Longboard
join:2005-04-13
australia
| reply to norwegian
Re: Australia To Implement Mandatory Internet Censorship
this is pissing off the joe public.
Geez: I hope so.
The implications for this are so awful and intrusive.
Down here we have REALLY ramped up police /search and seizure/detention with out reason/ powers.
There have already been several fiascos: wrong house invaded, wrong person detained/ etc etc etc.
Journalists prosecuted
Libraries censored
Academics muzzled
Public servants silenced
Whistleblowers pilloried
Our FOI laws are a joke
Sports star "role" models behave like barbarians.
LOL our average CEO salaries went up by >20% as the recession bites.
Our pollies vote themselves ridiculous pay rises and pensions while our infrastructure rusts to unusable.
Our household/national debt is worse than the USA as a portion of GDP
We have put an absurd social engineering response in place to combat the financial meltdown. Unintended consequences everywhere...our dollar punished...pensioners funds frozen ...etc etc
BUT damn it...we will protect the citizens from the evils of a free web.
What a disgrace.
Australia used to be characterized by tolerance, respect, gentle self deprecating humour and ironic wit: a reasonable sense of self.
That has been replaced by outlandish jingoism, a misdirected sense of self importance, relentlessly boorish behaviour and lack of manners, we are in danger of inserting our heads a long way up where the sun don't shine.
 Mini Rant off |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| Internet filters will make Australians feel happy when they deal with similar things. Obviously they prefer do not see it at all and put their heads deeper into sand. Good luck with contemporary self-deception now under the umbrella of a fight with child pornography. You've found a good excuse to behave like an ostrich.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
ilago
Premium
join:2005-06-28
Australia
 ·Internode
| said by OZO  :Internet filters will make Australians feel happy when they deal with similar things. Obviously they prefer do not see it at all and put their heads deeper into sand. Good luck with contemporary self-deception now under the umbrella of a fight with child pornography. You've found a good excuse to behave like an ostrich. I'm not sure what you mean there OZO. There is a lot of opposition to this proposal from the mainstream media, even the News Corporation papers have run the story in a negative way, not well, but they have accepted polls that demonstrate over 80% don't want this. www.ninemsn.com.au (website for one of the free to air TV channels) is a major exception. Cable coverage is not extensive here and it's very expensive. The majority of people rely on free to air radio and TV. The only support is coming from the right wing religious lobby groups who are very vocal and get the ears of the politicians. 
The 2006-2007 figures for internet access show that 5.138 million households in Australia have Internet access. Of these, only 1.782 million or 34.7% have children under the age of 15. The population is about 22 million in 6 States. There are a lot of Australians that can't get dialup better than 9800 bps. Internet access is very expensive here. High fees and poor download limits. Most broadband is DSL.
The comments from politicians here confirm my opinion that they aren't technically competent and are getting advice mainly from the vendors of these systems.
The Cyber Safety Working Group has no consumer representatives, no civil liberties groups on it. Microsoft and Google are in the group along with the ISP groups and the heavy handed lobby groups. In Australia it is possible that some of these lobby groups are funded with government grants.
There are a lot of angry Australians and not just geeks. |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny
 ·Shaw
| reply to SUMware
It's my belief most of the free world has not considered the downside to this shyte. Everyone wants to feel 'protected', but we all (here) see the downside to the equation. This all boils down to government and corporate control.
It's time for the general populace to wake up from their lovely (fantasy) dream.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal" |
|
ilago
Premium
join:2005-06-28
Australia
·Internode
| DPI hardware and software is complex and intrusive. Once installed it becomes part of the infrastructure and will never be removed. No politician will ever have the balls to stand up and say it should be removed.
Protection is the responsibility of the household, not the whole population. The government have subsidized versions of various "Nanny" filter type products available for free from their website. Very few have been installed. Whether that is because very few people are interested I don't know. The are reports that it's difficult to configure and hard to remove. That is simply a technical issue. They could just as easily subsidize an hour for a computer tech to configure the software for the user. That would be by the user choice.
Most of the current parent population grew up since computers were introduced. Personal computers were unknown when I was in High School and university. I'm in the grandmotherly age group  I've been on line since way before the World Wide Web right back to 300baud modems. I have never accidentally come across porn of any kind. I have a husband that would be counted as a risky user and will click on anything that looks "interesting" Children using my computers have restricted access and limited permissions on their user profiles. I'm a responsible guardian and I don't need the government to do it for me. |
|
a4nic8er
Tempus Fugit, Carpe Cerevisi
join:2001-03-09
New Zealand
clubs:
·Xnet
·Xtra Broadband
| reply to SUMware
The "Lefties" never cease to amaze me with their "We know what's best for you" agendas.
Some people will always find a way around or through restrictions. All the Australian government will achieve (in the long run) is making law abiding citizens' lives more complicated and expensive, encourage an attitude of subversion, and create a new type of "illegal" activity. Stupid, narrow-minded bureaucrats.
Roll on Cloud computing, P2P, VPNs, & encryption.
--
If laughter can be contagious, why do we never hear of any mirth epidemics? |
|
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
| said by a4nic8er :The "Lefties" never cease to amaze me with their "We know what's best for you" agendas. In the United States, it seems to be the "righties" that are advocating censoring, filtering, monitoring, redirecting and injection of unsolicited data in the name of business, "content delivery models", terrorism and "protecting our children". The "lefties", in the form of the ACLU and EFF, are the ones that are opposing internet control.
On a related subject, Ted Stevens (R-AK) knows what's best for us. He demonstrated his amazing grasp of technology most articulately in his famous "series of tubes" speech.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
4 edits | said by EGeezer :said by a4nic8er :The "Lefties" never cease to amaze me with their "We know what's best for you" agendas. In the United States, it seems to be the "righties" that are advocating censoring... The "lefties", in the form of the ACLU and EFF, are the ones that are opposing internet control. The Globe And Mail
October 30, 2008
by Ivor Tossell - quote:
Censorship is the province of authoritarian states such as China, Cuba, Myanmar and … Australia? This week, we learned that the land down under has been working up plans to censor the Web centrally, and force Internet service providers to make sure that certain content never reaches their subscribers.
The Great Firewall of Australia, as folks are calling it, is being built for the most laudable of reasons, including stopping child pornography. But good intentions are a well-documented paving material. Now other Australian legislators are proposing that the system be expanded to block off even legal adult materials (at least for certain subscribers) or online casinos, which are illegal there.
Censoring the Internet by filtering the tubes that connect it together is tempting, whether you're trying to protect children, prevent terrorism or crack down on movie piracy. But while people must be held accountable for their words, they first need to be able to speak without restraint. That's the point of free speech. Filtering at this level prevents free expression in the first place, and if you think it can't happen in a Western democracy, then I've got a large rock in the Outback to sell you.
[emphasis added]
said by EGeezer :On a related subject, Ted Stevens (R-AK) knows what's best for us. He demonstrated his amazing grasp of technology most articulately in his famous "series of tubes" speech. You mean this guy?
Oh yeah. I remember him now! This past Monday a jury in Washington, D.C. found Stevens guilty of seven felony counts for violating federal ethics laws, each with a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Right, that guy. |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| said by SUMware :The Globe And MailOctober 30, 2008 by Ivor Tossell - quote:
The Great Firewall of Australia, as folks are calling it, is being built for the most laudable of reasons, including stopping child pornography. But good intentions are a well-documented paving material. Now other Australian legislators are proposing that the system be expanded to block off even legal adult materials (at least for certain subscribers) or online casinos, which are illegal there.
Natch.
They always start off by telling us how they're going to put the kibosh on child pornography, then that quickly fades into the background as the various agenda-pushers start worming their way onboard-- in this case before any legislation is even actually passed. |
|
ZzyzxFromOR
join:2005-06-27
Portland, OR
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to SUMware
There is only one way to stop this. Either we vote our representatives (who would implement filtering of the internet for ANY reason) out of office or, overthrow the government in power. Take your pick.
Part of "The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies"
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Ah pardon me, there's someone knocking on the front door. |
|
Ender3rd
join:2001-07-15
East Granby, CT
·Cox HSI
| reply to EGeezer
said by EGeezer :On a related subject, Ted Stevens (R-AK) knows what's best for us. He demonstrated his amazing grasp of technology most articulately in his famous speech. Hehe,
"I got an internet sent by my staff just yeseterday."
"The internet is not a big truck it's a series of tubes. When you put your message in and it gets in line, it's gonna be delayed."
That's just priceless...
--
My Jeep is not an SUV. Your SUV is not a Jeep. |
|
Hutch
My Throne is the Dunny
Premium
join:2000-10-14
Out House
·Internode
| reply to ilago
said by ilago :Protection is the responsibility of the household, not the whole population. The government have subsidized versions of various "Nanny" filter type products available for free from their website. Very few have been installed. Whether that is because very few people are interested I don't know. The are reports that it's difficult to configure and hard to remove. That is simply a technical issue. They could just as easily subsidize an hour for a computer tech to configure the software for the user. That would be by the user choice. Most of the current parent population grew up since computers were introduced. Personal computers were unknown when I was in High School and university. I'm in the grandmotherly age group I've been on line since way before the World Wide Web right back to 300baud modems. I have never accidentally come across porn of any kind. I have a husband that would be counted as a risky user and will click on anything that looks "interesting" Children using my computers have restricted access and limited permissions on their user profiles. I'm a responsible guardian and I don't need the government to do it for me. I agree with you ilago . PC's and Internet awareness begins in the Family Home. Like you, I have my kids PC's locked down and Logging everything the Kids do. They don't get Internet Time if no Adults are home. (I have Teenagers)
Can't add much more because you have said it all for me.
--
If I knew then, what I know now. I would have still made the same mistakes. |
|
Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon Online DSL
2 edits | reply to SUMware
People seem to have such a hard time "getting it". When the government is permitted to be the censor of anything at the behest and encouragement of group "A", it will only be a matter of time until someone of a different political/cultural persuasion takes office and uses those same censorship powers to repress group "A".
This is why it is absolutely vital for those of both the left and the right to come together at least on this issue, in the realization that when any foundational right or freedom is diminished for one group of citizens, it diminishes that right or freedom for all of us - and we will all mourn that loss sooner or later. If I'm allowed by the present governmental powers to pick your pocket to take your property, then some day another set of rulers will allow you to pick my pocket and take my property. Even more important is the right of free speech, which is perhaps the most critical freedom in any society bearing the label "free", because it is so absolutely important to the free-flowing communication of ideas, information, petitions, and complaints that keep the society free. If government puts constraints on free speech for any reason, ultimately those constraints and their reasons will change as times, governments, and crises change. And the reasons used to block free speech will multiply and distort themselves over time until nobody has free speech about anything... whereupon government will dominate us unchecked - which is despotism.
The appropriate methods of protecting oneself and one's family from disturbing exercises of free speech are to block it out at the threshholds of our spheres of legitimate personal control - our households, our families, and so on. It can not, should not, must not be made the responsibility of government to emplace limitations on the free exercise of speech. Those limits will ultimately be used against the citizenry in ways none of us on the right or left can imagine or accept... but then it may be too late. The testimony of history is unrelenting about this danger.
The political leaders in any free land where this kind of control is proposed for any reason should be powerfully cautioned at once by their citizens to not proceed, should be contested in court if they do proceed, and (if they do proceed) should be voted out of office at the very earliest opportunity - with no exceptions - to be replaced by leaders who do understand freedom and who will reverse the errors of their predecessors. Leaders of the left or right must be unmistakably made to understand that such tampering with basic rights for any reason will simply not be tolerated by the citizenry. If we will not do that to protect our freedom, we do not deserve that freedom - and we will lose it.
edit: typo & addition
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... |
|
BB1984
join:2006-05-31
Australia
| reply to SUMware
Almost 250 pages of discussion about this topic over at Whirlpool Forums (AUSTRALIA) - we're mighty pissed-off about this!
»forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-re···t=967413 |
|
33591094
join:2002-11-19
Canada
| Here's hoping you get something organized to put a stop to this. Don't be sheep and 'take it' - the rest of us are counting on you (why did I just have a Leslie Nielson flashback....)
--
All trolls are equal, but A troll is more equal than others. |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | reply to SUMware
The leaders of Australia's three largest ISPs, Telstra, iiNet and Internode, say that ISP based filtering will not work,
and they detailed technical, legal and ethical reasons why:
»www.zdnet.com.au/insight/communi···8,00.htm
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
1 edit | Interesting, thanks for the link.
said by Doctor Four :and they detailed technical, legal and ethical reasons why Quite reasonable and rational. But since when do these factors influence insanity? |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| reply to Doctor Four
said by Doctor Four :The leaders of Australia's three largest ISPs, Telstra, iiNet and Internode, say that ISP based filtering will not work, and they detailed technical, legal and ethical reasons why: » www.zdnet.com.au/insight/communi···8,00.htm Here's their A-#1 reason for opposing it:
quote:
Hackett says that from a technical standpoint, introducing filtering is expensive . . .
'Freedom Fighters' they're not. |
|
norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
·WestNet Broadband
1 edit | reply to SUMware
Quite an informative read Doc.
I really can't see a problem with content filtering, and as was pointed out in your link, using the ISP is not the answer. The tech support calls would at least triple if that was the method.
I doubt anyone would disagree on using a router/firewall with content filtering for use to filter in the home, if a family deemed it needed, but present pricing for these are a tad high, maybe the government could help finance, rebate or such to offload the expense of keeping a firewall/content filtering package, including updates. Even a tax offset, there are plenty of ways to tackle this without using a brute force approach.
Hey one of my little ones downloaded a phone ring tone and wasn't aware of the $5/day/week for usage, now where is the goverments stance there?
Another, my last born, before she was 3 months old, a letter arrived allowing her $5000 on a credit card. What is the governemnt stance on that?
Let's realistically look at issues out there and fix them, just don't have this "head stuck in the sand attitude" because of political balance issues that seems to be everywhere. Some one grows some balls please, before we loose sight of reality.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| reply to AB
said by AB :Here's their A-#1 reason for opposing it: quote:
Hackett says that from a technical standpoint, introducing filtering is expensive . . .
Well, the total cost of purchasing filters has to do with the number of, and diameter of, all those tubes.
And also if they're regular or hepa filters, you betchya.  |
|
