As a leading member of an advocacy group fighting the filter, Simon will share what GetUp! has learned about community views and effective action on this issue.

Justin Milne: Formerly chief of Australia’s top ISP, Justin is well qualified to discuss economic and technical questions about the filter and its potential impact on business.

Malcolm Turnbull: With a background in both politics and technology, Malcolm will analyze the Gillard Government’s policy and offer his own take on freedom and the internet.

Afternoon tea will be provided.

[Praxis]

I would be there with bells on if I were able to!

This sounds like a very good forum with some excellent speakers.

I hope someone from the forum is able to go and report on it. Rosiemacduck? Did I hear you volunteering to be our reporter-on-the-ground? :D

[rosiemacduck]

I would with all my heart, but alas I'm on the Gold Coast (aka Muslim mecca)!

[Phroso]

Wait... has this thing actually gone through parliament yet? Or is it just that the reports say it is OK to go ahead? Or both?

The filtering/censorship of the Internet is not a vote winner, so it's been pushed onto the back burner until after the election.

I'm sure both major parties realize that there are thousands of voters who disapprove of the policy, allowing as it does, the secretive denial of any information deemed undesirable or inconvenient by our political masters.

At the moment, with the Labor party sitting on a knife edge, Julia Gillard must realize that she needs all the votes she can muster if she and Labor Party is to be re-elected.

Another loud public outcry condemning Internet filtering might be all that is needed for her to renounce the hated policy.

I, for one, am sick of being given the mushroom treatment. i.e. "Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit!"

[Xeno]

Phroso, you have to be kidding.

I have separated these quotes from you so you can compare them as distinct statements.
At the moment, with the Labor party sitting on a knife edge, Julia Gillard must realize that she needs all the votes she can muster if she and Labor Party is to be re-elected.

Another loud public outcry condemning Internet filtering might be all that is needed for her to renounce the hated policy.

Julia will lose more votes by publicly ditching the policy than she will gain, because she will lose conservative fence-sitters vital to re-election while keeping it will make negligible difference to people who will vote Green or ALP anyway.

It strikes me at this point that a lot of people are working hard toward handing us an Abbott government, and I am not much enthused about that.

[Phroso]

Phroso, you have to be kidding.

<snip>

Julia will lose more votes by publicly ditching the policy than she will gain, because she will lose conservative fence-sitters vital to re-election while keeping it will make negligible difference to people who will vote Green or ALP anyway.

It strikes me at this point that a lot of people are working hard toward handing us an Abbott government, and I am not much enthused about that.

Okay, Xeno, I'll grant that your argument makes some sense.

So, if you are correct, Julia is in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.

Perhaps I was momentarily carried away by emotional outrage. For some reason, I thought that Internet censorship would be anathema to all freedom loving Australians.

We live and learn.

I, too, am shuddering at the prospect of an Abbott government which is beginning to seem more and more likely!

So, what in your considered opinion can be done to redress the situation? Where can pressure be applied most effectively?

Or should I just climb into bed and pull the blankets over my head?

[Xeno]

So, if you are correct, Julia is in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.In the Reps, that is about where I see it, yes. Whatever the party's failings, Gillard > Rudd > Abbott.

For some reason, I thought that Internet censorship would be anathema to all freedom loving Australians. Some of the non-freedom-loving vote toward the left as well.

So, what in your considered opinion can be done to redress the situation? Where can pressure be applied most effectively?Get personal. Tell your local ALP candidate exactly what you think and why. Make it clear you are voting Greens before them (assuming you have a candidate) and why. If your argument is clear and enough members in the party room are worried about their future election risk, then in government this has far more chance of changing things than does any direct address to Conroy or his Department. Attend or support public protests which are not anti-ALP. Mike Kelly in Eden-Monaro already has my written protest and will hear it again if he turns up hereabouts.

Whether it will work at that level I do not know, but if we get a Green balance of power in the Senate, the proposal should be dead in the water anyway unless the Libs choose to support it.

Or should I just climb into bed and pull the blankets over my head?Well, if Abbott is elected then I will probably spend three years comatose for psychological self-protection.

[DanDare]

Whether it will work at that level I do not know, but if we get a Green balance of power in the Senate, the proposal should be dead in the water anyway unless the Libs choose to support it.
And you think they wont?

[Xeno]

And you think they wont?Logically, if they will not oppose it then giving them government does not help. If they will oppose it then we do not need to give them government to stop it, just to make sure we vote for Secular Sex and Green. Therefore, there is no current circumstance on this particular policy where it makes sense to help the Libs into government.

I did not find any official LP policy on the subject. I found many statements ambivalent about it (reflecting parliamentary views in the party as I read it) or preferring free PC-based filters, the old policy. Further, if the industry is opposed to ISP-level filtering then the LP is more likely to go with the industry view.

[Praxis]

A sobering read from Fiona Patten of the Australian Sex Party about classification and internet censorship.

I really hope we see this woman in the Senate.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/classification-and-internet-censorship-as-an-election-issue/

[RealityRules]

This is great as it seems highly plausible

We can only speculate this is related to Senator Conroy's mission to filter the internet, which has little or nothing to do with child abuse and everything to do with political control.

All of Conroy's assertions about why he needs to filter the internet have been demolished by various critics. Yet he persists, and therefore it appears that Conroy is deaf to reason and wishes to blind the eye of the public, to fashion the internet according to his world view. Which is what?

Lacking all reason, a sensible explanation suggests he is continuing the Catholic tradition of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the Papal blacklist of banned works that sprang up in the 16th century.

Included in the Index were banned scientific publications that challenged the medieval view of the world such as the writings of Johannes Kepler, and the work of Giordano Bruno who was later burned at the stake, as well as the perceived heretical writings of Martin Luther and other Protestants.

In later centuries the Index grew in size and covered more areas including atheism and also publications that were sexually explicit, until it was abandoned, but only in 1966.

I'd like to make a connection here with the present. The Index arose only about 50 years after the Gutenberg press heralded the explosion of knowledge ... [snip] ... We are now in a similar position to that revolution started by Gutenberg where the free flow of information around the globe, enabled by the internet, is as liberating and exciting as it was the first time.

The knowledge revolution and Conroy's 'Index' @ onlineopinion.com.au (http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10760&page=0)

[OzAtheist]

@RealityRules, which is why most right thinking people do NOT want the Internet Filter. Once in place it will be impossible to get rid of and be open for abuse by the incumbent government and any powerful lobby group (including religious ones).

Sure an internet filter can stop some (though an extremely small amount) of child pornography (it's oft stated aim) but it can also be used to quell discussion on a wide range of topics including anything that reflects badly on the incumbent government.

What often makes me laugh, in an ironic sense, is that Conroy and the rest of his deluded followers, may one day find the Internet Filter backfire on them. Imagine the Liberals get into power then use the filter to ban any site that puts Labor in a good light. The Liberals could stay in power forever. Bwahaha
(A highly unlikely scenario I know, but one that I would love to personally put forward to Conroy to see the look on his face and hear his argument against it.)

I also acknowledge that following Labor's recent announcements regarding the filter (better review processes and site owner notification) the above scenario is even more unlikely.

Perhaps I just read too many books - 1984, Blind Faith (http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Faith-Ben-Elton/dp/0552773905) :D

[RealityRules]

@OzAtheist - I agree. It is the first decent article in the public domain I have seen that links the proposed filter to the Catholic tradition and limiting freedom of information.

[DanDare]

I also acknowledge that following Labor's recent announcements regarding the filter (better review processes and site owner notification) the above scenario is even more unlikely.
Once the actual mechanism is in place it will be possible for those with access to ignore any such regulation and prevent investigation or oversight. Only keeping the mechanism from existing offers real protection from this possibility.

[Dane]

Once the actual mechanism is in place it will be possible for those with access to ignore any such regulation and prevent investigation or oversight. Only keeping the mechanism from existing offers real protection from this possibility.
I'm waiting for 4channers to hack in and block everything. "i accidentally the whole internet"

[Seamus]

Perhaps I was momentarily carried away by emotional outrage. For some reason, I thought that Internet censorship would be anathema to all freedom loving Australians.


By all 'freedom loving Australians,you imply 'all real Australians', and that I'm not one if I disagree with you. How very patronising of you..

I do not support the filter system, but don't get my panties in a bunch if someone disagrees with me:they're allowed to,without me attacking them.

[Phroso]

By all 'freedom loving Australians,you imply 'all real Australians', and that I'm not one if I disagree with you. How very patronising of you..

I do not support the filter system, but don't get my panties in a bunch if someone disagrees with me:they're allowed to,without me attacking them.

Good grief, Seamus, you are easily offended.

Actually, I wasn't Implying anything!

I don't care whether you disagree with me or not.

That's the kind of "freedom" that I'd like to see preserved in Australia.

[RealityRules]

Coalition to dump flawed internet filter

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/coalition-to-dump-flawed-internet-filter-20100805-11kmv.html

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

They are just saying that to get votes. Remember Tony Abbot, KEVIN07™ and the other Christian fundies in the coalition? Bloody liars.

[RealityRules]

Sure, they are saying it to get votes, and I don't trust the Catholic influence in and on the coalition.

But if they get in they will know the electorate wants a fair deal; is savvy enough to only give then 3 years, and they will know the electorates feeling about the Filter.

[Xeno]

If they oppose the filter, then don't vote for them because voting Green in the Senate will suffice to kill the filter (with Libs opposing also) without suffering tergiversatory Tony and his socially and economically deficient policies.

[robertkd]

Agreed, you know I actually prefer Hockey to Conroy even if he is off with the fairy' s

[Xeno]

Yes. Perhaps we could make up a cabinet of say a dozen, choosing freely among all existing parliamentarians. There is no law against it now but people are slavish to their party agenda. In fact the Constitution seems to require only that a person appointed as Minister become a member of one of the two houses within three months of a general election.

In principle you could make anyone a minister by the following mechanism: After an election, the PM selects someone from outside parliament. They would then make themselves a member of the governing party and a declared candidate in future and the party would formally endorse them as a candidate. One party hack would then resign from the Senate (probably given a sinecure) and the intended minister would be appointed by their State under s !5, Casual Vacancy. They would hold office only until the next election, under existing rules.

Idle thoughts on a Friday morning. It won't happen of course, but it could.

[OzAtheist]

HackWould you vote for the Internet Filter
Joe HockeyNo
Joe Hockey on hack (http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/stories/s2974813.htm)(starting at 14:40)The ISP based Internet Filter just does not work

At last a politician talking sense

[Seamus]

Good grief, Seamus, you are easily offended.


True enough,but wasn't offended by your post,mildly miffed at the most. I was commenting on what I saw as a no true Scotsman fallacy.('all thinking Australians' is another)

I'm implacably opposed to censorship and any law(s) resulting in social control.

[RealityRules]

ACL is upset at the Coalition's No filter announcement
“This announcement is incomprehensible on a number of levels”, said Mr Wallace. “Firstly to say it doesn’t work is to deny the trials that show it does. Secondly to have a system that orders takedown notices for Australian sites carrying Refused Classification (RC) material, but allow it to come in unhindered from overseas sites is simply illogical. And finally to imply that parents rather than the ISPs are best equipped to manage the technology by presumably introducing the discredited Net Nanny system, again simply defies technological reality.”

ACL says coalition-isp-filter-announcement-incomprehensible/ (http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2010/08/coalition-isp-filter-announcement-incomprehensible/)

How does he know about the trial results ????

Then this bit more "logic" from Jimbo Wallace

“On every level arguments against ISP level blocking of RC material have been disproved or shown to be illogical,” said Mr Wallace. “Even the much publicised statement by the US Ambassador that he was against it because he wanted to see the internet free “as the oceans have to be free”, conveniently overlooked the fact that the US blocks drugs been brought by boat from Central America to the US because of their harm to US society. ISP level filtering does the same with harmful internet product, and offends the freedom of the internet no more than the US does that of the sea in drug control,” he said.

Poor Jim - can't vote for atheist Joolya, can't vote for porn-allowing Coalition ...

[Phroso]

They are just saying that to get votes. Remember Tony Abbot, KEVIN07™ and the other Christian fundies in the coalition? Bloody liars.


Just saying it to get votes?

Well, of course, that's politics. If you don't get elected to government then what is the point of standing for election.

The Coalition have clearly realised that there were many votes that could be garnered from the many disgruntled and disillusioned former Labor voters who were seething over the planned Internet censorship. They will have now gained many votes by disavowing the policy.

The Labor Party seems to be in disarray at the moment. And even I, a rusted on Labor voter for the last 55 years, will not vote for them this time.

If Julia Gillard possessed real political astuteness, she would not have endorsed Senator (Nanny) Conroy and his plans for Internet censorship. By doing so, she immediately went down in my estimation and many others who previously considered her a less prudish alternative to Kevin Rudd.

A politically astute politician would have just said that the policy would be reviewed after her re-election. I might then have taken her to mean that it didn't have her approval but she didn't want to say so in order not to lose those voters who supported the policy.

When asked about her religious affiliation, she would have been better served electorally to have simply stated that her religious philosophy was a personal matter and as Prime Minister she did not want to appear aligned with any particular religious group. Her admission of godlessness now has the ACL marshalling its forces against her and it can only mean that she will lose the religious vote.

[riddlemethis]

[QUOTE="RealityRules"]ACL is upset at the Coalition's No filter announcement


How does he know about the trial results ????

Then this bit more "logic" from Jimbo Wallace

[QUOTE]

[RealityRules]

ACL is upset at the Coalition's No filter announcement

ACL coalition-isp-filter-announcement-incomprehensible/ (http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2010/08/coalition-isp-filter-announcement-incomprehensible/)



Hehehe; the commenters on Jim's site aren't upset, and saying the filter was a bad idea. Poor Jim, unloved by all except his .. special friend.

1. Finally some sense from the Coalition!! You are free to monitor and filter the internet of your followers but leave the rest of us alone thanks.

2. A good decision by the Coalition. Even if you support filtering “in principle” you need to understand that it doesn’t work at blocking access to “nasty stuff” – but will block stuff it shouldn’t. Putting faith in a “secret blacklist” controlled by government is madness.

The blacklist used during the trial even included a link to an anti-abortion site… freedom of religious expression, anyone?

3. Common sense prevails!

[Xeno]

Just saying it to get votes?

Well, of course, that's politics. If you don't get elected to government then what is the point of standing for election.So far, true.

The Labor Party seems to be in disarray at the moment. And even I, a rusted on Labor voter for the last 55 years, will not vote for them this time.If by this you mean you will give your effective vote in the Reps to the Liberals rather than to the ALP then IMHO you are fucking nuts to support Tony Abbott, his ludicrous beliefs and anti-social, cataholic right wing agenda.

A politically astute politician would have just said that the policy would be reviewed after her re-election. I might then have taken her to mean that it didn't have her approval but she didn't want to say so in order not to lose those voters who supported the policy.I am inclined to agree with this, doubting there would be much damage from reporters or the opposition.

When asked about her religious affiliation, she would have been better served electorally to have simply stated that her religious philosophy was a personal matter and as Prime Minister she did not want to appear aligned with any particular religious group. Her admission of godlessness now has the ACL marshalling its forces against her and it can only mean that she will lose the religious vote.I disagree with this. It was already well enough known that she was non-religious, and she is living with a bloke unmarried. Had she tried to hedge her bets she would have been pursued from pillar to post by reporters hammering the issue, distracting from any other part of her campaign. Further, most of the ardently religious would never vote for her anyway. Better to be seen to be straightforward, a virtue, and hope to minimise distraction and damage.

[Phroso]

So far, true.
If by this you mean you will give your effective vote in the Reps to the Liberals rather than to the ALP then IMHO you are fucking nuts to support Tony Abbott, his ludicrous beliefs and anti-social, cataholic right wing agenda.



Never fear! The only way Tony Abbott would get my vote is if he put a million dollars in my bank account and even then I'd have to wrestle with my conscience.

[Xeno]

I could start a thread on "For how much would you roll over for tony" but I expect the AEC would have me up for soliciting electoral bribes. :)

[RealityRules]

Never fear! The only way Tony Abbott would get my vote is if he put a million dollars in my bank account and even then I'd have to wrestle with my conscience.

wrestle professionally? - how much would you pay your conscience?

IMHO you are fucking nuts to support Tony Abbott, his ludicrous beliefs and anti-social, cataholic right wing agenda.

I have been a critic of The Abbott, yet think he has toned down ('scuse the pun) and become more statesman like; as well as possibly just being a leader, so deferring to his team more. Turnbull has more chance of a reasonable climate action than anyone else on either side ??

[Xeno]

I have been a critic of The Abbott, yet think he has toned down ('scuse the pun) and become more statesman likeNuh.

Another one fooled by politics :(

What you saw before is what you will get now, just as you did with J Howard who never surrendered his agenda of working for the "white picket fence" family of his childhood, in favour of corporations over people and White Australia racism over humanity or diplomacy.

[RealityRules]

Another one fooled by politics :(

What you saw before is what you will get now, just as you did with J Howard who never surrendered his agenda of working for the "white picket fence" family of his childhood, in favour of corporations over people and White Australia racism over humanity or diplomacy.

Not entirely fooled :p, just an observation.

As far as Howard goes, I live in Bennelong next to his most ardent supporter - a Howard-Battler no less.
Mind you he picked the 1993 loss, and caught up with Howard two nights before-hand and told him they were going to lose that 1993 election. Howard choked on his beer)

[DanDare]

Jim has definitely shown how hot to trot he is about the filter. He seems to assume that the filter will work in his favour to stop all the nasty things on the net he doesn't like. I also assume that he expects privileged access to the blacklist with special abilities for deciding what goes on it.

I wouldn't trust the libs to do what they say on this one. I can see the old "not a core promise" thing being trotted out again. Give your primary vote to the Greens, the Sex Party or the Secular Party, especially in the senate. I think that's the best way to block this piece of crap.

[AWarGuy]

Now if Liberal say "R18+" rating for video games, they would get more votes despite the fact Tony is a nutter.

When I found out about the internet filter becoming almost impossible to introduce I called my friends and told them the news!
Woot!

[Praxis]

"the internet filter is Labor's WorkChoices"

Seen today around teh interwebz. True dat.

Please don't anybody be fooled by Abbott. Just hearing Howard on radio yesterday was enough of a reminder of what the Libs are capable of and you can bet he'd be closely advising the Mad Monk should he get in.

New Zealand is looking really good...

[Seamus]

Never fear! The only way Tony Abbott would get my vote is if he put a million dollars in my bank account and even then I'd have to wrestle with my conscience.


For a million I'd vote for anyone,twice.:p

[DanDare]

For a million I'd vote for anyone,twice.:p
My price would be minimum 10 mil for Libs, and then I would throw in the agonising for free. No way ever will I vote for christian dems or family farce.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

There is a poeselytizer (http://twitter.com/FundiesFirst) on twitter...

[riddlemethis]

There is a poeselytizer (http://twitter.com/FundiesFirst) on twitter...
That's hilarious!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

It gets better. (http://twitter.com/FakeFielding)

[Praxis]

Croc, are you on Twitter? I've been following both these accounts for a while, as well as @GodwinGrech, who is quite amusing.

What's your Twitter name? You can add me if you like @MsPraxis.

[riddlemethis]

Croc, are you on Twitter? I've been following both these accounts for a while, as well as @GodwinGrech, who is quite amusing.

What's your Twitter name? You can add me if you like @MsPraxis.
Godwin Gretch is my new hero! Fucking genius.

[riddlemethis]

Croc, are you on Twitter? I've been following both these accounts for a while, as well as @GodwinGrech, who is quite amusing.

What's your Twitter name? You can add me if you like @MsPraxis.
Oh add me too crocy, if you like - @tradrmum

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Ladies, please... I used to be on twitter. I found it so stupid and pointless and exhausting to post updates after updates and didn't see much point.

I was introduced to it by a client of mine, and now even she doesn't use it much anymore. Before she used to use it quite a lot.

I also got random "executives" and "celebrities" following me, and they were often the dodgy types who got suspended by twitter after a while.

I saw it as just another account security and privacy disaster waiting to happen for me. :(

Now a days I tend to just follow as a guest.

[DavidB]

At the moment I am wishing that there was some kind of filter on all media outlets so that we could all be protected from the bulls**t that is spewing out of the politicians' mouths during this election campaign.:mad:

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

At the moment I am wishing that there was some kind of filter on all media outlets so that we could all be protected from the bulls**t that is spewing out of the politicians' mouths during this election campaign.:mad:What we need is not a filter - as Black said above - don't wish for that, otherwise we'd never know what rubbish they plan to implement. What we really need is a Gobbledygeiger counter. Now a good engineering challenge would be to make one that does not explode whenever Stephen Conroy is within a 95 kilometer radius of it.

[Praxis]

There was an anti-filter forum held in Sydney on Saturday.

Here's an article about it and video footage of Malcolm Turnbull slamming the policy: http://delimiter.com.au/2010/08/09/filter-will-be-exorcised-if-it-returns-says-turnbull/

[Seamus]

Interesting.

I've always had my doubts about the levels and origins of concern. I agree the idea has not come from anyone who understands and uses the internet. Unless of course that person happens to be a cynical politician.:p.

[RealityRules]

Conroy to debate Opposition communicaitons spokesperson Tony Smith and Greens senator Scott Ludlam TODAY @ 12.45pm on Sky News and YouTube

http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/conroy-v-smith-in-communication-policy-debate/story-fn5tar6a-1225903268098

http://www.youtube.com/australiavotes

[RealityRules]

In a SMH article titled "Greens side with Coalition on internet filtering policy" the prospect of the the Greens and the coalition blocking labours proposed internet filter is put, yet the following comment is a little disturbing

The NBN already has the technology to filter at Level 2 of the OSI network model.
Basically this means that your ISP is not required to filter, as the NBN can do this itself.

Since the government owns & controls the NBN, there is no need for any filter legislation.

Unfortunately, the NBN will come with filtering & the Greens will be powerless to stop it.

Comrade | Melbourne - August 16, 2010, 4:21PM

www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/greens-side-with-coalition-on-internet-filtering-policy (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/greens-side-with-coalition-on-internet-filtering-policy-20100816-1267o.html?comments=50#comments)

Any tech-heads with views?

[Seamus]

I'd be interested too.

My understanding is that any filter can be circumvented,that it's a matter of how simply.

I'm still not sure exactly how a filter works. It bans websites? How does it identify them? IE keywords?

How does a filter control P2P?

Does the NBN having its own filter mean proxy servers won't work?


This isn't China.My own view is that an internet filter will piss off a LOT of voters.In a country where marginal seats effect election outcomes,relatively few pissed off voters are needed to change government. I for one will vote against any government who introduces censorship.

[Xeno]

Any [antique former-]tech-heads with views?Layer 2? My recollection is that is the frame level. Information is not neatly broken into frames so it takes some sleuthing to know what is happening at that level; that is, a discovery process rather than active real time filtering. Web sites would be identified and blocked at higher levels than the NBN operates, assuming we are talking about the OSI stack.

Edit: It is feasible they could add intermediary servers to do the filtering, slowing everything down.

I wait to be shot down by tech-heads who have kept up with the last twenty years. :p

[DanDare]

That comment in the SMH is senseless.

The NBN is the wire/fibre and routers connecting things. Routers do not filter, because they have no knowledge of the content of the packages that they are handling. The NBN does not involve any hosting services, just transport AFAIK.

They could mean that they are going to block domains at the domain name server but the NBN has nothing to do with those things either.

The way I believe the proposed internet filter works is that there is a list of domains (for example atheistfoundation.org.au) and the service providers have a piece of code on their servers that matches web page calls to the domain list. If it finds a match the server prevents the call, usually replacing it with a "this page is blocked" type thing. With google cooperation they can also remove the list of names from google search when it is responding to a known Australian user and so on.

[ABridgeTooFar]

Filtering is a dumb idea. In America they control the internet effectively by taking down illegal websites with force (or nerds), which is the only way to stop people visiting them.

The only reason for the filter policy, is to force ISPs to record all of your internet activity and control what you see. They may as well get a police officer to stand behind every single person using the internet, so they can watch and record what they are up to.

Also, all those christian parties who say anyone against the filtering policy just wants to watch child porn should have their heads cut off for spreading rubbish propaganda and missinformation.

[Senexis]

They may as well get a police officer to stand behind every single person using the internet, so they can watch and record what they are up to.
Yep, even when the person is completely obeying the law. Is that the country you want to live in? Don't forget, they're not paying these police either, they're just making rules that say they have to.

[Seamus]

With Google cooperation?


I'd pay to see that exercise. Google just told China to go fuck itself.Be interesting to see what it might say to an Australian government with an attitude.:p


PS My vote for the best dissection of the election campaign goes to Gruen

[Senexis]

Yes, that's what I said!

;)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

"Child pr0n filter" comming mid 2011 (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/357580/child_porn_filter_coming_mid-2011/)

[Senexis]

Yeah, this article was a couple of days before the country fucked the Labor party up the arse for not listening to us.

There is no fucking way this filter will even make it to a bill now. IF Labor gets the opportunity to form a minority government they'll be too busy wiping their arses from shitting themselves every day to put this in.

I wonder if Conroy's booked his ticket on the Fielding bus.

Clock's ticking, children. The people have spoken. It's time you started hearing us.

[Goldenmane]

So... did Conroy get booted?

I'm losing track.

[Senexis]

Don't know if the seat's decided yet, but I was talking about this being the thing he's hanging his career on (is he known for anything else other than being a complete knobtard?) and as of about 9pm yesterday Eastern Standard it's dead as the dodo.

[A Monkey Shaved]

IMO I think it stinks and it would be akin to installing 100KPH speed limiters on every car to stop people from speeding. Going through such extreme measures could not prevent hooning and drunken driving. As far as law enforcement to combat paedophilia and sex crimes, internet filtering would be totally counterproductive because it would only force them underground where we cannot catch them and bring them to justice like we currently successfully do with the current laws.

[Senexis]

It's worse than that Monkey, Internet filtering won't do a damned thing because it's already not the way they do what they do. It won't force anyone any further underground because they're already there.
AFP are among the people telling govt that the filter won't do what they say is their reason for putting it in.
So, as I've been asking ever since it was announced, why are they really planning it?

[davo]

So, as I've been asking ever since it was announced, why are they really planning it?

I think it is simply just an appeal to those that don't understand the internet enough to make it seem as though the government is doing something about 'bad things', coupled with getting a foot in the door for blocking the average person from sites the christian right do not like.

It's the religious groups that are behind the push on gov to do something. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work to them, so long as they are trying their best to limit it, they get more jebus points than doing nothing.

[A Monkey Shaved]

It's worse than that Monkey, Internet filtering won't do a damned thing because it's already not the way they do what they do. It won't force anyone any further underground because they're already there.
AFP are among the people telling govt that the filter won't do what they say is their reason for putting it in.
So, as I've been asking ever since it was announced, why are they really planning it?

I just doubt that internet filtering could ever be possible because where could it stop. Could it filter terrorists from buying illegal weapons and bomb components online? I doubt it. Or perfectly legitimate information for gynaecology could be deemed as porn with such a filter, where does it stop. I just think it will be so clumsy and unwieldy it would be like using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut.

[Senexis]

Absolutely. Does anyone really think a list maintained by hand by the Aussie govt could make a dent on the trillion websites that exist? It's obviously a smokescreen for something else, but exactly what?

Andthe willingness to pander to the likes of Xenophon to block legal sites speaks volumes. It's not about right or wrong, it's not about maintaining law, it's about geting this thing in, whatever deals have to be made. There's a desperation there that I haven't seen since the GST.
Now, dealing with the devil for more tax is something I can understand. This thing has less-tangible benefits.

Davo may be right, but it's a lot of money and effort to win over the wooists, who they're gonna lose anyway with an unmarried atheist leader. Sure, this thing came in under Church of Adulterian Rudd, but still.

[RealityRules]

It's obviously a smokescreen for something else, but exactly what?

... it's about geting this thing in, whatever deals have to be made. There's a desperation there that I haven't seen since the GST.

this thing came in under Church of Adulterian Rudd, but still.

I agree with davo -

getting a foot in the door for blocking the average person from sites the christian right do not like.

Rudd is a fundamental wooist, make no doubt about it. Also, the Catholic influence in politics, and in the leadership of both Parties, is at is strongest ever.

Abbott, Turnbull, Hockey, Pyne, Joyce, Bernardi, etc, etc
I'm pretty sure Julia bishop is a serious woo-ist, too, but probably not Cathlic.

Rudd (Anglo-Cath), Smith, Conroy, Burke, Albanese, McKew (now gone), to name a few
Peter Garrett is a serious Xtian, preaching regularlyfrom the pulpit.

[Senexis]

Well, it does make sense that the wooists would want the Internet censored, an open exchange of ideas is the greatest threat to their position, after all.

Guess I just hadn't realised the woo sickness was so entrenched in Labor. I always knew it was so among the fundies.

[DanDare]

Stephen Conroy on the ACL web site:
I guarantee filtering will survive

I would like to thank the ACL for allowing me here today to post on their blog. To all of you followers of the ACL that are reading this, I offer my personal guarantee that ISP filtering will survive under a Labor Government. No-one knows better than myself and the good people at the ACL how important this legislation is.
In co-operation with the ACL, I developed a fantastic filtering plan that has been personally guaranteed by myself and Jim Wallace not to slow the Internet down. People have constantly complained that it will be bypassable, and that it cannot possibly block all illegal material on the web. If a speed camera that had a 1% success rate of catching offenders cost $40million to build, you would still build it wouldn’t you?
This filter will also help prevent scams and spams (such as those perpetrated by anti-filter groups) from coming through the portal to innocent Australian web users.
Full Post.... (http://the-acl.info/post/i-guarantee-filtering-will-survive/)

"In co-operation with the ACL, I developed a fantastic filtering plan"
How does the ACL get to drive this? They are not an elected body!

"that has been personally guaranteed by myself and Jim Wallace not to slow the Internet down."
What makes JW a tech expert? How involved is he that he can guarantee this?

OK, I worked out, its a parody, oops. Close enough to be a poe.

[Dane]

Jesus Christ, that scared the hell out of me.

[ABridgeTooFar]

Stephen Conroy on the ACL web site:
Full Post.... (http://the-acl.info/post/i-guarantee-filtering-will-survive/)

"In co-operation with the ACL, I developed a fantastic filtering plan"
How does the ACL get to drive this? They are not an elected body!

"that has been personally guaranteed by myself and Jim Wallace not to slow the Internet down."
What makes JW a tech expert? How involved is he that he can guarantee this?

OK, I worked out, its a parody, oops. Close enough to be a poe.

I was reading that and getting annoyed, then i clicked on the link and noticed the slogan "Voice for fundies" :D

Good find though, i've added this site to my favorites.

[atuanui]

This is what Richard Stallman said about it:
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/361173/online_only_richard_stallman_-_no_censorship_good_censorship/


MOD NOTE: And because Stallman dealt with both filtering AND freeware in his article, we had to fork the freeware stuff off to this new thread (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=7347).

[Pastafarian]

Internet filter = waste of time and just made to slow down everyone's internet.
When I was 12 my family blocked one site (a game I was a little bit addicted to) and I could still very easily get on to it. This filter is of exactly the same standard.

If they really want a filter that'd work, get some teenagers to help build it and test it out. Hey, that's an idea, let's get Wyatt Roy to help them out!

[Seamus]

If they really want a filter that'd work, get some teenagers to help build it and test it out. Hey, that's an idea, let's get Wyatt Roy to help them out!


I was going to suggest not saying that,but I won't. It's such a good,sensible idea,the government will naturally ignore it.:p

[KeithW]

Has anyone seen this.

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/

[Pastafarian]

Yeah, saw it when it came out around 3-ish months ago? I like how they've ignored over 4000 requests from the US :p

[rosiemacduck]

The filter that just won't go away !

http://apcmag.com/gillard-backs-the-filter-so-does-it-work-exactly.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+apc-all+%28APCmag.com+-+All+Articles%29

[rosiemacduck]

Not everything smells like a rose with the NBN - that bleeding Conroy is a stinky poo who's going to have his way no matter what!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/censorship-the-real-sleeper-in-the-governments-43bn-nbn-chaos/story-e6frg9bx-1225942946358

[Fromm_Nicht]

Not everything smells like a rose with the NBN - that bleeding Conroy is a stinky poo who's going to have his way no matter what!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/censorship-the-real-sleeper-in-the-governments-43bn-nbn-chaos/story-e6frg9bx-1225942946358

How cute, an article in the Australian is giving a lecture on the importance of the freeflow of information through society...

[Dan]

I really do hope someone puts a bullet in Coroys head. This scumbag is worse than the pope.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Dan: I actually consider them equal. Conroy wants to censor the internets to "protect children" and Pope runs the one of the most unethical multi-billion dollar corporations dedicated to protecting pedophiles.

[Dan]

Can we find a hitman with a "Two for the price of one deal"?

[DanDare]

Dan: I actually consider them equal. Conroy wants to censor the internets to "protect children" and Pope runs the one of the most unethical multi-billion dollar corporations dedicated to protecting pedophiles.
I can see it now. The pope tells his fiddly brethren they are safe in Oz, Conroy has seen to it that no stories about them will get past the filter.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Like Windows "Longhorn" and Duke Nukem Forever the fitler has yet another delay (http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/43244-filter-gets-a-new-date-mid-2013) now.

[c2009]

Like Windows "Longhorn" and Duke Nukem Forever the fitler has yet another delay (http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/43244-filter-gets-a-new-date-mid-2013) now.

Hopefully this one is indefinite. :p

[Sieveboy]

Hopefully this one is indefinite. :p

I wish you were right c2009, I suspect this is a delaying tactic to try and persuade the opposition or greens to get onboard with the legislation. I reckon they are waiting for the "I oppose everything the government does mad monk Abbott" to be booted from Liberal leadership and another right wing hard liner to come in who will support it.

On the other hand, if this delay pisses of the ACL, I am happy with it. Still want to see the filter politically dead and buried, along with its main promoter (politically dead and buried BTW).

So far the ACL has not seemed to pick up on the delay in the intertubes filter.

[c2009]

I wish you were right c2009, I suspect this is a delaying tactic to try and persuade the opposition or greens to get onboard with the legislation. I reckon they are waiting for the "I oppose everything the government does mad monk Abbott" to be booted from Liberal leadership and another right wing hard liner to come in who will support it.

On the other hand, if this delay pisses of the ACL, I am happy with it. Still want to see the filter politically dead and buried, along with its main promoter (politically dead and buried BTW).

So far the ACL has not seemed to pick up on the delay in the intertubes filter.

The Greens won't, so their only hope is the opposition.

Most of the likely candidates for Leader of the Opposition seem to have at some point stated their opposition to the filter.

Agreed that I'd like to see this thing's carcass paraded around the streets and buried so it'll not return.

[Firzen]

Senator Conroy is a bigger nutter than Tony Abbott...he has had many opportunities to run away from this.

The thing that gets me *SO ANNOYED* about this STUPID plan is that there is LITERALLY *NOTHING* good about it...nothing. Most other policies of any party have a tiny bit of good in them, this has zero.

[AFA Admin]

Hi, Firzen.

This is a message sent to all who find their way to these forums.

We like people, and we like facts too!

We're friendly but we're skeptical, and if somebody calls for proof, it's not an accusation. Only the strong ideas thrive here: we try to respect people. (We do not tolerate personal abuse.)

If you're an AFA member and need your membership status recognised in forum access, please send a Private Message to Admin (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=13), including the name on your AFA membership.

You may already have visited these other handy places:
* New Member Information (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=12)
* Welcome from AFA president (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=18)
* For those interested in learning, I recommend the Atheism Resource Thread (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=7608) maintained by Fearless.
* And a quick look at our reserved spot for belief-based discussion, Fantasy Island (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16), includes The Great Big List (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=4784), a sort-of "things we've seen before" for those of faith, and general rules of argument for the forum.

If you've got questions, please ask. Moderators have red name tags, but many of our friendly people may have the answers you need.

Enjoy the forums. We hope to see plenty from you in discussions.

Have fun.

[rosiemacduck]

Looks like the filter is going through :mad::eek:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/internet-filter/telstra-optus-to-begin-censoring-web-next-month/story-fn5j66db-1226079954138

[Lilith]

Looks like the filter is going through :mad::eek:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/internet-filter/telstra-optus-to-begin-censoring-web-next-month/story-fn5j66db-1226079954138


Mutherfucking wankers! :mad::eek::mad:

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/7898/13332105346392814683100.jpg

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Looks like the filter is going through :mad::eek:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/internet-filter/telstra-optus-to-begin-censoring-web-next-month/story-fn5j66db-1226079954138I wonder if iiNet users will also be affected.

BTW you may want to download Tor (http://torproject.org/) RIGHT NOW before this shit is implemented. It should allow you to get past blocked sites.

EDIT: But since this is only Telstra and Optus (and two others?) then what about switching ISPs too? And also since the government's filter is not introduced as mandatory, as it is difficult for them to legally introduce it, would the NBN have helped in this situation given that it would be no longer tied to ISP related services.

[Dan]

I'm going to ditch Telstra mid-contract for this. If they want any termination fees they can go crying to the courts. This is utterly revolting behaviour for a service provider to engage in.

I encourage people to boycott companies that think it's acceptable to treat customers this way.

[davo]

... and on a side note, VPN's for sale! Roll up, roll up!

;)

[Phroso]

I had great hopes for the Rudd Government when it was elected.

Unfortunately, Kevin swiftly showed his true colours and emerged as a pompous, sanctimonious Pr*ck.

When he was dethroned, I was glad to see the back of him and hoped that Julia Gillard would show some common sense and drag the Labor Party back from the brink of destruction.

Unfortunately, her prim and parsimonious appearance appears to be reflected in her policies and we are seeing more and more support for the "nanny state".

In my opinion the Australian socio-political situation has gone steadily downhill since Gough Whitlam was politically assassinated!

I used to be what is referred to as a "rusted on" Labour voter but julia has lost my vote. That is not to say that I am prepared to vote for the "Mad Monk" and his henchman. What to do? What to do!

Phew! I'm glad I got that off my chest. Now I think I'll put the kettle on and have a cup of tea.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I'm going to ditch Telstra mid-contract for this. If they want any termination fees they can go crying to the courts. This is utterly revolting behaviour for a service provider to engage in.

I encourage people to boycott companies that think it's acceptable to treat customers this way.One word: lawyer. Get one if doing this.

I do not see a strong case in getting them to court, and forsee court expenses to be more than your termination fee anyway.

[FSM]

I despise Telstra, but unfortunately am stuck with them for my ISP, and would love nothing more than to switch over this, but I don't have any other practical choice :mad:
(before people ask, for technical reasons ADSL is not a good option for me, and I only have Telstra cable, and wireless sucks beyond belief)

Dave.

[PParth]

Oh there is hope. Doesn't seem to have been reported here yet but Telstra and other small ISPs are reconsidering their position as result of the fear of reprisal from Anonymous. They seem to be suddenly saying that its not definitive yet and they might still change their mind. So I guess there is still hope.

Two articles:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110625/01175214853/telstra-having-second-thoughts-over-censorship-plan-fears-reprisals-hactivists.shtml

http://www.zdnet.com.au/primus-on-fence-over-voluntary-filter-339317466.htm

I do think that a few lawsuits or even just fear of lawsuits might get them to abandon the scheme all together. I mean there are absolutely no details provided on how they will monitor the list of sites and who gets to decide what is banned etc etc.

PParth

[PParth]

I wonder if iiNet users will also be affected.

BTW you may want to download Tor (http://torproject.org/) RIGHT NOW before this shit is implemented. It should allow you to get past blocked sites.


I'm sorry to tell you but Tor won't be much help. I spent 11 months in China and I went in prepared. It's completely blocked. Tor nodes are public knowledge and therefore can be very easily blocked.

So if the government was really out to get you (like it is in China) then Tor won't help. Tor will be completely useless even if you have already downloaded it and it has worked.

VPN pretty stays the only route to freedom.

There have been talks to establish an alternate DNS via p2p protocol like bittorrent bit no movement on that since Feb.. (http://dot-p2p.org/index.php?title=Main_Page)

Anyway, that's my two cents ;)

PParth

[atuanui]

Have you tried this thing?
psiphon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psiphon

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Now before I respond to anything, more about Steven Conroy and the Censors! (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/telstra-optus-net-filters-trivial-to-bypass-20110705-1h02i.html) Apparently some people seemed to have teamed up with Captain Obvious to make heroic statements that the filters can easily be bypassed.

EDIT: Some more stuff regarding sensible ISPs who do not want to back up the filter (http://delimiter.com.au/2011/07/07/exetel-shuns-pointless-interpol-filter/)

I'm sorry to tell you but Tor won't be much help. I spent 11 months in China and I went in prepared. It's completely blocked. Tor nodes are public knowledge and therefore can be very easily blocked.

So if the government was really out to get you (like it is in China) then Tor won't help. Tor will be completely useless even if you have already downloaded it and it has worked.

VPN pretty stays the only route to freedom.

There have been talks to establish an alternate DNS via p2p protocol like bittorrent bit no movement on that since Feb.. (http://dot-p2p.org/index.php?title=Main_Page)

Anyway, that's my two cents ;)

PParthTor *nodes* are. Not Tor *bridges* - it will take some time but you would need to work out where you can find a *bridge* from. I wonder how long it will be before porn sites start serving their content using HTTPS or something like that. :D

[dilbadoon]

Can't find anything recent in the news on this, seems to have taken the back seat for now. Anyone heard any updates on where this policy is up to?

[atuanui]

This was in the smh today:)

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/line-between-censors-and-sensibility-a-clear-one-20110924-1kq7w.html

read this banned book:)
The Sacred Mushroom and the cross..

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbearsite.info%2FGeneral%2FPhiloso phy%2FThe%2520Sacred%2520Mushroom%2520and%2520the% 2520Cross%2520-%2520John%2520Allegro.pdf&rct=j&q=banned%20books%20australia%20the%20mushroom%20an d%20sacred%20cross&ei=R69-Tsb9Iq2UiQfw5qSuAw&usg=AFQjCNG57gpJcOmZUyTwQPl01G4PibbrFw

I bought a copy in nz.

[Seamus]

In my opinion the Australian socio-political situation has gone steadily downhill since Gough Whitlam was politically assassinated!

I used to be what is referred to as a "rusted on" Labour voter but julia has lost my vote. That is not to say that I am prepared to vote for the "Mad Monk" and his henchman. What to do? What to do!


Pretty much my position and opinion too.


Coincidentally,1975 was the last time I ever voted FOR a political party. Since that time I have always voted against the bigger shower on offer.

Another coincidence;until the last election that has always been the Libs,with a steadily decreasing difference. Since Lady Macbeth took over,my attitude has been "a pox on both your houses". I will again vote Greens and Independents,or even the Secular Party,depending on their preferences.

What is really scary is I think the Mad Monk will almost certainly get elected PM. THEN we will have that chronically Catholic troglodyte and his slimly friend, George Pell making policy. :mad: