Discussion re Proposed Internet Filtering

[Lapin]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm

Don't believe the government's rhetoric that this is all about kiddy porn. The filter could block 99% of adult sites on the net.

http://tinyurl.com/y9tpnut

Who knows what else could be blocked.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Awww shit! Quick! Everybody download Tor (http://torproject.org/) now!

[Praxis]

Yep, my favourite Whirlpool thread (currently at Part ?62 or something phenomenal) is in overdrive about it.

I must go and check in.

I always see what Mark Newton and Geordie Guy are saying, as well as some others. There's some seriously smart people in that thread who really know what's what about it all.

[Praxis]

Here's an article about the announcement (from the Whirlpool)


Mandatory ISP filtering to go ahead

Today, 3:15 pm

Phil Sweeney (phil@whirlpool.net.au)
The Federal Government plans to implement mandatory ISP filtering for "refused classification" websites, it was announced today (http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115).
The government also released the report on the ISP filtering pilot, which was provided to the government by Enex Testlab in October, detailing the results of the blocking accuracy and performance of the filters.
Senator Conroy announced the new initiatives in a curiously scheduled press conference, with journalists only being notified 90 minutes prior to the start of proceedings.
"The Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to require all ISPs to block RC-rated material hosted on overseas servers", said the announcement.
"RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use.
"The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100% accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed", said Conroy.
Conroy acknowledged that the filter would only block "inadvertent" exposure to R/C content, and the pilot report bluntly states that any technically competent user could circumvent the filtering.
The report also found that the filters "over-blocked" up to 3.4% of sites that were not intended to be filtered, and that high volume sites would likely cause the filters to fail.
Initial reactions to the pilot report have been mixed, with participating ISPs praising the results (in prepared press releases), while others such as Electronic Frontiers Australia stating (http://www.efa.org.au/2009/12/15/net-censorship-trial-report-brings-more-questions-than-answers/) that it "brings more questions than answers".
Child safety groups have previously denounced the filter (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2621354.htm), saying it will not protect kids from online dangers.
The DBCDE website is unavailable due to demand for the report, which we have mirrored here (http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/1852/isp_filtering_live_pilot_report_low_res.pdf).
Links:


Conroy Media Release (http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115)
ISP filtering pilot report (http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/1852/isp_filtering_live_pilot_report_low_res.pdf)

********************************************
Bastards. My partner was the person who first exposed the utter stupidity of this thing by putting in a complaint to ACMA about an anti-abortion site, citing ACMA's own rules about a site having to be "offensive" and to contain offensive material for it to be considered for the much-vaunted "black list". Sure enough, the site got blocked and it became illegal to even link to the site in posts discussing the issue. The outrage from the fundies was kind of fabulous (after all, they want people to see their doctored pics of alleged foetuses having been ripped to shreds as they were from their mother's women untimely rip'd) and it also happened on the same day that Conroy announced at a rare press conference that this sort of thing definitely would NOT happen with his wonderful filter, which was a stunning coincidence.

It started the ball rolling downhill with regard to how utterly futile, unworkable, unmanageable and unwanted this stupid thing is.

And now we get this.

Well, we'll see. We'll see.

I certainly don't recall a mandatory filter being part of any Labor election promises ...

[GUDLUSS]

Excellent. Get the bonfire, the offensive books, a stake and some witches.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

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?

[GUDLUSS]

Nah, it's just been given the go-ahead to run it through parliment next year.
And there's an interesting quote from someone we're all very familiar with about this:
"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
~Adolf Hitler

[gruber]

Nah, it's just been given the go-ahead to run it through parliment next year.


whoa whoa whoa, so the government has pissed away over $30 mill tax payers money for something that the parliament hasnt even approved yet.

[robertkd]

@GUDLUSS excellent quote

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

@gruber: Unfortunately yes. For a long time even the federal opposition were yelling because of this.

[gruber]

democracy fails

[GUDLUSS]

And just if this didn't seem foolish enough, the Australian Christian Lobby is allowed to see the results of the trial, but we aren't. Really shows their priorities, huh?

[Praxis]

And just if this didn't seem foolish enough, the Australian Christian Lobby is allowed to see the results of the trial, but we aren't. Really shows their priorities, huh?
Oh yes, Jim Wallace has needed to change his pants several times over the last few weeks, he's been that excited at being the only one Conroy showed his results to :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, here's a quick poll to take:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Do-you-support-a-mandatory-internet-filter-/0,130061791,339300077,00.htm

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Just voted. This gives 98.1% of people who said "NO" to Internet censorshit.

[Praxis]

Just voted. This gives 98.1% of people who said "NO" to Internet censorshit.
Well, that's mainly because nearly 100% of those voting are coming from the Whirlpool and other tech-savvy folk who know what's really going on here ;)

Seriously, if you really want to keep up, read the Whirlpool (obviously not all 62 parts of the thread but any time is a good time to start reading if you have the time. There's a bit of dross and OT, but overall, the thread is a goldmine of up-to-date information. You don't have to post, just read and keep up with what's happening.

This is the latest thread, a good place to start:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1342820

[Praxis]

A good article from a good journo - Asher Moses:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I do agree with the point that the trials were meant to succeed. I guess they postponed reports for ages because they were trying to figure out how to make it look like a great success without making an arse out of themselves. ;)

To be honest I don't accept the excuse that this is used for children. I am sure any reasonable parent would agree that it is extreme.
I wonder if I told Praxis that I am one of her biggest fans...

And I am not willing to accept that it is "100% accurate" given what I have heard being blocked on the filter. Also I am not willing to accept the excuse that they are not publishing the blacklist so that people will not try and access blocked material.

There is the leaked list on Wikileaks too. And the fact that he is not targetting P2P traffic, which is where much of the illegal material such as pirated stuff ends up anyway!

It is definitely going to be more than just "illegal material" being blocked. Or maybe they will make it illegal so only "illegal material" will be blocked.

And I do not need any filter. If I want to filter content out then my router has that ability. And it doesn't slow down my internet because I don't have all those URLs that Bogus Filterus Censorus wants to add to his Internet censorshit plan.

I am starting to wonder if I am looking stupid by calling it a "Conroy filter" because as this post from the Whirlpool link posted by Praxis points out:So why are we still calling it a "filter", anyway? It's such a marketing term. Such a blatant euphemism. A filter is something you use to make coffee.

The Conroy/Rudd scheme, however, is censorship.I agree with him on that point. I suppose I should start calling it "The Big Brotherhood" or "The Australian Christened Network" something like that.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

And a fine 6666th post it is indeed. Perhaps "The Intervenet" might be a good candidate for a title.

After all that stupid government<TRANSMISSION-INTERCEPTED/>which is not really stupid really wants to help. You see they just want to do what is best for Australia by protecting the future generation from cyber-bullies. I think it is a great plan.

[Praxis]

Another good article:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/internet-filter-laws-need-urgent-public-debate-20091216-kwdk.html

A totally brilliant article on how to write to Ministers and waste bureaucrats' time. Gold!
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/

[TING]

The best internet "filter" is a parent taking responsibility for raising their child and actually taking an interest in what said child is viewing online.

This whole idea is so very full of fail. I too have been reading the Whirlpool threads which are absolute gold mines of information. Well worth reading when you have the time, or alternatively check out their wiki page : http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=Cleanfeed

I think the problem remains a perception problem with the general public. Many people look at computers and the net as still a geek's domain, and thus don't think it's that important. Don't get me started on how the media in this country have dropped the ball on this issue.

[Dan]

To be honest I don't accept the excuse that this is used for children. I am sure any reasonable parent would agree that it is extreme.
I wonder if I told Praxis that I am one of her biggest fans...



I'm sure many parents would like their children to grow up in a free society, one where they are free to hold opinions of their own. Not under a repressive totalitarian regime.

What's the filter really about?
Restricting free-speech of course, we always new this but here's some evidence. http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/conroy-must-explain-why-christian-lobby-gets-net-filtering-trial-update-greens

[Praxis]

Good morning people.

Here's another article to read about the issue:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/fullduplex/soa/Welcome-to-National-Censorship-Day/0,139033349,339300065,00.htm

Also, it's a good idea to publicly thank Penny Sharpe, the NSW Labor politician who has spoken out on her blog against the censor, sorry, filter. She won't be getting much love from Canberra, going against the government's public stance on this issue, so she needs to hear from real people that what she is saying is right and to congratulate her on taking a stand. Here is her blog: http://www.pennysharpe.com/redleather/15/12/2009/why_the_internet_filter_is_not_the_solution_we_wis h_it_was

[Praxis]

Sky News poll you can vote in: http://www.skynews.com.au/ (it seems no one is indifferent!)

Every online poll I've seen and voted in so far has had a massive and overwhelming (+96%) no vote. That includes polls from SMH and The Age online and not just the techno-geek sites ;)

Disturbingly though, not a peep from mainstream media about it. You'd think it would be covered at least in passing but no, nothing. This has been the same all the way through this battle: extremely limited, if any, mention of it in the main public arena.

This is why the word needs to be spread to as many people as possible and explain it to them properly because otherwise, all they'll here is the weasel words and spin of the government and not the dog whistling that's really being said.

And you can listen to the excellent Mark Newton on Sky News here: http://twaud.io/sl3

[Dan]

Disturbingly though, not a peep from mainstream media about it. You'd think it would be covered at least in passing but no, nothing. This has been the same all the way through this battle: extremely limited, if any, mention of it in the main public arena.

This is no surprise, the new regime will annihilate their biggest competitor.

[Logic]

Conroy attempts to explain himself...

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-truth-about-net-filtering/

[zebba]

Conroy attempts to explain himself...

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-truth-about-net-filtering/
The funny thing about that article is that my works filter blocks it... (true story)

[GUDLUSS]

The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children (including the 60% of 5-8 year olds now estimated to use the internet) being inadvertently exposed to such material on the internet.
The government believes, does it? Is it aware that it already has a filter? That one you can download for free off their website?
There have been many wild claims made about ISP filtering technology and this is why we undertook an independent live pilot. This pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100% accuracy. It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed.
Apparently you weren't aware that your grand list was leaked and only a few had anything to do with child pornography. One was a dentist's site.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

There have been many wild claims made about ISP filtering technology and this is why we undertook an independent live pilot. This pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100% accuracy. It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed.Just a few things to note: Trials were spent and conducted only filtering for 15 people. This is why they noticed negligible reduction of speed. The filtering can be 100% accurate if you do not have any URLs in the filter, or that the URLs are the ones which the government wants to be filtered. And in that sense perhaps Stephen Conroy had a bad experience with that dentist and so put it on his blacklist.

[Chrys Stevenson]

It would be good if those of you who oppose internet filtering would post a comment on Senator Kate Lundy's blog which tries (unsuccessfully in my view) to defend it.

http://ow.ly/MVsr

[Praxis]

@Kristy. Indeed, Kate is a big disappointment. A fairly outspoken critic of the filter for a long time, it appears that she has succumbed to the party line, which is a damned shame.

[deesl4e]

This is more fascist rubbish coming from the krudd regime. Any half decent anti virus software has parental controls which may or may not be used to filter out naughty stuff if that what the parents want. We don't need the bloody govt to think for us and be our moral guardians where our kids are concerned.
Whats next. Mr whippy vans with govt agents inside cruising the burbs and sucking in kids with ice creams so that they can be removed from some vile insidious parent whom they have being spying on because they logged onto porn tube at 3.00 am 18 months ago. :mad:

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I attempted to post this comment:No thank you. I do not need any censorship for my internet connection. Not only does Australia suffer from slow and crappy Internet speeds but this censorship WILL make it slower. The report was based on a trial conducted on a few people. Around 15 if I remember correctly.

Stephen Conroy has wasted millions of taxpayer's money on trials and now we will have our money wasted on a crippled version of the Internet and now Australia will end up as a repressive country like China and Iran for example.

And no, I do not need these lovely Christian values on my Internet connection. I do not need my Internet connection to be censored from sinful content because I'm not a Christian and do not believe in zombies or ghosts or witches or wizards etcetera.

So I do hope this censorship plan will not be implemented. Personally I think your position supporting Stephen Conroy on this Big Brother internet plan is ridiculous.I must say there is another nut called Pia Waugh who also seems to be supportive of Internet censorshit.

[Chrys Stevenson]

I attempted to post this comment:I must say there is another nut called Pia Waugh who also seems to be supportive of Internet censorshit.

Pia appears to be on Senator Lundy's staff. She's paid to represent Lundy and the party.

They're monitoring all comments, but I see no reason why yours shouldn't get through.

[Praxis]

HEHEHEHE http://stephenconroy.com.au/news.php

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Have a go at the results for the poll. I voted for "A total douchebag" because he can't be a minion for something that does not exist. I think it would be hilarious to see http://stephenconroy.com.au/ get censored.

[Dan]

The government believes, does it? Is it aware that it already has a filter? That one you can download for free off their website?


They discontinued that program a while ago because it was unpopular.

[Chrys Stevenson]

So Pia Waugh is all over Sen. Lundy's blog, answering away on Conroy's behalf?

Crikey, more spin being applied than a megatedium of Test Matches.

Oh dear! I'm sorry I've misled you. I didn't mean to type Senator Conroy. I meant to type Senator Lundy.

Pia is a member of Senator Lundy's staff.

Sorry!

[zebba]

Interesting piece on this. Some interesting stuff on the ACL's involvement.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/conroy-will-be-censoring-people-not-the-internet-20091217-kzxl.html

[owheelj]

I'm pretty sure this will never pass the senate. The Libs and Greens both seem absolutely opposed. I don't think we can be fairly certain the ALP won't win a senate majority next election either, so we just need to rely on the Greens and Libs continuing to oppose it. I recommend sending your state senators from either of those parties an email congratulating and supporting them on their position of opposition. It's pretty dead at the moment because of that opposition, so I wouldn't get too stressed about it.

[Praxis]

The fact it even got this far is a cause for concern, I think. Although I doubt it will ever get legs, I don't believe the issue will go away and one way or another, our government will try and push this through or something very similar. I don't think people can get complacent about it.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff115/aestheticatheist/motivator0ed2fd40482fb6.jpg

[Cosmic Teapot]

It would be good if those of you who oppose internet filtering would post a comment on Senator Kate Lundy's blog which tries (unsuccessfully in my view) to defend it.

http://ow.ly/MVsr

Already done. :D

Mr. CT Pot
Posted December 18, 2009 at 12:10 am

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

The fact it even got this far is a cause for concern, I think. Although I doubt it will ever get legs, I don't believe the issue will go away and one way or another, our government will try and push this through or something very similar. I don't think people can get complacent about it.Indeed. Although I won't let my guard down and say "It won't ever happen" or "It won't ever go through parliament" etcetera because as soon as everyone does that is when this stupid censorshit gets pushed.

[Devils advocate]

And what is even more crazy about this censorship is that the website that posted the leaked blacklist got listed on the new blacklist aswell....
wikileaks, where government and other documents are leaked on the net!

So to me this is a blatant censorshit issue, if you cant get information on the web because its been 'filtered' then most likely a lot of aussies will go around ignorant of what the government is really doing!

In the end its our money that funds these activites and therefore should bloody well be our choice where the cash goes! Fascist Pigs!

Australian government: saving our souls one URL at a time!

[Dan]

So to me this is a blatant censorshit issue, if you cant get information on the web because its been 'filtered' then most likely a lot of aussies will go around ignorant of what the government is really doing!


That's the whole point, if the filter had anything to do with protecting children it would not need to be mandatory.


I find the "protect children" argument wildly out of place. As far as I'm concerned no decent parent would want their child to grow up under such a repressive regime. Parent's should be some of the strongest opponents.

[Cosmic Teapot]

And what is even more crazy about this censorship is that the website that posted the leaked blacklist got listed on the new blacklist aswell....
wikileaks, where government and other documents are leaked on the net!

So to me this is a blatant censorshit issue, if you cant get information on the web because its been 'filtered' then most likely a lot of aussies will go around ignorant of what the government is really doing!

In the end its our money that funds these activites and therefore should bloody well be our choice where the cash goes! Fascist Pigs!

Australian government: saving our souls one URL at a time!

Stalin Conroy has shown his true colours when www.stephenconroy.com.au (which had been registered by someone who made it an anti-filter site) had it's domain name deregistered suddenly.
Read HERE (http://stephen-conroy.com/page.php?4).

[Praxis]

Check this out!
http://www.internetblackout.com.au/

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

THe3FDe-aD4&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I was actually going to suggest making this thread a sticky until I discovered that it was already a sticky. A choice well made.

[Phroso]

The Adelaide Advertiser (24.12.09)

"Independent Senator Nick Xenophon is recovering in a Sydney hospital after four-hour spinal fusion surgery"

<snip>

"Despite the intense pain, he told The Advertiser of nurses remarking that another miracle had been performed after finding a spine in a politician"

Love him or loathe him, Nick is his own man and doesn't cravenly follow a party line.

Importantly, he has come out and clearly stated that he is against internet censorship.

"Xenophon has previously said the mandatory ISP filter plan was unworkable because it would slow down internet speeds and block content inaccurately. Today, he remains the only senator clearly opposed to the proposal. Greens senator Scott Ludlam said yesterday it was a "misguided" policy, and his party would seek to make "significant amendments" to the proposal."

See: http://tinyurl.com/y9pkoob

I'm not sure what "significant amendments" the Greens have in mind but when the next general election comes along, I will certainly be seriously considering a vote for Nick.

[Cosmic Teapot]

I'm not sure what "significant amendments" the Greens have in mind but when the next general election comes along, I will certainly be seriously considering a vote for Nick.

The biggest problem is that the filter is mandatory. If their "significant amendment" is making it opt-in, or even opt-out, they have my vote.

[atheist_angel]

BTW, why aren't the Christians upset about this, already? (I think I'm missing something..)
I can't find anywhere where the Christians have protested this yet..

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Erm... probably because they're Christians of course!

[Dan]

BTW, why aren't the Christians upset about this, already? (I think I'm missing something..)
I can't find anywhere where the Christians have protested this yet..

Because they get to Censor atheist's.

Our Censorship Minister collaborated with the Christian Lobby prior to releasing the filtering report: http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/conroy-must-explain-why-christian-lobby-gets-net-filtering-trial-update-greens

[atheist_angel]

Erm... probably because they're Christians of course!What if... someone were to argue that this censorship will block out bible passages and persecute Christians?

They always tend to listen to Christians before anybody else... and a little propaganda tends to go a long way in fundie religious circles.

For example: Persecuted Christians in China (http://www.persecution.com.au/)

[atheist_angel]

Nah, that's the Filthy Commie Chinese doing that.

Taking the fine example of the Sanhedrin using Judas Iscariot, the Dirty Tricks boys at Un-Australian Very Small Percentage Of Christians Lobby (to give it a more correct title) made sure they had somebody on the inside.

What's more, General Jimbo Wallace learned from the mistakes made during Operation Thirty Silver: this time, instead of a follower, he suborned the Communications Minister himself.

Now if only Conroy would find a nice place to try some Judas-style rope exercises...
I see your point. They never see their own contradictions.
(We had Christians pushing for biometrics and chip implants, whilst at the same time, preaching to US, "Do Not Succumb to the Mark of the Beast!")

.. I guess if 'Christians' are doing it, it must not qualify to them as a 'self-fulling-prophecy' because of some 'Magical' Christian reason.

I would also guess that, to them, 'Judas' must not have been a 'Real' Christian, like everybody else...
(I would still say, "they are shooting themselves in the foot, as well", but don't they always..?)

[Devils advocate]

That GetUp advert is gold! Shame they couldnt get it played on Qantas flights to and from Canberra!

[Praxis]

Okay, in more than a year of being involved in this issue, the below is possibly the best thing I've seen anywhere to encapsulate the issues that "the great unwashed" are unaware of. It doesn't politicise the issue nor does it say anything about eroding our democracy or freedom of speech. Instead, I believe this goes right to the nub of it, for parents and people who have no real idea of what is being proposed.

It was posted by a Martin C on Senator Kate Lundy's blog and he's given permission for it to be reposted by anyone "where it will do the most good". So feel free to copy it and email it to people or print it out or whatever.

********************************

1. You might think that:
Senator Conroy’s censorship bill will stop my child from accessing child pornography accidentally.
But actually:
It is virtually impossible to “accidentally” access child pornography. The people who make child porn are well aware it is illegal, and they cover their tracks as well as they can, to avoid going to jail. The idea that child porn is just hanging about on ordinary websites, or can be found by googling simple search terms is completely unfounded.


2. You might think that:
Senator Conroy’s censorship bill will stop pedophiles accessing child porn.
But actually:
Websites are only one way of accessing information on the internet. There are many other ways, such as peer-to-peer/file transfer protocol(FTP) methods. These methods establish a direct connection between one machine on the internet (the pedophile’s) and another machine (the server with child porn on it). Senator Conroy’s filter will leave these types of connections completely unaffected. What percentage of pedophile material is transmitted by peer-to-peer/FTP compared to websites? Over 99.9%.



3. You might think that:
Senator Conroy’s censorship bill will stop my child from deliberately going to porn sites.
But actually:
Senator Conroy has tested the filter with 1000 websites loaded in it. Later he says it might be expanded to 10,000. There are over a BILLION porn websites on the internet. Senator Conroy’s filter will prevent your child from accessing 0.001% of the porn. The other 99.999% will come through exactly as before. Your child will not even notice the difference. And at least a million porn sites are added to the internet each day. No amount of public servants, and no amount of concerned citizens can possible keep up with monitoring that flood of porn. To stop your child from accessing porn websites, you have to actually do some parenting.


4. You might think that:
Senator Conroy’s censorship bill will stop other Australians from accessing porn.
But actually:
The same arguments shown above apply: 99.999% of the porn will still be available. In addition, Senator Conroy’s filter is ludicrously easy to circumvent. Accessing websites with “http” at the start can be changed to “https” which makes it a secure connection and will completely bypass the filter. In addition, anyone can get a Virtual Private Network (VPN) which prevents external access (like from Senator Conroy’s filter) completely. And if you think VPNs should be done away with, you need to know that every bank, and pretty much every large company in the country has one: any organisation that needs to prevent people from tapping in on their information has to use a VPN. VPNs cost $5-10 a month.



5. You might think that:
Senator Conroy’s censorship bill will stop pedophiles from being able to “groom” my child for sexual purposes.
But actually:
Pedophiles “groom” children for sexual purposes through websites that CHILDREN hang around on: facebook, friend finder sites, chat sites. Not one of these sites will be affected by Senator Conroy’s censorship, because they are primarily sites for perfectly acceptable contact between children. To prevent grooming by pedophiles, you need to educate your child about the issue: you need to do some parenting instead of hoping that Senator Conroy’s filter will do it for you.


6. You might think that:
Senator Conroy and the Labor government are serious about eliminating pedophile activity in Australia.
But actually:
Introducing a filtering system that won’t work (for all the above reasons) will do nothing to curb pedophile activity in this country. Introducing a filtering system will alert pedophiles to the fact that the government can see what websites they go to, and will force them to use secure methods that defeat the filter AND police monitoring. Also, while the current government is spending 44 million dollars on this totally ineffective filtering system, it’s REDUCING the budget of the Federal Police’s child porn unit. Does that sound like they are serious about eliminating pedophile activity?



7. You might think that:
Even if the filter is that ineffective, surely something is better than doing nothing.
But actually:
Introducing an ineffective filter like Senator Conroy’s will help parents to lower their guard about how their children access the internet. They’ll believe they are safe because the filter is there, but the filter will be almost totally ineffective, so their children will be MORE at risk from child porn and pedophile activity. Also, the filtering system will enourage pedophiles to move to more secure methods of obtaining child porn, so they will be harder to catch. In addition, the money spent on this filter could have been used by the child porn unit to continue hunting down pedophiles.



8. You might think that:
You are doing some good for your child by supporting Senator Conroy’s filter.
But actually:
Senator Conroy’s filter will make things easier for pedophiles to hide from the law and will have virtually no other effect on their activities. It will not touch 99.999% of porn on the internet. It is ludicrously easy to circumvent and your child will need only a rudimentary knowledge of the internet to do so, or he will need to know one of the 90% of kids in his class who do have that knowledge. If you are serious about your child’s safety, you will oppose Senator Conroy’s utterly ineffective filtering system.

(http://machinegunkeyboard.com/)

[atuanui]

Someone might have all ready said this, but this site is back now.
http://stephen-conroy.com/
The site is in Melbourne
Domain Name: STEPHEN-CONROY.COM
Registrar: AUSTRALIAN STYLE PTY LTD
Whois Server: whois.australianstyle.com.au
Referral URL: http://www.australianstyle.com.au
Name Server: NS1.LINODE.COM
Name Server: NS2.LINODE.COM
Name Server: NS3.LINODE.COM
Name Server: NS4.LINODE.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 20-dec-2009
Creation Date: 17-dec-2009

Hope it freaks him out.

[atuanui]

goto to this site first:
http://www.stephenconroy.com.au/
:)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Hehehehehehehehe @atuanui

Also note that http://stephenconroy.com/ (not http://stephen-conroy.com/) is a photography site.

So don't forget the hyphen if you are going the direct approach.

[Praxis]

No, go to this site and make yourself heard:
http://filterthisvote.com/

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

The Conroy Censorshit will start 12 months after it hits parliament (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/01/conroys-internet-filter-to-start-12-months-after-it-hits-parliament/) thus leaving those children unprotected for a hell of a long time. ;)

[Dan]

Throughout history religion has played an oppressive censorship role. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin and now all of Australia.

[robertkd]

The other tragedy is that the slimy tentacles of politics will begin the slow strangulation of people's media and free speech.


Oh krap I thought that had already been done with television, radio and print, the government were just trying to close up some loose ends,.. with www :p

[Dan]

Oh krap I thought that had already been done with television, radio and print, the government were just trying to close up some loose ends,.. with www :p


That's why the internet is so important. The Internet is a true democracy. The success of websites are decided by the consumer, and anyone can set one up. Not like traditional media where only the exceptionally wealthy play.

[robertkd]

Well that was tounge and cheek I agree and support not filtering it's a non issue intent with controlling public discussion and monitoring joe citizens activities. Also consider that this "filter" is also a smoke screen to enable tax collection for OS purchases, makes sense if you want a model to fund it.

[Praxis]

The Internet is a true democracy.
Which is precisely why governments hate it so much ;)

[davo]

That's why the internet is so important. The Internet is a true democracy.


No it's not. You do not have as much decision making power over it as many do. That's not democracy.

I have way more power on the internet than you just as a minor example, only because of priviledge in regard education and access to resources.

We see the results of this discrepancy in both education and money happening with major companies that own the infrastructure setting the prices etc etc.

What exactly is democratic about the internet? Not much, unless you decide laissez faire capitalism is 'democracy'


The success of websites are decided by the consumer, and anyone can set one up.

No they can't, 90% of the world does not have access to a phone let alone the internet. We are privileged.

I bet in a 'battle' Rupert Murdoch and yourself given a whole internet server each .. and he would have millions daily exposed to his views, and you would be struggling to get hundreds.


Not like traditional media where only the exceptionally wealthy play.

The exceptionally wealthy still control online media. Sure it opens the door for any on the net to put forward their view, but no where near in such a blanket format that media barons can and do.

Anyway I understand your point, just a pet hate when people think the internet is 'fair and balanced'. It's not. They own it, they control it and they manipulate it and you are using it at their mercy.

[Dan]

I bet in a 'battle' Rupert Murdoch and yourself given a whole internet server each .. and he would have millions daily exposed to his views, and you would be struggling to get hundreds.



How much exposure do I get via traditional media?
Zero.


Also this blogger http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=owned
gets more traffic than people far wealthier than him. On the Internet you cannot simply be the highest bidder and shut out the competition. You can buy the content but people have to like your content or the site fails. The Internet is for everyone.

The Internet is owned by everyone, I own any infrastructure I put online as does anyone else. Some people just own larger chunks of the Internet than others. Which is a potential problem.

[Kimk]

Re: exposure in the mass media.

Just like the online media, you need either to be newsworthy or to have reams of money to get into the print media.

The internet, IMO, is just as manipulated as the print media. There are many organisations out there that exist just to manipulate content: from your think tanks, to front groups set up by corporations to feign social or environmental responsibility and comment on themsleves, to orgs that hire people to make recommendations to their friends and family about services or products for money! You can't even trust your mum! Companies and governments pay people to edit wikipedia and other user-contributed sites, other companies make money by distributing press releases of corporations (or whomever can pay) to targetted journalists both on and offline.

And even in Australia, only 60% of us have regular internet access. It's a privelege that we sometimes take for granted (i can't live without it!)

kimk

[Loki]

It's interesting to see in the "paper" today that google are thinking of removing all filtering in China (remember they agreed to filtering to get a foot in the door) because it is being abused by the state. They have accepted this may mean they are unable to operate in China and are deciding whether to do it anyway. This is in response to attempted hacking of the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The details are murky but I presume they are connecting these attempts with the state.

[common pirate]

at least some peoples governments are sticking up for free speech...


White House steps in to Google-China row

January 14, 2010 - 2:46PM
The White House said that it backs the "right to a free internet" and confirmed it has held talks with Google which is threatening to pull out of China (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/google-sees-red-over-web-censors-20100113-m723.html?autostart=1) over censorship.
Google said it was still filtering internet search results in China in compliance with law there and would not specify when it plans to defy Chinese censors.
As of late Wednesday, no changes had been made to the California search giant's self-imposed online search filters in China, according to Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker.
Stricker answered "Yes" when asked by AFP on Wednesday whether Google is still filtering search results at google.cn.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he would not go into details about the administration's discussions with Google, which announced on Tuesday it would no longer filter search results from China on its web search engine.
"We have had conversations and discussions with them about what they have talked about yesterday," Gibbs told reporters here. "I don't want to get much further afield than that."
"The president and this administration have beliefs about the freedom of the internet," Gibbs added, noting that President Barack Obama had expressed them in China last year.
"The right of a free internet is what many of you heard the president talk about in China," Gibbs said.
During a visit to China in November, Obama pushed for an unshackled Internet saying he was a "strong supporter of open internet use" and a "big supporter of non-censorship."
Gibbs also recalled that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had asked for an explanation from China for what Google said was a wave of "highly sophisticated" cyberattacks aimed at Chinese human rights activists.

"As the secretary of state said, we look forward to the response from the Chinese," the White House spokesman said.
China said Wednesday it was seeking more information on Google's move.
The state-run Xinhua news agency quoted an anonymous official at the press office of the State Council, the nation's cabinet, as saying that Internet authorities were looking for clarification of Google's statement.
"It is still hard to say whether Google will quit China or not. Nobody knows," the official was quoted as saying.
Google said China-based cyber spies struck the internet giant and at least 20 other unidentified firms in an apparent bid to hack into the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists around the world.

The Mountain View, California-based company, whose motto is "Don't be evil," said the cyberattacks originating from China and Web censorship demands were forcing it to review its business operations in China.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised Google on Wednesday for threatening to quit China and urged other high-tech companies to resist Beijing.
"The announcement that Google will fully review its business operations in China and will no longer tolerate censorship of its search engine should serve as an example to businesses and governments," Pelosi said in a statement.
"The Chinese government operates one of the most sophisticated operations in the world to control the Internet," Pelosi said. "It is essential that technology companies not assist in efforts that violate human rights or prohibit the free exchange of ideas."
A Republican member of Congress, Chris Smith of New Jersey, urged Pelosi on Wednesday to bring the Global Online Freedom Act, a bill that would prevent US IT companies from working with repressive governments, to a vote.
Smith praised Google's move and said "legislation is desperately needed to stop US companies from working hand-in-glove with dictatorships attempting to crack down on democratic activists who use the Internet."
Paris-based Reporters Without Borders hailed Google?s move meanwhile saying "a foreign IT company has finally accepted its responsibilities towards Chinese users and is standing up to the Chinese authorities.
"We call on other IT companies to form a common front and we urge the Chinese authorities to reconsider their position," RSF said.
AFP

[Praxis]

I can't wait to see if Google refuse to filter results for Australia if Conroy has his way and we get government-controlled interwebz, as they so desperately want :confused:

[Seamus]

No, go to this site and make yourself heard:
http://filterthisvote.com/


I did that. However,I have never changed my vote on a single issue.I never vote FOR any political party or individual. I vote AGAINST the worst venal incompetents who want the chance to fuck up my country.

I resist any move which gives politicians more power.-and censorship is a basic tool of social control.

In this instance, the mind boggles to think what the Liberals would do .

BUT,overall,I'm not overly concerned:

What's his name is just another gormless politician. Internet censorship is not set and forget,it requires massive resources to maintain and constantly upgrade.I'm not convinced the government understands that yet or that it has the will to spend the money needed. Like a lot of arrogant dickheads, he also seems to assume the smartest people work for him.They don't.

[GenericBox]

On the Internet you cannot simply be the highest bidder and shut out the competition. You can buy the content but people have to like your content or the site fails. The Internet is for everyone.

The Internet is owned by everyone, I own any infrastructure I put online as does anyone else. Some people just own larger chunks of the Internet than others. Which is a potential problem.


Puh-lease.

A/ Yes you can be simply the highest bidder and shut out the competition, Google v Yahoo - YouTube v Everyone else - MySpace v Facebook. All classic examples of those with the more money = control.

Internet access is for everyone (relative), but everyone can also access a library - it doesn't mean we can or do have a say on what books they stock.

"The internet is owned by everyone" - bullshit, the internet is "owned" by first and foremost Telecommunication companies, then ISPs, DNS providers then Server Hosts, then Browsers/Software companies, then a dozen or so probably more technical positions which I don't know of - then finally, at the very bottom of the chain - you and your personal computer.

I do not claim to have an in-depth knowledge on the process of the internet, but I do have a little, and I once rented a server to offer hosting, which effectively meant I "owned" a piece of the internet.

"I own any infrastructure I put online as does anyone else". No, your host "owns" it - if they for whatever reason don't want your online content or infrastructure, they can cancel/block you - and tada - no more "owning" any online space for you. Even if you say host it from your home pc - not only would the power company and ISP own your online content - the DNS provider would own it just as much as a host would - if they don't want your business - no more www. for you. All that you would be left with is an IP address for people to access your "content" - but after all that - your ISP owns your IP address.

[GenericBox]

And for an on-topic comment...

I don't see anything wrong with an internet filter.

I certainly don't agree with it, but I don't see what's wrong about it.

At a basic level internet users are Australian citizens (which is required by Telecom companies) - therefore you "prescribe" to the Australian Government - (my "old" government argument).

At a higher level, the ISPs, the Telecom companies which provide us our internet, have also decided to operate within Australia, thus "prescribing" to the Australian Government, and subject to their laws/decisions. (Pretty much my same government argument).

However, like I said, I don't like it. I think the benefits do not match the consequences, nor do I see the necessity in it - and I feel that if a parent needs/wants filtering, there are plenty of other - completely more effective - opt-in software the parent can acquire (and for free I'm sure).

[GenericBox]

Just some more on money and internet - because like Davo that really ticks me off when people think the internet is free.

Google bought YouTube for $1.65 BILLION!!!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6034577.stm)

and tada...
http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/Picture%20323.png

And all the copyright issues on YouTube is support that the content of the users on youTube are not their own - once its uploaded its content of Google, who must then comply with international / local laws.

If you "owned" your youTube video, they couldn't ban it - or alter it by removing audio tracks etc etc etc.

[Dan]

Puh-lease.

A/ Yes you can be simply the highest bidder and shut out the competition, Google v Yahoo - YouTube v Everyone else - MySpace v Facebook. All classic examples of those with the more money = control.
Wrong I can put a website online any-time I wish. The same cannot be said for setting up a TV station.


Internet access is for everyone (relative), but everyone can also access a library - it doesn't mean we can or do have a say on what books they stock.No, but on the Internet I do have a say on what content goes online and no one can stop me, provided the content is legal of course.



"I own any infrastructure I put online as does anyone else". No, your host "owns" it Don't presume to tell me what equipment I do or do not own that is the absolute hight of arrogance.

if they for whatever reason don't want your online content or infrastructure, they can cancel/block you No, that's what they want to be able to do. Follow up on the Net-Neutrality and Australian Censorship issues.

[GenericBox]

No, but on the Internet I do have a say on what content goes online and no one can stop me, provided the content is legal of course.


You have a say what content goes on other media too? So what?

Don't presume to tell me what equipment I do or do not own that is the absolute hight of arrogance.

Lol whatever. I'll presume, that due to your apparant age (assuming mid 20s), and simplistic view of democracy on the internet, that you do not own a dedicated server, nor would you have a dedicated IP address on your personal connection. I could be wrong, of course, but it wouldn't matter if I was.

No, that's what they want to be able to do.

No, it has nothing to do with censorship or net-neutrality, it is about simple corporate control, and their right to refuse business to anyone they don't want to. Thousands of websites and content is taken off the internet everyday because the company hosting the material finds it breaches their practices/rules.

Australian Censorship is about filtering already existant material - so that we simply cannot access it - it is not removing it from the internet. However, if the hosting company of an Australian blocked website - or the ISP of that connection (if it's a personal/home website) - decides that there is any issue they are not happy with - they can remove that content or cut the connection.

Also, under current law - if ACMA deem the website to be of R18+ and meet other conditions, and the website is hosted in Australia - it can be issued a take down notice.

And that is right now.

Where is this true democracy you speak?

The internet is not free in any sense - nor should it be.

[Dan]

No, it has nothing to do with censorship or net-neutrality, it is about simple corporate control, and their right to refuse business to anyone they don't want to. Thousands of websites and content is taken off the internet everyday because the company hosting the material finds it breaches their practices/rules.

Yes that is true to an extent however you will find many upstream providers will not under any circumstances terminate a clients connection for 1. Fear of lawsuits and 2. It is neither their concern nor business to do so, with the exception of law enforcement actually confiscating their clients physical machine under a valid warrant. Many providers will work to protect their clients, the last thing they want is to lose business.

Also, under current law - if ACMA deem the website to be of R18+ and meet other conditions, and the website is hosted in Australia - it can be issued a take down notice.Which is a good reason not to run servers in this country in addition to the astronomical bandwidth costs. I use the United States for everything, with the obvious exception of my local home connection. Europe also offers some good options.


Australian Censorship is about filtering already existant material - so that we simply cannot access it - it is not removing it from the internet. However, if the hosting company of an Australian blocked website - or the ISP of that connection (if it's a personal/home website) - decides that there is any issue they are not happy with - they can remove that content or cut the connection.The Internet extends this country which is the major reason for implementing a filter. ACMA has admitted it's frustration with content hosted outside it's jurisdiction. Full Internet censorship hasn't arrived yet but is certainly part way here already in the form of take down notices.



Where is this true democracy you speak?Suppose I set up a blog to rival CNN. If users like my content better then they will come to me and there is nothing CNN can do about it except create new content of their own. Which one of us succeeds is decided by the consumer, there are no spectrum auctions on the internet. The little guys have equal footing along side the big guys. CNN will have more tools with which to build it's content of course but that does not prevent smaller operators in the same way that traditional media often does.



Perhaps I should have omitted the word "true" from "true democracy" because the term is not well defined.

[common pirate]

"The articles in this parody of an encyclopedia explain things in a funny and not necessarily correct way." - encyclopedia dramatica

What happens when Poe's law and censorship combine?

from: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/google-agrees-to-take-down-racist-site-20100115-maxd.html

Google agrees to take down racist site

January 15, 2010

Google has agreed to take down links to a website that promotes racist views of indigenous Australians.

Aboriginal man Steve Hodder-Watt recently discovered the US-based site by searching "Aboriginal and Encyclopedia" in the search engine.

He tried to modify the entry on Encyclopedia Dramatica, a satirical and extremely racist version of Wikipedia, but was blocked from doing so.

Mr Hodder-Watt then undertook legal action, that resulted in Google acknowledging its legal responsibility to remove the offensive site.

His lawyer, George Newhouse, said the site was "one of the most offensive sorts of racial vilification you could possibly find".

"It portrays indigenous Australians in the most unsavoury light possible, and you wouldn't want a child stumbling across it," he told ABC Radio.

Mr Newhouse said Google agreed to take the link down after he filed an official complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

"Lo and behold they agreed last night to take down the sites."

Mr Newhouse believes the site would be filtered under the Federal Government's mandatory filter.

"Sites that promote racial vilification would actually fall within that description [illegal sites] and therefore would be filtered."

The Federal Government plans to introduce legislation this year requiring all service providers to ban "refused classification" material.

[common pirate]

from http://encyclopediadramatica.com/United_States_of_Australia (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/United_States_of_Australia)

Australian Internets

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/2/2d/Conroy_caching_error.jpg/350px-Conroy_caching_error.jpg (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Conroy_caching_error.jpg) http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Conroy_caching_error.jpg)
Steven Conroy explains why the tubes were blocked


The Australian government is VERY worried about your safety online. So serious that they are willing to waste millions of tax payer dollars advertising the most epic 84 million dollar porno filter the world has ever seen. Unfortunately said filter was quickly proven by a 16 year old boy (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22304224-5005941,00.html) to be a complete piece of shit. Good work Johnny (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/John_Howard). You did the country proud.
You too can download this mind easing tool which will 100% protect you from the horrors of the internet (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Bullshit) from netalert.gov.au (http://www.netalert.gov.au/). Beforehand however take note that it's at least 100 (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/At_least_100)% likely ED (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/ED) is blocked. Fucking kangaroo humpers.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/ad/Internet_in_Australia.png (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Internet_in_Australia.png) http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Internet_in_Australia.png)
Internet in Australia Nov-09', this kind of speed is only available at a university. Was seeding to about 300 peers, each at less than 5kbps.


In 2007 Ruddkips (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Kevin_Rudd) promised that if elected he would implement a world class "adult content (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Porn)" filter that if installed would monitor all internet traffic in Australia. Sound familiar? (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/China) Ruddkips also has a degree in Asian (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Asian) Studies and speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese hence one can only deduce that Ruddkips (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Kevin_Rudd) is a filthy communist (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Communist) and must be purged before he can start setting up gulags.
The Great Firewall of Australia

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/c/ce/Bettarruddkip.jpg/150px-Bettarruddkip.jpg (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Bettarruddkip.jpg)



In the style of his close friends in China (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/China), Ruddkipz plans to censor the internet (http://www.nocleanfeed.com/) in Australia despite everyone in the f*cking world opposing the idea. The shitty idea will slow down Australia's already pathetic internets (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Images/commentarynews/broadbandspeedchart.jpg) by an average of 30% and block all content not suitable for children (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Pedo). Say goodbye to internet porn and the *chans Australia, and possibly Encyclopedia Dramatica (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica). Moar (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Moar) info here. (http://whirlpool.net.au/news/?id=1816)
Of course if you are not retarded (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/13-year-old_boy), you can probably figure out a way around it (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Proxy).

“
The federal government has formally begun seeking "expressions of interest" from Australian ISPs wishing to be the first to pilot the government's Internet censorship plan.
„
— Phil Sweeney


The list (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Dox) was recently leaked (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Win) on wikileaks (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Wikileaks), it bans the ENTIRE encyclopediadramatica.com domain. It also includes several Wikipedia (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/TOW) pages: a nonexistent page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_making_of_an_adult_film_by_David_Shankbo ne.jpg), A list of 'weird pictures' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Weird_pictures) - NSFW, but no CP (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/CP) here, BALEETED! (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.OGG). This proves beyond doubt that all Australian politicians are F*cktarded (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Fucktarded), probably through all the incest rape (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Josef_Fritzl).
More recently (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Last_thursday) due to Ausfailia's outcry (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/BAWW), Rudkips has decided that it was a stupid (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Retarded) idea and has scraped it announcing that it was all just a joke (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Social_experiment). Feeling raped and betrayed, Ausf*gs slowly recovered and began to warm to Rudkips once moar, ONLY TO HAVE THEIR COLLECTIVE ARSE IMPALED BY THE NANNY STATE'S PERSONIFIED CAWK! (http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/internet-censorship-plan-gets-the-green-light-20091215-ktzc.html). Turns out the filter is going ahead as planned, and they announced it in late December, too. Merry Christmas you pathetic c*nts!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Conroy defends Internet censorshit in Australia but criticizes Chinese censorshit (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/333557/senator_conroy_defends_internet_filtering_criticis es_chinese_censorship?fp=4&fpid=319049444)
Brave Labor MP rejects the Conroy censorshit plan (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163072,brave-labor-mp-rejects-conroys-filter-plan.aspx)

[GenericBox]

I read in some magazine (can't remember the magazine let alone get links - so this is offhand) - that Australia's current average download speeds was ranked 45th in the world! We are behind countries like Angola, some Island I can't even pronounce, Many African countries and all of the "big" 3rd world countries (this was average download speed, not coverage or usage).

But still, that is pretty damn pathetic.

[common pirate]

I read in some magazine (can't remember the magazine let alone get links - so this is offhand) - that Australia's current average download speeds was ranked 45th in the world! We are behind countries like Angola, some Island I can't even pronounce, Many African countries and all of the "big" 3rd world countries (this was average download speed, not coverage or usage).

But still, that is pretty damn pathetic.

This is pre-filter too, expect to drop to the very bottom of the list (300's?) , if it manages to pass into law.


Bender (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0224007/): The fact is, humans are completely harmless.
Blue Elder: We're well aware of that.
Bender (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0224007/): You are?
Blue Elder: Of course. But they're useful to us as a scapegoat to distract the public from their real problem.
Green Elder: Like our crippling lug nut shortage.
Orange Elder: And a corrupt government of incompetent Robot Elders.
Yellow Elder: Duh, that's for sure.

[Dan]

This is pre-filter too, expect to drop to the very bottom of the list (300's?) , if it manages to pass into law.

Possibly lower, a dropped connection is normally a 100% slowdown. I'm not concerned by the speed it's the suppression of free-speech that worries me especially with so much religious influence in our government.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I read in some magazine (can't remember the magazine let alone get links - so this is offhand) - that Australia's current average download speeds was ranked 45th in the world! We are behind countries like Angola, some Island I can't even pronounce, Many African countries and all of the "big" 3rd world countries (this was average download speed, not coverage or usage).

But still, that is pretty damn pathetic.That may well be correct. And with Conroy on the loose, we might be ranked 10485th in the world. :mad:

[davo]

Wrong I can put a website online any-time I wish. The same cannot be said for setting up a TV station.

Indeed, but my point and statement is it is not a democracy. I would say there are just 'some people more equal than others' on the internet.


No, but on the Internet I do have a say on what content goes online and no one can stop me, provided the content is legal of course.


No you don't and I can name one way that I could bring down your site, legally, and keep it down. This has happened specifically to sites I hosted for a group making statements about 'clean coal' where the NSW Minerals Council used section 20j of the copyright act by serving me a notice over copyright infringment, and had lawyers scream at me on the phone saying REGARDLESS of the fact of copyright or not, being served the notice I have to take down a website for 10 days, and if no legal notice is served to my client, the site could go back online. If I refused to do this, they would sue me for breach of the regulations.

irrrespective of the truth of the copyright claim.

This is just one example of censorship I know is going on right at the moment online, the other is companies with the threat of defamation. They can destroy you by such things, you can't compete as you don't have the money.

This is not democracy, this is the people with the biggest purses will win.

[davo]

How much exposure do I get via traditional media?
Zero.

that's not the point, the point is that the internet is

1/ not free, these companies own the waves
2/ not a democracy, they have more ability to have their view heard than yours

this is not stating that you cannot get 'rich' on the internet, this is just the statement that if you have the money, the means etc, you have a far far better ability to have your view heard over others.



Also this blogger http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=owned
gets more traffic than people far wealthier than him. On the Internet you cannot simply be the highest bidder and shut out the competition. You can buy the content but people have to like your content or the site fails. The Internet is for everyone.

pfft, the internet is for people that can afford to play on it, or have the education or skillsets that may be able to compete. That is not a democracy, it is pure capitalism. dog eat dog.

My 'currency' of education on internet skillsets gives me massive advantage over you for instance. I would be will to prove this if you want, with me being able to get a message out across 'networks' and I bet I can have more people come to a central central 'poll' and choose A than you have come and choose B.

Now a poll doesn't mean anything, but I am just trying to point out, that that is not democracy. If google tomorrow decided to open a website and make it popular, and you did too, who would you put your money on?

That is not 'democracy' .. call it something else, but we have to be realistic about the internet, it is not 'free' and certainly not 'fair and balanced'. Even just amongst the people able to access it, let alone all the people that cannot.


The Internet is owned by everyone,


No it's not, show me how this is??!! what??? I can name the companies that own the internet structures and main pipes. Why do you think bandwidth costs money?? your fooling yourself here.

I own any infrastructure I put online as does anyone else.


No you don't, your renting space off someone like me, who is renting access to commercial space in a serverfarm, who are leasing commercial lines, etc etc etc


Some people just own larger chunks of the Internet than others. Which is a potential problem.

this is what I am talking about, and it is more of a 'problem' than you seem to accept, and certainly NOT a democracy.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

That may well be so, but at least our caring Nanny Government will make sure we don't read about how badly we compare.

The bad part of the nightmare is when Rudd ghost-writes a myriad more children's books, and the excerpts from the bloody things come on as unblockable audiovisual pop-ups in every browser in the country.Reptiles use Tor to access the Internet in such situations so that should not be too much of a problem. It will be a hell of a lot slower but I remember YE OLDE MEDIEVALE DIALUPPE DAYSE and that was damn slow.

[Dan]

My 'currency' of education on internet skillsets gives me massive advantage over you for instance. I would be will to prove this if you want, with me being able to get a message out across 'networks' and I bet I can have more people come to a central central 'poll' and choose A than you have come and choose B.

Now a poll doesn't mean anything, but I am just trying to point out, that that is not democracy. If google tomorrow decided to open a website and make it popular, and you did too, who would you put your money on?


What exactly does that prove? There are website's online which get virtually no hits. Yet they still exist.

[GenericBox]

What exactly does that prove? There are website's online which get virtually no hits. Yet they still exist.

Lol and what exactly does that prove? There are television stations and newspapers which get virtually no viewers/readers. Yet they still exist.

Albeit a website will more than likely last for at least 1 year - due to standard contracts web hosts provide, and the domain will last 2, but that is merely a cost thing.

It is cheaper to keep the website online with no hits than it is to keep a radio/television/newspaper running with no viewers - just simple operating costs.

That in no way effects whether the internet is free (well actually is an argument against free), or democratic.

[Praxis]

I'm very proud to say that my website now has the Internet Blackout script running on it (thanks Fearless!).

... and I don't get many hits (just to show I'm keeping up with the thread :D )

That is all.

Edit to add: I'm thrilled to see the number of sites on the list who are participating in this!
http://www.internetblackout.com.au/websites/

[davo]

This is getting more and more ridiculous .. small boobs are out? wha?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/australian_censors/

[common pirate]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01...alian_censors/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/australian_censors/)

What i dont get is whats so offensive about ejaculation?

Especally female ejaculation? no 'seed' is spilt. what are the grounds of offense, here?

I expect the next ban to be shaved women, using the same grounds as the ban on small boobs!!

[zebba]

What i dont get is whats so offensive about ejaculation?

Especally female ejaculation? no 'seed' is spilt. what are the grounds of offense, here?Many "cultures" (respect, yo!) find women enjoying sex offensive.

[Loki]

There are, believe it or not, people who find other people doing things which come naturally, or are enjoyable, offensive. We are apparently above nature and should put aside any pretensions of enjoying the "baser animal instincts". They excercise these biases (perversions?) by trying to make everyone else do as they say. And they are winning.

Hypocritical pricks.

I wonder if chimpanzees find farts amusing?

[Praxis]

There are, believe it or not, people who find other people doing things which come naturally, or are enjoyable, offensive.
A big hello to all the fundie religious whackjobs the world over!!

[Loki]

Ever noticed it's the people who can't resist their own urges who yell the loudest about stopping everyone elses harmless (generally) fun.

I can resist my natural (as in a result of evolution) urges to believe in woo, maybe I should insist they should as well. Oh wait, i do, now my brain hurts.

[Iridescence]

gaaaah this makes me SO ANGRY! It would be the exact same story if the person making the laws found feet disgusting, so any site depicting feet in a sexual context would be on the ban list! HOW DARE the classification board and government STOMP into people's private spaces like this? HOW DARE THEY? GRRRRR!! I feel completely and utterly powerless as a citizen to stop the censorship of this country, I can't in good conscience vote for either of the major powers, they are as bad as each other! Aside from the fact that female ejaculation is not actually urination. What the hell is up their ass?

What I don't get about the small breasted women ban is that if a person sexually inclined towards the immature could get their jollies over a LEGAL AGE woman with a flat chest then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE??? Take the flat chested legal age women off the internet and out of the adult stores, and they will GO FIND PICTURES OF LITTLE GIRLS INSTEAD!! What kind of idiot can't see this??

I believe strongly that it's a matter of time now until places like this forum are forced offline because some fundie in the censorship board finds godless people distasteful. Or until someone figures out that they can't regulate what international people create in (2'nd Life) and THAT goes onto the ban list, at which time myself and quite a few Australians will lose their livelihood through that channel. :mad:

[Dan]

This is getting more and more ridiculous .. small boobs are out? wha?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/australian_censors/

I can't help but wonder what other countries think when they see the headline "Australia bans small breasts!"

[Seamus]

I wonder if chimpanzees find farts amusing? Can't say I've ever noticed. However,I have very fond memories of dear old George the Orangutan at the Adelaide Zoo.

George had two tricks. He would look at you, insert his index finger into his rectum,remove it, and give it a good suck. Sometimes he would look all pathetic and beckon you to come closer. If you fell for that,he would sneakily put his hand behind his back. When you got close enough--SPLLLATTT! You copped a serve of fresh Orangutan poo. I got some all over my sailor suit. Mum was livid.

George spent much of the rest of the time sitting on his tire swing quietly masturbating.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I can't help but wonder what other countries think when they see the headline "Australia bans small breasts!"Doesn't really matter since many like big breasts anyway. Although the implementation is a little problematic.

[Kimk]

Doesn't really matter since many like big breasts anyway. Although the implementation is a little problematic.

apart from the very idea of banning sites based on breast size or anything else completely natural being incredibly wrong and discriminatory, it's also INCREDIBLY SEXIST! So what if some men like big boobs or small ones! The banning just reinforces the pervasive sexism of the whole damn system! I am totally offended that anyone would think one kind of ban doesn't matter because "many" prefer large breasts! Are mens opinions of womens bodies the only important factor here? Is it just a coincidence that censors find female ejaculation offensive, but not male ejaculation?

Yes, it angers me because I and every other woman are people just like you and not body parts.

Kimk

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

apart from the very idea of banning sites based on breast size or anything else completely natural being incredibly wrong and discriminatory, it's also INCREDIBLY SEXIST! So what if some men like big boobs or small ones! The banning just reinforces the pervasive sexism of the whole damn system! I am totally offended that anyone would think one kind of ban doesn't matter because "many" prefer large breasts! Are mens opinions of womens bodies the only important factor here? Is it just a coincidence that censors find female ejaculation offensive, but not male ejaculation?

Yes, it angers me because I and every other woman are people just like you and not body parts.

KimkTo be honest I was being sarcastic when I said that, hence the smiley as the icon.

I agree with you there. The irony is that it is OK to look at other animals (yet when they have clothes they look kind of odd) and mating on National Geographic for example, yet it is not porn. Also, what about flowers? Don't they have plant penises?

[Devils advocate]

So what is the size that is banned? How do they measure this? Is it like, more than a handfull - ok, less than a handfull - not ok?
How wierd! I agree with Loki, its always the ones who cant control themselves who are trying to limit what every one else can do!

Crazy bastards think that we think like them!

[Loki]

Also, what about flowers? Don't they have plant penises?

Yes, sort of. Plants have such a variety of ways of having sex, and have so many different positions and systems, that they make people look very boring and unimaginative. But don't tell the fruit loops, they will try to ban that too.

[DistroMan]

Ooooh, that would make Don Burke a pimp?

[DistroMan]

Black
Unrepentant Cundallite (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/19/2747585.htm).

Don't say that with a mouthful of popcorn. :rolleyes:

[gruber]

Hitler liked to decide what people could and couldn't say. You'ld think after him governments would be reluctant to censor its citizens

[Dan]

Hitler liked to decide what people could and couldn't say. You'ld think after him governments would be reluctant to censor its citizens

Perhaps they saw the power he had and that motivated them.

[gruber]

Perhaps they saw the power he had and that motivated them.


Maybe they'll also go crazy from a STI and give a gun a blowjob so they save us from their stupidity

[Fearless]

Hungry Beast Channel 2 now talking about this issue... quick! lol

[Praxis]

Bugger. Will have to catch it tomorrow night.

Great they're talking about it! I sent them an email at the end of the series last year suggesting they turn their eye on the issue. I'm sure I'm not the only one who did so either.

Top show - I loved it from the start and I'm nowhere near their target demographic :)

[GenericBox]

Hungry Beast Channel 2?

I'm guessing ABC2?

[Fearless]

Oops sorry, ABC1.

I missed some of it but from what I saw it was a good punch in the guts to stupidity around the whole subject... if I can spot a podcast or something tomorrow I will link it.

[Seamus]

Hitler liked to decide what people could and couldn't say. You'ld think after him governments would be reluctant to censor its citizens


Nah,they just became more devious and more skilled in doublethink than Josef Goebbels.

One of my favourite examples of Aussie pollie doublethink came from our own poisonous dwarf and his explanation that some broken election promise was "not a core promise". Brilliant,I was so impresssed. A current example is the smoke and mirrors of the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Theists are also highly skilled in doublethink,as with the attitude that the Bible means exactly what it says,except when it doesn't.

[Justin]

The extended interview with Conroy (which includes footage not shown on ABC) is available at the ABC HungryBeast (http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/stephen-conroy-extended-interview) site.

Conroy again shows his total ignorance. I continue to be amazed at how these elitist Catholic senators (see also Atkinson from SA (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175)) exhibit their total disdain for the public.

[Atrax Robustus]

SO - 80% of Australians support the filter? (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/80-of-Aussies-support-filter-/0,130061791,339300949,00.htm).

Conroy told Hungry Beast that the Federal Government was in discussions with Google to outsource the filtering of YouTube.

"What we're saying is that in Australia these are our laws and we'd like you to apply our laws and so that we think that where we can reasonably work with them, we're able to do it. I mean Google at the moment filter enormous amount of material on behalf of the Chinese Government," Conroy told Hungry Beast's Dan Ilic.


He ACTUALLY said this? :eek:

[Praxis]

He ACTUALLY said this? :eek:
Sadly, he did ... :confused:

[Dan]

He also said

Google currently censors and filters the internet extensively itself.
Which is obviously bullshit, Google is not an ISP.

http://greensmps.org.au/content/transcript/internet-filtering-department

[Praxis]

He also said


Which is obviously bullshit, Google is not an ISP.

http://greensmps.org.au/content/transcript/internet-filtering-department
Are you suggesting our Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy knows nothing about how teh intertubes work? :eek:

[atheist_angel]

Censorship should be reserved for the bible..It is practically X-rated.

Think of the children...

[GUDLUSS]

Swears useable 'cause they're in the Bible, by Bart Simpson:
Damn
Hell
Ass
Whore
Leviticus

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I hope somebody will kick this damn Conroy in the leviticus if he filters out the whore and his ass will go to hell!

[Praxis]

EFA have launched a "hub site" regarding the internet censor.

http://openinternet.com.au/

Very worth supporting. Put it on your FaceBook if you participate in that. I've started a discussion on Nexus with a site link.

Australians can send Conroy a very sharp message at the election. He HAS to go, same as Steve (Fundies First) Fielding.

[gruber]

I have a question about the small tits ban...... Does that involve man boobs:rolleyes:

[Huggz]

Atheists of Australia, I come to you with an important message. As you may know, the government of our country is planning to censor the internet. While their current rationale is that they are only blocking pornography, they will have no obligation to make it public which sites they are blocking, and as I am sure you can see, this could lead to blocking anything which goes against the beliefs and best interests of our government. As fellow atheists - logical, intelligent people - I am sure you will agree that this has to stop. To this end, peaceful protests are being planned for the 20th of this month and the 6th of the next. For details, and to get involved, visit projectfreeweb.org.
Thank you for your time.

[Seamus]

-----and you are?

Sorry mate,I don't know you.Right now you are just some bloke with a personal agenda who has barged into my discussion forum without having the manners to introduce himself. For all I know you might simply be some Liberal party hack trying to embarrass the government. I assure you they need no help,although with the mad monk and Shrek (Hockey) neither do the Liberals.

PS: An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god(s). Nothing else is implied or may be inferred. We are not a religion,an ideology, a movement or a political lobby group.We have no shared values.

[zebba]

Of course, we aren't all Seamus either.
Seamus needs some Huggz, eh? :p

@OP - http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=3164. Most of us are on top of this issue, and many of us are fitting some form of activism into our schedule.

But I'm not overly confident Huggz will be back to read this. A little more effort posting up the forms of protest being proposed and trying to sell the issue would have generated a lot more goodwill. Seamus may be blunt but he has a point...

[Seamus]

Of course, we aren't all Seamus either.

Quit right. Why do you think I hate most people on sight? (apart from saving a lot of time)


Besides,if it looks like a duck---That guy looked like a seagull to me,and I called it as I saw it.


Mr Black ,I look forward to patronising you at the earliest opportunity.:p

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Is it just me or does this look like spam for the benefit of mankind? :p

[Praxis]

Gee, we've never heard of this internet censorship thing ...

*face palm*

This thread will now merged with the sticky topic :rolleyes:

[Praxis]

There'll be another protest against the internet filter today in Melbourne from 12 pm - 4 pm, on the steps of Flinders Street Station.

You can check here to see if there's a protest organised in an area near you: http://www.projectfreeweb.org/map

I'm not sure who's organising these but I think Anonymous are involved.

We went to the last one in Melbourne in December 08 (on a cold and rainy Melbourne summer's day!) and it was okay but quite poorly attended.

I sincerely hope the organisers this time have actually organised. Half the problem is getting the word out.

Low attendance figures make it look like no one cares about the issue, which is just what the government want.

Now more than ever, it is so important to speak out against this insidious thing.

Complacency from the public will be one of the key levers used by the government to spin their "it's what people want" weasel words. They'll twist it to mean that silence and indifference mean consent.

So even if you've never attended a protest before, and you care about the proposed plan to censor your internet, understand about scope creep and the insidious nature of just what is being planned for Australian internet use, then now is the time to stand up and be counted.

(I'll merge this with the filter thread tomorrow - I want it to stand on its own today though so more people see it).

See you there!

[Praxis]

Okay, I've just been advised (through Atheist Nexus) that today's protests are being organised/run by Anonymous, the people who brought us Operation Titstorm.


I don't condone those cyber attacks and totally understand how they did the whole protest at the filter a grave disservice.


I am told there's a genuine (for want of a better word!) protest planned for 6 March. I don't have any more details about that as yet though.


So I don't think I will be going today as I don't want to be aligned with those who carried out those attacks.


Might just go out for a nice ride on the bikes instead :)


(and I'll merge this into the other thread now, too)

[heresy]

Lilic
"It seems to me this(internet filter) is like putting a damn in the middle of the ocean"

Conroy
"Its kind of like saying if you can't stop something 100% with a government law, you shouldn't bother having the law"

"we should get rid of the underage drinking laws because kids still manage to find a way to get around the drinking laws and drink. We should get rid of speeding laws because some people in Australia still speed"

I can't believe that Lilac didn't pick up that Speeding and under-age drinking can be shown to have possible health effects. As opposed to watching videos on fetish websites

[atheist_angel]

Now I've got a mental image of someone putting a dam through the middle of a library because they didn't like a book found in the literature section and they thought the photography section was offensive.

Even if the library had a puddle of water, a mop would have been better.

[Praxis]

Now I've got a mental image of someone putting a dam through the middle of a library because they didn't like a book found in the literature section and they thought the photography section was offensive.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Now I've got a mental image of someone putting a dam through the middle of a library because they didn't like a book found in the literature section and they thought the photography section was offensive.

Even if the library had a puddle of water, a mop would have been better.Didn't that sort of thing happen in the dark ages?

[Praxis]

Scott Ludlam has been a small but shining light on the political landscape of this sorry saga.

I am seriously considering voting Green but I will need to see where they will direct their preferences. If they're smart (and paying attention) they will give preferences to the Sex Party, although I'm not sure if they will.

[Kid]

I'm going to join the Sex Party, Praxis; if you take a look at my "Rudd" post on this forum, and the other one, 'wait there's more', they link to Sex Party articles on the Internet filter and another one about rising censorship here in Australia, by Ross Fitzgerald. very interesting stuff. (I even went a little crazy yesterday and made a monetary donation to the Sex Party...I have been known to go crazy quite a lot lately, it's a symptom of someone trying to take away my precious Internet freedom and usage, upon which I rely for my work...)

[Phroso]

Nah, it's just been given the go-ahead to run it through parliment next year.
And there's an interesting quote from someone we're all very familiar with about this:
"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
~Adolf Hitler

It's a nice quote but I can't find the source? Did Hitler really say this or is it just another example of Internet apochrypha?

[Praxis]

Ugh. Derspatz. Nasty little Whirlpool troll. I remember him well :rolleyes:

[GenericBox]

Democrats would be a better vote if your after an anti-censorship party.

Plus they support R18 games, same-sex marriage and other issues of that nature.

http://www.nointernetcensorship.com/

http://www.democrats.org.au/

[Peter A]

Who knows what else could be blocked.

Scepticism about man-made global warming caused by the release of CO2 by transport and industry. That will certainly be censored. :mad:

If this, absolutely daft, idea is ever implemented, Australia will become the village idiot of the global village. No doubt the Chinese and Saudis will happy.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

If there is one thing they will NOT be able to touch it will be HTTPS and P2P networks. Pretty much the illegal stuff goes through the P2P networks, and so does a lot of child porn, so it is obvious they do NOT intend to block illegal material or child porn, because they are not targetting P2P networks, and certainly wouldn't dream of touching HTTPS now would they? Still, we will pay for a stupid censorship regime which slows these connections.

[Phroso]

More on the proposed Australian Internet Censorship Madness!

I still can't believe that Australians can accept such draconian restrictions on the Internet without being generally outraged!


A TOP media rights watchdog has listed Australia alongside Iran and North Korea in a report on countries that pose a threat of internet censorship.

Paris-based media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) last night put Australia and South Korea on its list of countries "under surveillance" in its Internet Enemies Report.

Australia was listed for the Rudd Government's plan to institute a national internet filter.

The Government says the filter will block access to websites featuring material such as rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse. Critics say the plan is a misguided measure that will mistakenly block innocent sites, slow internet speeds and infringe on civil liberties.

See Adelaide Now @ http://tinyurl.com/yzmbhug

[OzAtheist]

Whilst watching QI last night Fry stated that only 1% of the net is porn, a little googling found this: http://ow.ly/1mMUq
If this is the case, and from another site I found that they agreed but mentioned the study didn't include peer-to-peer (which won't be filtered anyway), then what is Conroy so worried about?

[davros]

Scott Ludlam has been a small but shining light on the political landscape of this sorry saga.

I am seriously considering voting Green but I will need to see where they will direct their preferences. If they're smart (and paying attention) they will give preferences to the Sex Party, although I'm not sure if they will.

Vote below the line and control all your preference distribution. Its not that hard, just start numbering at one the best (least bad?) candidate then go through the obscure ones and finally to the major parties and figure out which to put last. Takes a couple of minutes at most.

[Praxis]

Vote below the line and control all your preference distribution. Its not that hard, just start numbering at one the best (least bad?) candidate then go through the obscure ones and finally to the major parties and figure out which to put last. Takes a couple of minutes at most.
Yep, Himself and I were discussing that today over lunch. This time, it's below the line all the way. As far as putting last goes, it's all the odious xtian and Fundies First shite and work our way up from there :)

[heresy]

Good idea, we need an awareness campaign

If everyone in Victoria was made aware that 99% of them did not vote for Steve "earth is less than 10,000 years old" Christian Fielding...
and yet he still got elected!!!!

maybe that could be a wake up call..
get some greens, sex party , SECULAR party reps to the senate

[Praxis]

Good idea, we need an awareness campaign

If everyone in Victoria was made aware that 99% of them did not vote for Steve "earth is less than 10,000 years old" Christian Fielding...
and yet he still got elected!!!!

maybe that could be a wake up call..
get some greens, sex party , SECULAR party reps to the senate
Couldn't agree more. Now HOW do we do that?

[c2009]

Vote below the line and control all your preference distribution. Its not that hard, just start numbering at one the best (least bad?) candidate then go through the obscure ones and finally to the major parties and figure out which to put last. Takes a couple of minutes at most.

I've already determined I'm going to be doing this at the next election. And probably permanently from now on.

[Loki]

I've always numbered under the line, starting from the last choice, and working up. There is great satisfaction in taking a blank senate paper and neatly writing 83 next to Fred Nile (or whatever the last number is). It was also really satisfying to write 82 next to Flo BjelkePeterson, but other idiots are there now, providing almost as much satisfaction. Filling in from 1 to 80 can get a bit tedious but it's still worth it.

[gruber]

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442 (http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442)


even if there is major support against it, the bloody idiots will most likely still go ahead with it

[Fearless]

it seems Conroy is getting threats now...
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroys-net-gag-sparks-assassination-and-bomb-plot-chatter-20100325-qyv2.html

Do you think 4chan might appear somewhere near the top of of the filter blacklist somehow? :rolleyes:

I agree with positive and passive action but personal threats is going waaaay too far. You start rubbing shoulders with the feds for that kind of stuff. Not a good example for positive action, has the reverse effect.

[Vangelis]

Physical threats is just plain dumb. If they want to be smart about it, what they should do is publish a list of governemnt websites that will be attacked using a DoS attack just like Titstorm once the internet filter is turned on. Effectively this means that government websites will be "banned" from public viewing until such time as the internet filter is removed.

[Praxis]

Merging this into the long-running sticky thread on the topic in News & Current Affairs :)

[davo]

sigh most of these people will be teenagers talking it up on 4chan. The media will blow it out of all proportion, some kids will get arrested etc etc etc

sigh

[Dane]

Good news, everyone! Conroy is going to be completely obliterated, but his own obliviousness will keep him together.

http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/conroy-to-debate-newton-lumby-jacobs-live-on-radio-national/

If the fools on the 7pm Project can ask intelligent questions, he'll have no hope here. But since when has that stopped him?

[Fearless]

Banned website list won't be made public

http://www.news.com.au/technology/banned-website-list-wont-be-made-public/story-e6frfrnr-1225847193801?from=igoogle+gadget+compact+news_rss

It gets better!

But the blacklist put together by the communications watchdog has not been made public, raising concerns that governments can impose censorship without proper oversight.

Even Google and the US have had a say!

Some of the world's largest providers of internet services, including Google and Yahoo, have criticised the Government's plans to introduce a filter, describing the move as heavy-handed.

But will this make any ounce of difference?

Are we turning into the nanny safe country?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

What I want to know is that, even if the banned filter list was made in public, wouldn't the URL's be blocked anyway? Can't use the excuse that the illegal material will be accessed if the list goes public then eh? :p

[Fearless]

Maybe it's a just in case clause for when people bypass the filter, they won't be able to find anything anyway... So clever!

It's like 'ha pedo, what ya gunna do now?'

/sarcasm

[riddlemethis]

This is just all so much posturing for Family First because the ALP are going to need them to deal with the severed horses head on the table that is Telstra, in time for the election. It is strange that they think by not abandoning the mum & dad 'investors' they will retain power. I can honestly say that I have never cast a vote for the libs in my 22 years of being on the electoral role, but this year my preferences will be going to them because at least I know what to expect. KRudd and his boys are all over the place like a mad-woman's breakie & there is a decidedly pungent whiff of deep christianity about the cabinet that I simply can't abide. At least with the mad-monk his stupid religious tendencies are countered by his equally strong committment to not wasting money on obviously stupid shit! It's either this or I'm emigrating. . .fuck knows where though.

[prolisp]

What I want to know is that, even if the banned filter list was made in public, wouldn't the URL's be blocked anyway? Can't use the excuse that the illegal material will be accessed if the list goes public then eh? :p

This seems like a neat argument at first, but unfortunately Australia isn't the only country with Internet access. Making the blacklist public would provide transparency, but would effectively be broadcasting a list of untasteful sites for everyone else to peruse. The nature of at least some of the websites is sure to be truly disturbing, and I'm not sure we want our government to be giving out such URL's to masses of people who're curious to see what all the fuss is about.

That's the real issue - providing the sort of transparency we want in the process has a horrible trade-off that we shouldn't be willing to accept, whereas the very nature of the blacklist demands such transparency to avoid being abused. It's either no filter at all, or it's a filter with very little - or no - transparency. Conroy can't accept the former as a possibility and therefore wastes everyone's time chasing a democracy-decaying toy.

[grom]

This seems like a neat argument at first, but unfortunately Australia isn't the only country with Internet access. Making the blacklist public would provide transparency, but would effectively be broadcasting a list of untasteful sites for everyone else to peruse. The nature of at least some of the websites is sure to be truly disturbing, and I'm not sure we want our government to be giving out such URL's to masses of people who're curious to see what all the fuss is about.

Untasteful? Who are you or the government to declare what is untasteful? I'll judge for myself, thanks very much. And I hope every adult person does the same - and judges for him/herself, instead of having some other person's opinion on what is tasteful or not thrown on them.

Transparency is much more important than these false teste ideals you profess. The more control we have over the government, the better; especially in this case, since that rat Sen. Conroy knows very little about what he's talking about, and his covert muppet agenda is showing.

One more time: you may personally find something "untasteful," but that judgement means nothing at all outside your home.

[kanook]

whoa whoa whoa, so the government has pissed away over $30 mill tax payers money for something that the parliament hasnt even approved yet.


Exactly right, Labour doesnt have the numbers to get it through themselves so they need the greens and independents I believe to pass it.

From the number of bills that have been denied since Labour got in I doubt this will pass. Conroy is a complete idiot!

In a recent interview he states that this filter is needed to stop three hundred and something web sites, so they have spent millions upon millions of dollars to stop three hundred and something sites out of approx 1 Trillion!

The other thing this Nimrod upon Nimrods stated is that he disagrees with GOOGLE, yep thats right, this guy ( who is another religious freak ) with no life experience in the IT Industry, none at all, knows more than GOOGLE!!
He says that GOOGLES own filtering is harsher than what he wants to implement?????????? What??????? So why does he want to implement a filter if googles own filters are tougher?????

Also this clown of clowns repeats over and over again that this is to stop Kiddie Fiddlers and Child Porn, Again he has shown his stupidity by not understanding that These animals dont have a website that says "CHILD PORN! HERE!", they operate password protected sites that people cant stumble into and they share their evil much through P2P file sharing, so this filter will stop not one Kiddie Fiddler, not a single one.

Also he fails to understand that the big issue in Oz and around the world is the grooming these swine do in chat rooms and places like facebook etc, again this filter will stop none of this.

I wrote to the PM a few days ago amd told him that his Government has lost mine and my families votes in the next election, I will not have some anon Government Dept making a list about what I can and cant see, how long before a religious zealot leader ( like the idiot christians that Rudd, Abbott and the rest) decides that websites like this one are dangerous?

Dont laugh its probable, on their list they will include what they class as terrorists, now dont I have the right to decide if someone is a Terrorist? What about Nelson Mandella , branded by his Government as a Terrorist, but seen by the rest of the world as a freedom fighter.

I suggest you all email the PM and express your disgust, I mean honestly how many of you have ever seen a child pron website, none I bet, they just dont exist.

Like I said on another forum, I will vote Tree Hugger with no preferences next election, no koala has threatened to take my net!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

The Pirate Party and Phil Nitschke teaching people how to bypass this piece of shit! (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/040610-pirate-party-and-phil-nitschke.html)
It looks like Tony Abbott isn't convinced either! (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/no-proof-isp-filtering-works-abbott/story-e6frgakx-1225850260443)

[Fromm_Nicht]

Has there been any discussion or organisation of a campaign of emails to Obama's office to ask him to put Rudd in an uncomfortable position during his visit? Could someone supply me with a link if there already has?

[GodwinGrey]

Are we turning into the nanny safe country?


When the law says if you run out of petrol you have to wait for a patrol car we'll be the equal of Sweden, until then I reckon we're running a close second.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Some interview text regarding the filter, with Stephen Conroy and Jimbo Wallace making arses out of themselves unwittingly (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2873045.htm)

Conroy's filter will not make the Internet safer - report by Suzanne Dvorak (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2813455.htm)

[Kosmos]

If I see one more report that uses the word 'cyber' in it as a substitute for internet or on-line activities, I might have to go off and have a private scream, and release a trained killer rabbit to peck out the idiot's eyes.

[atheist echo]

Conroy and his supporters would have us believ that this is just about protecting children but even if this si so it's the thine dge of the wedge. Once this is legislated what's to stop future govts from enforcing this in a more malevolent way.:confused:

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Forget future governments, how can we be sure the current government will not eventually enforce this in a more malevolent way?

[GodwinGrey]

i'll just post this link incase nobody else has.

http://www.efa.org.au/

[atheist echo]

Forget future governments, how can we be sure the current government will not eventually enforce this in a more malevolent way?
Yes, thank you I should have mentioned that too.
This law gives the state power that it shouldn't have.:mad:

[c2009]

I am personally of the opinion that the state should have NO right of censorship (as it stands there are over forms of censorship that are ongoing). Combating child porn at the source is the best way to go... The AFP teams who are tasked with combating this have done reasonably well over the years.

I've done some reading on the subject and Australia sadly has an extensive history of censorship. There needs to be a stand against this. Now. Such a resounding cry as has never been heard.

Sadly I fear most Australians are far to apathetic to achieve this. :(

[Seamus]

I've done some reading on the subject and Australia sadly has an extensive history of censorship.

Indeed. When I was growing up film and print censorship was extreme.Not just sexual content,but many American horror films were also banned.Films and books could also be banned for political content.

The R rated film was not introduced here until the early 1970's. Here in aunty Adelaide one still cannot see porn in a cinema. Would I? NO; very boring mostly.

Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' ('My Struggle')was banned here,as were the works of the Marquis De Sade. The Hitler book is worth reading to see into the mediocre mind of a complete nutter. A copy of 'Mein Kampf' was found in vast numbers of German homes during the Third Reich.Sadly, few people seemed to read it.(not what I'd call a real page turner) If more had actually read the insane drivel, someone might have put Hitler down like the mad dog he was.

De Sade? Well,a little extreme.I like to think of him as a pioneer sexual psychologist.:p


--and lets not forget the Catholic Index Liborum Prohibitorum (abolished by Pope Paul V1 in 1966)The index told Catholics what books they MUST not read under penalty of mortal sin. It covered just about any topic you can think off,with the possible exception of ant farming.

All major films were reviewed in the Catholic newspapers and Catholics told which were acceptable.The State had sex and politics pretty much covered,so the Church was especially vigilant against blasphemy,which could be almost anything contradicting Catholic dogma.

I oppose censorship in any form. I do not consider the banning of film or anything else exploiting and harming children to be censorship. I also believe such things as child beauty pageants should be banned and the children removed from their fuckwitted parents.

I'm also bemused that our politicians have neglected to mention that child pornography is also a multi BILLION dollar international business,controlled mainly by organised crime. Attack the source.that means the producers.--and a bang up job international agencies are doing so far. When there 's enough money involved, there is virtually always corruption at very high levels.That's another layer of the onion. .


In my opinion the idea of an internet filter as described by the politicians is ignorant and naive at best and cynically dishonest at worst.


From Wikipedia


Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing criminal segments on the internet.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-ncmec-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-infoweek-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-indiatimes-18)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-Levesque-19)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-Mattei-20)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-Scherer-21)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-delisi-22) Producers of child pornography try to avoid prosecution by distributing their material across national borders, though this issue is increasingly being addressed with regular arrests of suspects from a number of countries occurring over the last few years.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-doj1-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-ncmec-16) NCMEC claims that around 20 % of all pornography contains children.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-23)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

[IVPITER]

The whole internet censorship just shows how irrational the government is. I can't understand why they would do it.

In terms of censorship in Australia, when Star Trek TOS was aired much of it was censored due the fight scenes.

[IVPITER]

I've happen to have read The Spy Who Loved Me. To have been censored is such a joke. It's quite sad the amount of censorship still going on today.

[Kosmos]

Part of the problem with the RC categorisation is the scope of what it includes... Child Pornography, beastiality, drug use information, instruction in crime, information likely to be of use to a drug user, information likely to be of use to a criminal, information likely to be of use to a terrorist, instruction in terrorism, Socially challenging materials (such as abortion and, drug users harm reduction materials and euthanasia), Politically contreversial materials (such as abortion, drug users harm reduction materials and euthanasia).

When you look at the broad nature of the refused classification category, and then think that you can apply it to a dynamic service that is growing at a billion URL's a day, you get the feeling that government would be better trying to filter a beach for particles of sand.

[IVPITER]

Maybe it's a crazy idea but the government could put extra funding to the police to investigate the illegal sites and tell parents to supervise young kids when on the internet.

[Kosmos]

Maybe it's a crazy idea but the government could put extra funding to the police to investigate the illegal sites and tell parents to supervise young kids when on the internet.


That would be sensible and at no point whatsoever does it imply that the governement has the appearance of doing anything at all. Now re-think the suggested strategy so that it costs millions of dollars, and makes the government look busy and know what its talking about, because the less responsibility parents have, the safer children will be.

[IVPITER]

So either enough voters don't how the filter is bad policy or the government thought that enough of the voters wouldn't see that the filter is bad policy.

[Kosmos]

So either enough voters don't how the filter is bad policy or the government thought that enough of the voters wouldn't see that the filter is bad policy.

Exactly. Democracy works when people make an informed choice, but let me ask you this, who is doing the informing?

To most parental voters in Australia, anything that means they have to do less to keep an eye on their kids while they hold down multiple jobs is a good thing. 'I dont need to worry about little johnny on the Internet because the government will protect him.' And if he isn't protected the government failed in its job and it has nothing to do with me being a bad parent.

To the voters who are technologically literate the proposal is not a good idea, as it can stifle throughput, free-debate, free-access to information, and for some people it can be life threatening (especially those who rely on harm reduction information).

To the religious voters, they are very happy. The evangilist religious morons think we have too much freedom in which to discuss, support and help each other. A filter fits nicely into their hands, they can now successfully stifle debate on a range of tricky subjects like abortion and euthanasia. They will preach to their mass what to think, and then lobby to have it applied to everyone. In an open world that is transparent these people have no authority, an open forum is exactly the kind of place they fear the most.

To everyone else, they dont really care, they just view it as a lot of crap occupying air time between Survivor or CSI repeats. Most people dont care, and will probably most likely want it in place because it sounds like someone is doing something, even though they dont know about exactly what it is they are doing...

Those who care will fight it out amongst themselves, but the masses don't give a rats about who wins the debate, they only want it to be over so they can watch CSI and not bother about the kids for a few hours...

[GodwinGrey]

I am personally of the opinion that the state should have NO right of censorship (as it stands there are over forms of censorship that are ongoing). Combating child porn at the source is the best way to go... The AFP teams who are tasked with combating this have done reasonably well over the years.

I've done some reading on the subject and Australia sadly has an extensive history of censorship. There needs to be a stand against this. Now. Such a resounding cry as has never been heard.

Sadly I fear most Australians are far to apathetic to achieve this. :(

So we should be allowed to watch child porn but not allow making it?

Sorry, I'm against censorship as well but we have to have some. This issue is about internet filters as far as I'm concerned.

[GodwinGrey]

There's been lots of political censorship in Australia too.

The secrecy of the process, and the futility of the so-called purpose, give rise to doubts about what is actually intended.

The tendency of governments to wish to hide material critical of their deeds and policies (not to mention anything which points out lies and glaring errors) would indicate that any secret process will be misused eventually, if not from the very outset.

Right!!

[Fearless]

Internet filter debate delayed beyond June

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/173365,internet-filter-debate-delayed-beyond-june.aspx

Well, there you have it!... KRudd has decided to sweep this little beauty under the carpet until after the election.

It hasn't been canned, just conveniently 'delayed'.

"You see that flash of light in the corner of your eye? That's your career dissipation light. It just went into high gear." Firefighter Brian McCaffrey - Backdraft :p

[Fearless]

Well his new $2 in yer pocket cigarette pack rise is going to be his next sting.... I'm starting to think the guy gets off on things like this.

I wonder if he walks around when no one is home with his red undies outside of his trousers... voom voom!

[Dan]

Maybe it's a crazy idea but the government could put extra funding to the police to investigate the illegal sites and tell parents to supervise young kids when on the internet.

The filter has nothing to do with Children, I wish people would drop their obsession with it. The filter; just like every filter that has ever existed in all of human history is about controlling information. I gladly invite people to try and explain any other use for such a system.

What needs to be asked is: Why does the government wish to control our speech, why should our conversations need their approval? This is NOT how a democracy operates.

[Podo]

Ive written to my local federal parlimenty member about this twice.

After the first time I received a 10 page response from conroys office. It was just some document that tried to justify the whole thing. In response I wrote directly to conroy ( and sent a copy to Rudds office) expalining how flawed said document was, and how I didnt want some chritofuckwit fooling around with my access to information. No response

The second time I wrote I still havent received a reply

I should point out that my local member agreed with me

[Fearless]

Here in Victoria the government in its infinite wisdom... well namely Premier John Brumby decided a farking big long pipe from the northern country area to Melbourne would be a great idea.

toNaiN04pYE

Protests, rallies, petitions, discussions did nothing to stop it.... the pipe is still being installed regardless. They don't listen to the people. If they want to do something they bloody well will regardless.

So we couldn't stop a pipe being built so how does the whole of Australia stop the filter coming in? Even Google and some other giants warning against it has had no effect. They are going to do this no matter what.

What I now want to know is if the project has been pushed back behind the election what if they lose control? Will the 'other guys' keep going with the idea? I haven't read enough into that.

So frustrating how narrow minded these guys are.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Black - one would certainly hope that it would work. But remember when Ol' Johnny Howard said "GST would never be implemented in our policies" a little over 12 years ago?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Of course I remember, Croc.

Tell me the how this relates, without resorting to the "All Pollies = Liars" fallback, please.

Greens have said they would block the filter, and their record on opposing stuff they say they will oppose is pretty good.

There are other parties running for Senate spots who will, I am sure, be equally true in opposing the Conroy cyber-chokehold, but I used the Greens as I perceive them having the best chance at significant numbers.Whilst I do not resort to the "All Pollies = Liars" fallback, I do resort to some sort of "sandbox" if you know what I mean. Basically, I am not saying it is NOT worth a shot, but I think I would like to be prepared in case they do not block the filter.

Kevin 07 kept one promise when he went into the election: he made a formal apology to the aborigines. So I am not saying that they lie all the time, but I'm proceeding with caution.

[Fromm_Nicht]

One of the major political problems in this country is that a majority of the population seem to think they only have two choices. In other words "if labor is being naughty you have to vote liberal." It seems to me that even the greens themselves seem to feel this way as they often campaign for crucial places in the senate rather than campaigning for government. If the greens were to achieve government it would send a powerful message to the two major parties that major reform of their ranks and policies is needed.

[Dan]

After the first time I received a 10 page response from conroys office.

It's an auto responder they send the exact same letter to everyone. But are you really surprised that an anti-freespeech government is unwilling to discuss the issue?

[atheist echo]

The positive side to all of this is that people from various political points of view have become united in their opposition to this. I'm looking forward to next week's Q and A. I think the debate will get heated.

[Mentally Saturated]

Tonite on ABC's Four Corners (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2893505.htm):

"Access Denied

...reporter Quentin McDermott reveals how an apparently well meaning attempt by Government to protect children from video nasties on the net turned into a policy that critics say promotes censorship and reduces personal freedom. "Access Denied", Monday 10th May, 8.30pm on ABC1. Repeated Tuesday 11th May, 11.35pm." Note: Quote not from above link.

Damn, I've gotta get some video editing done. Hundreds of Gb's of TV captures... and running out of space very, very quickly.. :(

Looking forward to this program.

Gary

[Mentally Saturated]

From my link above..

"In 2007 the then Federal Labor Opposition made a big election promise: if elected it would oversee the introduction of a system that would filter out porn and other nasty video material to protect kids. The move drew praise from many people, including the former head of the Australia Institute, Clive Hamilton, who'd been warning for some time the web was not child friendly:

"Any curious 14 year old can go from a site that shows men and women having sex in all sorts of different ways to a woman being penetrated in every orifice... to sites which show incest and promote incest, to sites that show bestiality, explicit pictures of say women having sex with animals.""

Yes, they can.. and that's exactly the way it should be. It's up to the fucking parents to take responsibility for the computer and internet access in their home... :mad:

Now before I get roasted for being irresponsible, please let me explain that I'm not an anarchist. Yes, there's content out there that I believe shouldn't be accessible, but I'm sorry.. proposing censorship such as this simply leaves the door open far too wide to inevitable corruption and repression. And this is, unfortunately, where I can't help but reveal a small level of tech-snobbery.

Where on EARTH did people ever get the idea that the Internet is MEANT to be a "family-friendly" landscape ? It was never designed to be, it never has been, and personally, I think it never should be. I've always considered the best analogy as being like a wilderness... Antarctica perhaps, or even the popular notion of The Wild West from TV and film.

Slowly, over a period between 10 and 15 yrs ago, Mr and Mrs Public and their 2.2 children were first inundated with marketing, mostly by department stores and other multi-national conglomerates, for personal computers and access to this massive world-wide network. Companies such as Telstra made it 10 times worse with unbelievably saturated advertising of "easy access". The majority of these people often knew very little, if not absolutely nothing about computers OR the Internet, and all these years later, many of them still don't... but they can FUCKING VOTE about how our Government enforces access to it.

I've never understood how blissfully arrogant people can be with regards to owning personal computers and having Internet access. I think these devices are quite likely the most complex thing, other than your own brain, that you're going to come into contact with in your entire life (honestly, think about it for a moment), yet most will openly invite them into their lives without care of repercussion or responsibility, sold on a dream of almost unbounded entertainment and utility.

These people have no idea what the Internet really is, and what restricting access to it actually means. Most will care not about the voice it gives to the oppressed or, for example, how it has the power to bring multi-national corporations onto a level playing field with a small local business (use of the Internet for business/commerce use is actually a bastardisation of it's original intended purpose).

Just like our roads system, if there's any legislation I'd be supporting, it'd be that which introduces the need for licensing for internet access, if only to get people to consider that they perhaps also have a responsibility to others in their internet use (eg. are U unknowingly contributing to a malicious botnet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet) ?). Different licences classes allow different levels of access, and have different levels of responsibility. How about we educate people first, before letting them loose in the wilderness..

In a nutshell, we don't need a Government forcing us to use a safety net at the expense of our freedoms. If U want to use a net, use one (in this case, content blocking software.. but this WILL require U to actually fucking LEARN SOMETHING about how your computer and the Internet works, so I guess the chances of THAT happening are slim.. care factor zero :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:). Don't support legislation that tells everyone that they have to use it, too.

/end rant.

Gary

[Podo]

Gary

Agreed completly. I didnt quote your post so as to save space

This was basicallythe thrust of my letter to Conroy. Internet filtering is fine, but it should be done IN THE HOME.

A goverment sponsored, easy to install and use home filter is what they should be doing, not censoring the net.

[Dane]

Gary

Agreed completly. I didnt quote your post so as to save space

This was basicallythe thrust of my letter to Conroy. Internet filtering is fine, but it should be done IN THE HOME.

A goverment sponsored, easy to install and use home filter is what they should be doing, not censoring the net.
The Howard government did that, and the uptake wasn't that great. Was it because the government knew fuck all about the internet to advertise it, or was it just because very few people wanted and even less people needed it? "Hmm, these people need this but they don't want it. Let's make it mandatory, that will help them!"


Anyway, Four Corners and Q&A tonight on ABC addressed filtering. I suggest checking it out on ABC iView if you missed it.

[Podo]

The Howard government did that, and the uptake wasn't that great. Was it because the government knew fuck all about the internet to advertise it, or was it just because very few people wanted and even less people needed it? "Hmm, these people need this but they don't want it. Let's make it mandatory, that will help them!"




Very true, and this was talked about in great detail in Conroys auto response to me. Basically as you say " The Howard Government did this but there was little interest shown by the public' " so, if they dont want it, we will force it on everyone !! great thinking !

I would suggest that the Howard offer was a failure because bugger all people knew about it, it was easily bypassed by some smartarse 12 year old and Im not sure on this, but I think it was a cheap product anyway.

If the goverment wanted to do something, they should be heavily subsidising well known respected products such as Nortons / Mcafee, Trend etc. via some cashback / tax deduction / whatever. That would probably be cheaper, better, and less draconian than conroys fanciful exercise

[kanook]

Yep, watched four corners and Q&A last night. Four Corners was a bit of a staid report. I believe that certain questions and responses from experts should have been put to the minister to force him to say that it wont work. Interesting to see the hall full of elderly being taught how to circumvent the filter so they can access info on euthanasia.

I still dont know why I or any other adult shouldnt be allowed to access info on euthanasia if I want to, but as we know the Christian's are running the country and it goes against their beliefs. They also had some knob Christian Rep who said the filter should be in, they also had some weirdo woman who supposedly represented some child protection group saying the filter should be in place as it will protect children! I have no idea where she gets her info from as this filter will not protect one child!

Q & A was more interesting, unfortunately Conroy wasnt there, not surprising. They had some Minister for something there, there was a shadow minister who only wanted to spruke about the Liberals so she didnt get to talk much. They also ran Tweets along the bottom of the screen during the discussion and they all said that they disagreed with the plan.

They had the founder of, and correct me if Im wrong "Get Up". He was very good and made clear points against the filter and was very warmly applauded by the audience. The Labour minister kept on reciting their same mantra that the filter is to protect children from pedophiles blah blah blah, he even came across with the same arrogance as Conroy implying that if you dont support the filter then that means you support pedophiles!

Many on the panel also stated that a filter should be at home, placed by parents to protect their children not on the whole country, again the labour minister just pooh poohed this idea.

At the end of the show a Tweet asked the compare to ask the Audience to raise their hands if they disagree with the filter, from what I could see almost every member of the audience raised their hands, the compare said to the Govt Minister something like "Doesnt this tell you something?"

The Government has shelved the filter until after the election (I believe this is the case), They will not dump the plan as they have dumped too many plans and many would see this as another failure of the Govt. They want to go to the election and hope to win a majority so they can then pass this tripe without hindrance.

Now do i believe that Labour will increase its numbers? No, It will lose numbers, will it lose the election? No I dont believe so, Tony Abbott is just to extreme and many free thinkers dont want another rampant christian in the big job. Will The Greens increase their numbers? Yes they will, they will hold balance, as they have stated that they will not support the filter i believe this piece of Crap Idea of a filter will be dead and buried, thats why I as a life long labour voter will be voting Greens next election, without preferences going to the major parties.

[Seamus]

Did anyone read the article in the Weekend Australian defending internet censorship? I think it could convince a lot of people.


Why is that so many people seem to think parliamentary democracy is rule by consensus?

We elect one of a limited number of venal incompetents and hubristic crunts to fuck up the country. Once elected they inevitably, sooner or later,upset the majority and ignore the howls of protest. (unless of course there is a looming election.)

Sometimes they get it wrong,and upset the swinging voters,that few percent who actually control elections.

The action might be something like selling off public assets or censorship. It seems to me people are unable to grasp the simple reality that there are no moral issues in politics.

[gruber]

THPscN652-0

[prolisp]

At the end of the show a Tweet asked the compare to ask the Audience to raise their hands if they disagree with the filter, from what I could see almost every member of the audience raised their hands, the compare said to the Govt Minister something like "Doesnt this tell you something?"


Not only that, but the minister replied with something ridiculous like "well, the government needs to make better assurances to the community" - which translates, to me, as "the government needs to make better lies and excuses about why the community needs this"

[atheist echo]

Yep, watched four corners and Q&A last night. Four Corners was a bit of a staid report. I believe that certain questions and responses from experts should have been put to the minister to force him to say that it wont work. Interesting to see the hall full of elderly being taught how to circumvent the filter so they can access info on euthanasia.

I still dont know why I or any other adult shouldnt be allowed to access info on euthanasia if I want to, but as we know the Christian's are running the country and it goes against their beliefs. They also had some knob Christian Rep who said the filter should be in, they also had some weirdo woman who supposedly represented some child protection group saying the filter should be in place as it will protect children! I have no idea where she gets her info from as this filter will not protect one child!

Q & A was more interesting, unfortunately Conroy wasnt there, not surprising. They had some Minister for something there, there was a shadow minister who only wanted to spruke about the Liberals so she didnt get to talk much. They also ran Tweets along the bottom of the screen during the discussion and they all said that they disagreed with the plan.

They had the founder of, and correct me if Im wrong "Get Up". He was very good and made clear points against the filter and was very warmly applauded by the audience. The Labour minister kept on reciting their same mantra that the filter is to protect children from pedophiles blah blah blah, he even came across with the same arrogance as Conroy implying that if you dont support the filter then that means you support pedophiles!

Many on the panel also stated that a filter should be at home, placed by parents to protect their children not on the whole country, again the labour minister just pooh poohed this idea.

At the end of the show a Tweet asked the compare to ask the Audience to raise their hands if they disagree with the filter, from what I could see almost every member of the audience raised their hands, the compare said to the Govt Minister something like "Doesnt this tell you something?"

The Government has shelved the filter until after the election (I believe this is the case), They will not dump the plan as they have dumped too many plans and many would see this as another failure of the Govt. They want to go to the election and hope to win a majority so they can then pass this tripe without hindrance.

Now do i believe that Labour will increase its numbers? No, It will lose numbers, will it lose the election? No I dont believe so, Tony Abbott is just to extreme and many free thinkers dont want another rampant christian in the big job. Will The Greens increase their numbers? Yes they will, they will hold balance, as they have stated that they will not support the filter i believe this piece of Crap Idea of a filter will be dead and buried, thats why I as a life long labour voter will be voting Greens next election, without preferences going to the major parties.
I watched both shows on Monday night and the minister on Q and A looked very much out of his depth. He looked quite uncomfortable and a s you said was saying the same thing over and over again.

[GodwinGrey]

They had the founder of, and correct me if Im wrong "Get Up".


Yes and it worried me. IMO Get Up is a very flawed organisation that doesn't practice what it preaches. It portrays itself as a grass roots organisation and yet is very hierarchical. It asks members to send their issues of concern but doesn't facilitate a discussion. They're an unrepresentative hierarchy that are doing very nicely out of the punters.:mad:

But getting Howards seat was well done :D

[atheist echo]

Yes and it worried me. IMO Get Up is a very flawed organisation that doesn't practice what it preaches. It portrays itself as a grass roots organisation and yet is very hierarchical. It asks members to send their issues of concern but doesn't facilitate a discussion. They're an unrepresentative hierarchy that are doing very nicely out of the punters.:mad:

But getting Howards seat was well done :D
And they do a lot of other good work too!

[prolisp]

Senator Scott Ludlam has made a fantastic speech regarding the internet filter. A video of it is on vimeo (http://vimeo.com/11678632), or read the transcript (http://greensmps.org.au/content/speech/internet-filtering) on the Greens' website.

I think he's really hit the nail on the head. It's definitely worth the read (or 15min watching). Someone at EFA commented on the lack of people in the room at the time; is that much of a concern? I'll admit my ignorance of 'what happens next' when a senator gives a speech like this. Regardless, it's fun to watch great speeches like this in contrast to the rubbish Conroy spouts in defense of his little toy,

[Dane]

Senator Scott Ludlam has made a fantastic speech regarding the internet filter. A video of it is on vimeo (http://vimeo.com/11678632), or read the transcript (http://greensmps.org.au/content/speech/internet-filtering) on the Greens' website.

I think he's really hit the nail on the head. It's definitely worth the read (or 15min watching). Someone at EFA commented on the lack of people in the room at the time; is that much of a concern? I'll admit my ignorance of 'what happens next' when a senator gives a speech like this. Regardless, it's fun to watch great speeches like this in contrast to the rubbish Conroy spouts in defense of his little toy,
That would happen to be me. The UK's digital economy bill was "proposed by the unelected, debated by the ignorant, and voted by the absent". I just hope his speech actually did something and wasn't just talking to the seats.

[kanook]

I watched Scotts speech and was very happy with it. I have been a staunch life long labour voter my entire life, but I have just emailed the Greens to check on how to vote Green without preferences going to someone else, no sense in voting green if preferences going to labour.

I firmly believe that our country desperately needs a strong third party to act as a safety valve to stop major parties from putting bad legislation through that is not a benefit to all Australians.

By the way, as a life long Labour supporter I am totally disgusted by the actions of Rudd and Conroy to shelve this legislation until after the election. They hope to gain seats to be able to pass this garbage through unopposed, and are too afraid to put it out now and see another bad idea get canned by parliment.

They have lost me and I eagerly await the next election to see Christian Kevin, Christian Abbott lose seats and support.

[atuanui]

I've got tor working at last on my new os.
Can't think what to use it for.

Maybe it's time to look at the banned list from wikileaks.
A bit like the forbidden fruit.
Anyone want a bite?
Yum.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Conroy goes bonkers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/26/aussie_filter_paranoia/)

[kanook]

I notice that Conroys released another statement saying the filter is going ahead! Love to see how hes going to manage that as the Greens and the Opposition will not let it pass, that means another failed plan by the Govt, so more embarassment. The corner that Rudd and Conroy have painted themselves into is that they cant afford to drop another policy idea, they have been hammered in the press for dropping policies, so I see this as "We will keep going with this no matter how many people disagree".

I was just reading the latest article online on a news site and they had a vote set up, "Do you think the Govt should Filter the internet?" , I voted NO obviously and then it showed the poll results so far -

Out of almost 67,000 votes

Yes 1%
No 99%

Now I have been around for a while and I have seen some really really stupid ideas thought up by Governments, both Coalition and labour, but this one is right at the top, this is the worst thought up idea from any Govt ever, and I was a lifelong labour votor! Until now!

Its as if this guy Conroy has no idea at all, he keeps saying the test they ran showed it worked 100% and it didnt slow down the connection, what he fails to mention is that the test was on 1000 web pages, not the trillions of pages on the net, the results did bring up false positives and did miss other sites that should have been picked up, so what did they do? They removed those sites and ran the test again, and low and behold it worked 100%

And the blacklist will be made up of banned sites, how do these sites get placed in front of the board? By complaints from the public, so we will have every Christian Nut in this country reporting every site that they dislike! Do we get to see the list to be sure its fair? NOPE!

And we just have to takes his word that this blacklist and filter will not be abused by his Govt or future Govts, yeah right!

[Phroso]

I have written on the subject of Internet censorship previously in order to express my dismay. However, I realise that on the AFA forum I am largely "preaching to the converted".

Consequently, I have written to Amanda Rishworth, my elected Labor member of the Federal parliament, in the hope that feedback from the electorate will have some effect.

Perhaps other forum contributors might like to follow my example.

See my letter below. Incidentally, I do hope Kanook will forgive me for quoting his excellent post without first asking for permission.

The text of my letter reads as follows:

Dear Amanda,

I am now seventy three years of age and I am writing to give you some personal feedback from a voter in your own electorate.

I have been a lifetime Labour voter and I am finding it hard to express the dismay I am feeling at the party's current decline.

Kevin 07 started out with such national optimism and he has slowly lost the faith and trust of the nation.

Personally, although I was happy to be a part of Kevin Rudd's accession to the Prime Ministerial throne, I have been reluctantly forced to revised my opinion of the man and now perceive him to be prudish, moralising and censorial.

There have been various polls indicating the decline in Labor popularity and I'm sure you are aware of many issues of current concern to the electorate.

I have to say that it is unlikely that Labor will receive my vote at the next election.

I believe the only thing that is maintaining some Labor support at the moment is the lack of an appealing alternative. In an increasingly secular society,Tony Abbott's allegiance to the Roman Catholic church makes him an even scarier option than Kevin Rudd, so the only other option offering any sort of credibility at the moment appears to be the Green's.

Personally, I am completely incensed by the Internet censorship project driven by Senator Conroy which apparently also carries the approval of Kevin Rudd.

I can do no more than add my support to the viewpoint express by a contributor to the Atheist Foundation of Australia forum. (See below)

Please listen to the electorate and do what you can to halt the Labor party's headlong path towards self destruction.

Sincerely,



Re: Discussion re Proposed Internet Filtering
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=89990#post89990
Posted by: kanook
On: 31st May 2010 09:29 AM

I notice that Conroys released another statement saying the filter is going ahead! Love to see how hes going to manage that as the Greens and the Opposition will not let it pass, that means another failed plan by the Govt, so more embarassment. The corner that Rudd and Conroy have painted themselves into is that they cant afford to drop another policy idea, they have been hammered in the press for dropping policies, so I see this as "We will keep going with this no matter how many people disagree".

I was just reading the latest article online on a news site and they had a vote set up, "Do you think the Govt should Filter the internet?" , I voted NO obviously and then it showed the poll results so far -

Out of almost 67,000 votes

Yes 1%
No 99%

Now I have been around for a while and I have seen some really really stupid ideas thought up by Governments, both Coalition and labour, but this one is right at the top, this is the worst thought up idea from any Govt ever, and I was a lifelong labour votor! Until now!

Its as if this guy Conroy has no idea at all, he keeps saying the test they ran showed it worked 100% and it didnt slow down the connection, what he fails to mention is that the test was on 1000 web pages, not the trillions of pages on the net, the results did bring up false positives and did miss other sites that should have been picked up, so what did they do? They removed those sites and ran the test again, and low and behold it worked 100%

And the blacklist will be made up of banned sites, how do these sites get placed in front of the board? By complaints from the public, so we will have every Christian Nut in this country reporting every site that they dislike! Do we get to see the list to be sure its fair? NOPE!

And we just have to takes his word that this blacklist and filter will not be abused by his Govt or future Govts, yeah right!

[kanook]

Gidday Phroso,

I have no worries of you quoting me, I am searching now for that latest poll, i have also found some more links and info for people, and i will list here.

This page has a story about the Enex report and the fiddling of the test,

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/02/filtering-the-facts-conroy-slips-up-when-hitting-back/#comments

The following site has a very interesting article -

http://www.andrewtechhelp.com/andrews-tech-opinions/95-why-the-internet-should-not-be-filtered-in-australia

Even Child protection groups wont support this crap -

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/330087/child_groups_slam_conroy_isp_filtering_plans/

A Zdnet poll -

http://www.zdnet.com.au/do-you-support-a-mandatory-internet-filter-339300077.htm

An article on a Whirlpool Poll with unique breakdown of demographics -

http://apcmag.com/92-of-whirlpool-users-against-filter.htm

Another interesting Whirlpool poll showing how many voters may not vote Labour at the next election due to this filter, I for one will not be voting Labour and that really hurts as i have been a lifelong Labour supporter, but this Filter Crap must be stopped, please note I will not be voting Lib/Nat either -

http://apcmag.com/internet-users-ponder-voting-liberal-over-forced-internet-filtering.htm

Interesting discussion between Greens and Conroy with editorial -

http://www.efa.org.au/2010/05/03/senate-answers-shed-some-more-light-on-filter/

A very well written piece -

http://www.efa.org.au/2010/05/14/on-folly-freedom-and-filters/

''Censorship will not catch a single paedophile, will not cause a single image to disappear from the internet, will not protect a single child.''
ISP Internode engineer Mark Newton, Sydney Morning Herald, April 1

''For $44 million, we're buying ourselves an initiative which will have no measurable impact whatsoever. In exchange, we establish the architecture for future governments to abuse the loose and undefined 'RC' category to add a creeping range of material to the list. Once this architecture is established, the idea that its scope won't be expanded by future governments is a gamble we don't believe we should take.''
Greens senator Scott Ludlam, Canberra Times, April 1

'The government's stated aim of filtering child pornography is not something that many people could disagree with, but the point is it won't achieve that end. People will still be able to access that illegal content ... and it will do all sorts of other things such as slow down the internet, plus potentially there will be lists of things censored that we don't really want censored.''
Liberal MP Alex Hawke, Sydney Morning Herald, February 25

''The proposed internet filters would deliver to government extensive powers of censorship that are not compatible with freedom of speech and expression, and which are in any case likely to be technically ineffective. If the government proceeds with this legislation early next year, as announced, it will do little to help fight child porn, or any other evil online. It will, however, demonstrate how little it understands the internet, and its own disregard of liberal-democratic values.''
Editorial opinion, December 17, 2009


Government refuses release of full report under freedom of information request -

http://www.news.com.au/technology/government-blocks-bid-for-filtering-report-drafts/story-e6frfro0-1225870540484



An interesting letter from getup-

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:lz1j5AW3ZwgJ:https://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns/conroys_greatfirewall_factsheet.pdf+how+many+web+p ages+did+conroys+test+run&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShNLHyA9ecUGTRKDUJPlkk0bSEyfQhpzicgzhKZ DVy_cT20eCTs3x95l0KO3IPjdRv0SLBXD0eTvqrmlkXfMvge7C Jk99fvSzPhN2uPUiESYIh-7NAcVgTTqQFcnP5XnIzKAyGy&sig=AHIEtbSVHzncF2x8wgljSNrMZykXYjE5Zg

Poll: Do you support the government's internet filtering policy?

Yes3%
No96%
Indifferent1%
Total votes: 45154.

Would you like to vote? You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature.

Would you like to vote? You will need Javascript enabled to use our Voting Feature.
Poll closed 31 Mar, 2010


file:///C:/Users/BoB/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png
Some more info on some polls -

http://machinegunkeyboard.com/?p=695#yNyRnID0zaCa

Greens Poll showing 95% against -

http://greensmps.org.au/polls/do-you-support-governments-internet-filter

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Hmmmmmmm.... I wonder who the 3% who said "Yes" were. :nudge::nudge:;);)

[kanook]

Also found this poll -

Poll: Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's internet filtering regime is:

a modest regulatory measure1%
radical censorship akin to China14%
unnecessary censorship85%
Total votes: 68983.

Would you like to vote? You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature.

Would you like to vote? You will need Javascript enabled to use our Voting Feature.
Poll closed 13 May, 2010

This piece has some great points - the page link is below and I have cut and pasted some good points

Relations between the ICT industry and the minister have been dire for a long time. Now the ill sentiment is escalating at such a rate that several commentators are wondering if it's time for Sentator Conroy to step down.
What's triggering crisis point is Stephen Conroy's recent claim that 85 per cent of Australian ISPs approve the filter policy, and "have said they would welcome the filter, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iiNet".
It's forced iiNet CEO Michael Malone, a highly respected industry figure, to issue a statement denouncing this as a lie:

"We have been involved in the Government's consultation process in an effort to at least have some transparency measures introduced. However, any claim that our participation in that consultation process is support for the Government's policy is an outright lie."

Other ISPs have hardly "welcomed" the current filter either. Former Telstra CEO Sol Trujillo described it as "not a good use of capital" and would be "outmoded, outdated literally the day that you start implementing it". Telstra's recent submissions include many areas of technical and practical concern. iPrimus says some families did ask about a form of filtering, but as an optional measure. Its CEO Ravi Bhatia says the company does "not support any censorship of freedom of speech or political thought."

Recent polls show strong, widespread and growing public opposition to internet censorship. A poll on the Sydney Morning Herald currently shows 99 per cent of 86,518 respondents voting "No" to the filter. Research by Galaxy showed 86 per cent of people felt that parents, not the government, should have primary responsibility for protecting information on the internet. A previous poll of 45,000 Australian citizens showed that 96 per cent were opposed to the filter.
BBY's senior telco analyst Mark McDonnell says the numbers are shocking.
"It's rather staggering how high the No vote is, how overwhelmingly unpopular that is, on what to a politician probably looks like a very populist argument."
Stephen Conroy's response? "An organised group in the online world ... spreading misinformation".
http://www.skynews.com.au/blogs/blog.aspx?Blog=20

Some more interestin reading -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Live_filtering_tr ials

It must also be remembered that Conroy has repeated time and time again that the only material to be filtered out will be RC material, a quick read of what makes up RC material on the ACMA guidelines, the following is from their site -

What types of online content are prohibited?

Under the Act, the following categories of online content are prohibited:


Any online content that is classified RC* or X 18+* by the Classification Board (formerly the Office of Film and Literature Classification). This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=INT_IND_CONTENT_ABOUT

I have highlighted the parts that I believe are open to misuse by whatever Govt is in power.

The first being "Real depictions of actual sexual activity" - Does this mean that any website showing sex scenes between consenting adults can be filtered from Australians? Now I am a middle aged man and I have seen porn, yep thats right, I have seen porn and it has not damaged me at all! I did not turn into a raving sex maniac, but according to this Classification and Conroys chant of only RC material to be filtered means that they can if they want, ban Porn.

As a lot of men and women have at some point in their life seen some form of Porn one would assume according to Conroys Christian morals that we should all be raving sex maniacs, but that is not the case, and with the internet there is more porn freely available to any adult who wishes to look at now than ever before in history, but we dont see a massive increase in sex crimes.

It reminds me of that funny Internet joke -

"If they removed all porn sites from the web there would be one site left, and its name would be www.Bringbacktheporn.com "

2nd "Material Containing excessive Violence" - What the hell is Excessive??
Wouldnt my judgement on Violence levels be different from the person beside me?

Should the following movies and websites relating to these movies be banned ? -

Ben Hur
The Ten Commandments
The Passion Of The Christ

I mean if you want to talk about violence , then you cant get more violent that "The Passion Of The Christ" ! Do I think this movie should be banned or websites relating to them? No I dont, I dislike religion but they have the right to their own websites for their own movies etc.

Does this 2nd rule mean that Horror movie websites that provide info on violent horror movies could be banned? Is this not acceptable to the Govt or the board?? Who knows as we wont know whats on the list.

I enjoy watching and reading about horror movies online, others dont and I respect their right not to visit that site, but should they have the right to stop me?

3rd "Detailed Instruction In Crime, violence or drug use" What does this mean? Does this mean programs such as the excellent Underbelly shows should be banned as they show how drug dealers and murderers operate? Should I be stopped from watching episodes online? Should I be stopped from joining forums and discussing programs such as this? Who makes the decision of what is a crime, and what is entertainment ?

Conroys office have stated that sites that involve Euthenasia will be banned, why is this seen as a crime to them but to me it is seen as a persons right to a dignified death when suffering a painful, terminal illness!

What constitutes detailed instruction in violence? Would a kickboxing website be banned? How about a self defence website showing how to protect yourself from attack , this may entail violence? Detailed in instruction on drug use? A website educating children or parents about drugs and what to look for could be banned.

Finally "Material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act" , this reminds me of a saying "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". Many of us remember the days of Apartheid in South Africa, we remember Nelson Mandella being incarcerated for decades as a criminal of the state according to the White South African Government. Since those days he was freed, and led his people to Government and helped to end Apartheid.

Who has the right to tell me what does and doesnt constitute a terrorist act! I am an adult, I can read a website and judge for myself, I can make an informed decision and I dont need Conroy, Rudd or any Government telling me what I should think.

This ambiguous lsit of what can be banned places to much power in the hands of whatever Government is power. Conroy can spruke all he wants about this filter not being abused, but once its in, its in!

I have no idea why a politician would think for a nano-second that we all trust them? They lie in opposition, they lie during elections, and they lie when in power. I have seen enough, Prime Ministers, Opposition Leaders and other Politicians to know that I would never ever trust them with the power to decide what I can and cant read, and what I can and cant think, and this filter gives them this power.

[Phroso]

"Knowledge is power" and rulers both religious and secular have historically preferred that their subjects should remain powerless and dependent.

An educated and knowledgeable populace can ask awkward questions and demand explanations from those who have assumed or were elected to positions of power and subsequently proved themselves to be dictatorial, corrupt or incompetent.

A population that can be kept ignorant and dependent is much easier to control and exploit. Traditionally, religious and secular rulers have simply subjected their subjects to the mushroom treatment. i.e. The people have been kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.

You can throw away your Encyclopaedia Brittanica, the Internet is a source of information more sophisticated and all encompassing than anything that has previously been known in human history. Any attempt by government to curb or control our access to that global bank of knowledge should be opposed vigorously.

For example, I can now access medical information and consult my doctor from a position of knowledge and understanding rather than the usual ignorance of former days. I can also research the effects and side effects of prescribed drugs and make educated decisions regarding my treatment.

I was born into a generation that was denied access to books by many authors. DH Lawrence's boring classic, Lady Chatterley's Lover, was banned because of certain words that were printed therein.
Interestingly, such books were always being illicitly circulated among my young friends and rather than being read cover to cover, were simply thumbed through in search of the offending words. In truth, I really can't see how that book could have caused us any harm, given that we already knew the words that we were looking for and used them freely out of the hearing of our parents!

My general searches on Google rarely come up with any unwanted sites containing sexual content and frankly, i'm inclined to the view that pornography, seen once (or twice <grin>) tends to quickly become boring to most healthy humans.

There are many good reasons why the current attempt to gain control and censor the Internet should be vigorously opposed. I can only trust that any one or all of them will cause you to exert maximum opposition to the proposal and ensure that the population of Australia retains its intellectual freedom.

[loubert]

Anyone else get a letter from the libs about opposing this?

I did, today! well it was addressed to my better half.

[DanDare]

Its tiring fighting off all this backward stuff. Bring on the next election.

[Dane]

Anyone else get a letter from the libs about opposing this?

I did, today! well it was addressed to my better half.
Are they seriously opposing this? Please share! :)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Liar liar pants on fire (http://www.zdnet.com.au/iinet-we-ain-t-conroy-s-filter-lackey-339303549.htm)"This policy has been approved by 85 per cent of Australian internet service providers, who have said they would welcome the filter, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iiNet," Conroy told the Sun-Herald over the weekend.

But in a statement this afternoon, iiNet chief executive Michael Malone said Conroy was wrong.

"We have been involved in the government's consultation process in an effort to at least have some transparency measures introduced," he said. "However, any claim that our participation in that consultation process is support for the government's policy is an outright lie."

Malone said iiNet's position in the matter was unchanged. "This proposed filter is a waste of money that should be instead spent on additional law enforcement and education resources," he said.

The executive said "no western country" operated a mandatory filter along the lines of the government's proposal, and the filter project lined Australia up with Burma, Saudi Arabia and China. It had rightly attracted criticism from technical experts, the industry, child safety groups and even the US government, according to Malone.

"The proposed filter is fundamentally flawed, will not achieve its stated purpose and simply will not work. It is fundamentally bad policy," he said. "We do not and never have supported such a system."I hope Michael Malone can help stop this baloney.

[atuanui]

Wasn't sure where to put this:
Govt wants ISPs to record browsing history


http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-wants-isps-to-record-browsing-history-339303785.htm

[Dan]

Wasn't sure where to put this:
Govt wants ISPs to record browsing history


http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-wants-isps-to-record-browsing-history-339303785.htm

"The office of Attorney-General Robert McLelland today denied reports that a controversial data retention policy — dubbed “OzLog” online — being considered by his department could see Australians’ web browsing history tracked by internet service providers."

http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/14/ozlog-wont-include-web-history-ag/

The Attorney General is a dishonest scumbag.

[atuanui]

Black,
I've just installed that thing.. How do I test it?
:)

[Xeno]

Black,
I've just installed that thing.. How do I test it?
:) If nobody knocks on your door before dawn tomorrow, you should be OK :cool:




Thanks for the link MB. I was not aware of it.

[atuanui]

Thanks
Nigel

[atuanui]

How about this one too?
http://www.hidemyass.com/

:)

[Homosapien]

This article came out today. Looks like the Government will temporarily shelve the filter, till at least after the election.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/toxic-net-filters-shelved-until-after-election-20100618-ykvj.html?autostart=1

Good to see the Greens are definately against the filter.

What happens after the election, is another story.

[grom]

How about this one too?
http://www.hidemyass.com/

:)

Personally, I've been using https://www.ipredator.se/ and intend to keep using it until the government stops acting like a fascist nanny.

[heresy]

shelved..

i guess Labor is hoping we forget about this....

not likely..

[Atrax Robustus]

shelved..

i guess Labor is hoping we forget about this....

not likely..

Shelved?

[davo]

Kogan, Australias home grown TV supplier is now providing a filter product along these lines :

http://www.kogan.com.au/shop/portector-spams-scams-internet-portal-filter

Must see video.

v-enBtKjgcU

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Very innovative! Why didn't I think of that! Filter the net with a net!

[davo]

Only $2999 what a bargain. It looks very effective too.

[RealityRules]

Now it looks like the Govt has another plan/option

Australians would be unable to access the internet without having anti-virus and firewall programs installed and a virus-free machine under a new plan put forward by a year-long parliamentary cyber-crime inquiry.

A prominent cyber-security consultant, Alastair MacGibbon, who is a former director of the AFP's Australian High Tech Crime Centre and eBay's former security chief, has called for the proposal to be taken a step further by forcing ISPs to actively monitor the security of users' machines and block them from connecting if their browser, security and operating system software is not up to standards.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/secure-your-pc-or-lose-the-net-20100622-yuf5.html

[Dane]

Now it looks like the Govt has another plan/option

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/secure-your-pc-or-lose-the-net-20100622-yuf5.html
It's funny how a government who knows shitloads less than me about the internet reckons they know what's best for me.

I've never needed an anti-virus, ever. I've only ever used the standard Windows firewall. But sure, why not install bloated software that I will never use and will only suck up resources? I'll install it on my PC. And my other PC. And my laptop. And my netbook which would groan under the strain of an anti-virus. And my phone. And my mother's phone. And my father's phone. And my Wii. And maybe my DS, too. And my friend's Xbox when he brings it around.


What the fuck IS IT with this current government with forcing everyone to do things instead of fucking teaching people how to be frigging safe!? :mad:

[Seamus]

I've never needed an anti-virus, ever. I've only ever used the standard Windows firewall. But sure, why not install bloated software that I will never use and will only suck up resources? I'll install it on my PC. And my other PC. And my laptop. And my netbook which would groan under the strain of an anti-virus. And my phone. And my mother's phone. And my father's phone. And my Wii. And maybe my DS, too. And my friend's Xbox when he brings it around.


What on earth are you running? How old are your computers?What is the size of your processor and how much RAM?

Why not? Well,if you spend any time at all net surfing,malware is not an 'if' 'but a 'when'. Windows firewall is not enough. If that is all the security you have, sooner or later you WILL pick up something nasty which will really effect the speed of your computer.

No offence, but I think your attitude to security suicidal.

DISCLAIMER: OK I'm a little paranoid about security and am no geek. However, there are some very knowledgable people here. I'm sure one will corect me if I'm wrong.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Seamus, I'm with you on this one. I have an antivirus scanner, and a firewall suite (as well as Windows Firewall enabled) and I am behind a hardware firewall which offers both inbound and outbound port blocking, and have blocked all ports out and in except a few that I use.

All inbound ports are blocked, and all outbound except a few are also blocked.

Very handy to have a hardware firewall as well. In addition I have separated my family's network from mine, and the only thing the two share in common is the same internet source.

Dane, the worst part is that you probably have malware already but you are not aware of its existence on your system.

[owheelj]

The latest virus detection software testing that I read about found that the best software available still completely missed over 80% of malware. All this software is now designed specifically to get around anti-virus software. I do run a few different malware protection programs but I don't think it makes a great deal of difference these days.

[Seamus]

Dane, the worst part is that you probably have malware already but you are not aware of its existence on your system. Thanks Croc,I forgot to mention that. (what's the bet he doesn't have any kind of disc cleaner either?)

I was introduced to the wondeful world of malware a few years ago when I went through a phase of downloading freeware with gay abandon.. A lot have key loggers and some have some really nasty viruses. I found free emoticons, screen savers,themes and games things to be especially avoided.

For security today I have;

Comodo Firewall

Avast Antivirus

Adaware

Peerblock

Trackmenot (Firefox add on)

Tor

All are free,malware free and downloaded from the home sites. --AND I realise there is no such thing as perfect security. If a hacker REALLY wanted to get into my PC, he could. I do a clean install about once a year.

My PC runs just fine, but I have a reasonable processor (Intel core duo 2.27 Ghz) and 3 GB RAM.

Next year I'l be installing Windows 7. I use a spiffo application (D-ban) Mr Black told me about to clean the hard drive throroughly.

[Dane]

I run scanners and cleaners about twice a year. Through the years I haven't picked up anything worse than cookies. Just because I don't have that protection doesn't mean I'm lax; I'm extraordinarily careful, which is why I never pick up anything in the first place. These are my home, personal computers which I have absolute dictatorial control over everything that happens to them and no-one else is allowed to use.

A computer at work? Sure, I'll keep the antivirus software and whatever security procedures they use, it's more a matter of not trusting others to not fiddle with it. But at home? Hell no, not on my computers. (Although the front room has AVG, as my parents and nephew use it.)

[Seamus]

The latest virus detection software testing that I read about found that the best software available still completely missed over 80% of malware.



Fascinating claim. I'll do some Googling. Could you please cite your sources?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Funny he is saying that though, because my AV updates definitions consistently, and it picks up the occasional internet threat before it reaches my system.

Gotta love advanced heuristics.

[Seamus]

Funny he is saying that though, because my AV updates definitions consistently, and it picks up the occasional internet threat before it reaches my system.

Gotta love advanced heuristics.

Yeah,except for 'advanced heuristics'. Isn't that what Muslims call their 72 vigins in paradise? :p

But,mine did not pick up the Google hijack virus which was hiding in an application I downloaded.

I'm aware there is no such thing as perfect security. But,in my opinion,if you use the net at all, not having the best security you can is simply foolhardy. The crooks and hackers on the net are often smarter and more more devious than the 'good guys'.

[owheelj]

Gillard has backed the filter;

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

I will be writing to all my Labor senate candidates the day the election is called to explain why I'll be putting them last on the senate ticket. In Tasmanian Bob Brown looks set to get over a quota in his own right, so who I preference between Labor and Liberals will be important. A Labor government without a majority senate is what we need to aim for.

[Senexis]

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Like religion, atheism does not stop people from being fuckwits.
Unlike religion, atheism does not force people to being fuckwits.