PDA

View Full Version : Internet censorship



Davidflude
26-10-2008, 07:30 PM
The Gnomes of Canberra are planning Internet censorship that could slow down speeds by 86%.

Yukki poo.

CameronD
26-10-2008, 07:40 PM
I found a few sites about this, but they were to boring in their writing. I found this though that summerises everything.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/australia-joins-china-in-censoring-the-internet/

eclectic
26-10-2008, 07:51 PM
I found a few sites about this, but they were to boring in their writing. I found this though that summerises everything.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/australia-joins-china-in-censoring-the-internet/

one of the links at the bottom of link supplied by cameron

http://charlyleetham.com/can-australia-really-censor-the-internet

CameronD
26-10-2008, 08:22 PM
one of the links at the bottom of link supplied by cameron

http://charlyleetham.com/can-australia-really-censor-the-internet

I should note that I'm all for censoring the internet as you would any other publication. And that any 18+ material should be censored unless they have a foolproof system of the age of people entering.

CameronD
26-10-2008, 08:23 PM
Where's axiom when you need him

CameronD
26-10-2008, 08:26 PM
one of the links at the bottom of link supplied by cameron

http://charlyleetham.com/can-australia-really-censor-the-internet

Correction from the article. Australia does not have a bill of rights, hence australians do not have the right to free speech to my knowledge.

Rincewind
27-10-2008, 08:15 AM
Correction from the article. Australia does not have a bill of rights, hence australians do not have the right to free speech to my knowledge.

It is true that Australia does not have a Bill of Rights however that is not the same thing as saying we do not have the right to free speech. Australia has operated with a large degree of freedom of speech and also is a member of the United Nations and signatory of various international agrements which include free speech/expression clauses. For example...

Since 1992 High Court has indicated there is an implied freedom of speech for communication relating to government and political matters.

There is also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principles of which were reaffirmed by the government in 1998 and Australia is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both of these include provisions for freedom to form and hold opinions and communicate and express ideas.

pax
27-10-2008, 08:26 AM
I should note that I'm all for censoring the internet as you would any other publication. And that any 18+ material should be censored unless they have a foolproof system of the age of people entering.

How do you propose that be done?

Edit: and more to the point... WHO decides what should be censored?

Desmond
27-10-2008, 10:38 AM
Edit: and more to the point... WHO decides what should be censored?The Australian Communications and Media Authority

Desmond
27-10-2008, 10:43 AM
In principle, I don't have a problem with illegal content being censored, if there is the technology to do so without nerfing our connection speed. I don't think there is.

pax
27-10-2008, 09:27 PM
The Australian Communications and Media Authority

Right, and today's news suggest that Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon both want the ACMA blacklist massively expanded to include "objectionable" material that is not illegal. In Xenophon's case, this includes internet gambling sites for example (unsurprising, since he got started in politics via a "no pokies" campaign). My concern is that the Government is so desperate for the support of Fielding and Xenophon, and so unconcerned about censorship that it just may do a deal in exchange for their support on other legislation.

CameronD
27-10-2008, 09:28 PM
Right, and today's news suggest that Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon both want the ACMA blacklist massively expanded to include "objectionable" material that is not illegal. In Xenophon's case, this includes internet gambling sites for example (unsurprising, since he got started in politics via a "no pokies" campaign). My concern is that the Government is so desperate for the support of Fielding and Xenophon, and so unconcerned about censorship that it just may do a deal in exchange for their support on other legislation.

I thought that internet gambling sites was illegal in current australian law

pax
27-10-2008, 10:06 PM
I thought that internet gambling sites was illegal in current australian law

It's illegal to run one in Australia. It is not illegal to play on one overseas.

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2008, 02:34 PM
Internet censorship sux.

John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, also wrote Areopagitica: A speech of Mr John Milton for the liberty of unlicensed printing to the Parliament of England to protest against censorship:


For books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.
As good almost kill a man as kill a good book: who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were, in the eye.
And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2008, 11:29 AM
Neutering the net is about repression, not protection (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/neutering-the-net-is-about-repression-not-protection-20081129-6nej.html?page=-1)
Chris Berg, research fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs and editor of IPA Review
30 November 2008

The Australian Communications and Media Authority conducted tests earlier this year on six filters that could be imposed on internet service providers. Five slowed internet speeds by at least 20 per cent. And two of them crippled speeds by more than 75 per cent.

And this is before we look at their habit of falsely blocking legal sites. A 1999 trial of internet filtering (censoring the internet has long been a bipartisan goal) even accidentally blocked some government websites. Filters have improved since then but, as ACMA’s test revealed, it is a certainty that some sites will be incorrectly blocked — let’s be honest, the technology to efficiently and effectively censor the internet isn’t quite ready yet…

The biggest problem is a little word that Mr Conroy slipped out in the middle of a Senate committee hearing. The pilot filter program will not only target the existing blacklisted sites, most of which are child pornography, but will also target “unwanted” content, whatever that means.

The Government has developed a secret list of 10,000 unwanted sites (there are only 1300 on the current blacklist). ...

It's a bit embarrassing that we're discussing censoring the internet at all. What does it say about Australian politics that the reaction of both major parties to such a liberating technology is to demagogue about its dangers? Our politicians rave about evils online more than any other liberal democracy. As a consequence, the Federal Government's proposal is far more extensive than any other internet censorship scheme outside the totalitarian world.

There is a certain element of Australian political culture that sees censorship and banning as the panacea to almost every social and policy question. But wowserism dressed up in concerned rhetoric about the sanctity of childhood is still wowserism.

eclectic
30-11-2008, 11:46 AM
installing a sense of morality chip into each terminal node when in its early developmental stage would have been far more cost and outcome effective ;)

Rincewind
30-11-2008, 12:03 PM
installing a sense of morality chip into each terminal node when in its early developmental stage would have been far more cost and outcome effective ;)

Did you see A Clockwork Orange the other week?

Igor_Goldenberg
30-11-2008, 01:51 PM
The Gnomes of Canberra are planning Internet censorship that could slow down speeds by 86%.

Yukki poo.
Censorship is disgusting even if does not slow down anything.

MichaelBaron
30-11-2008, 10:35 PM
installing a sense of morality chip into each terminal node when in its early developmental stage would have been far more cost and outcome effective ;)

That's what i call wishful thinking...:doh:

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2008, 04:46 PM
Censorship is disgusting even if does not slow down anything.
Yes. I'd trust the first 100 names in the Brisbane phonebook over politicians and government bureaucrats to decide what is suitable for the public.

MichaelBaron
02-12-2008, 06:52 PM
Yes. I'd trust the first 100 names in the Brisbane phonebook over politicians and government bureaucrats to decide what is suitable for the public.

Does not have to be Brissy...any city or town will do :)

eclectic
02-12-2008, 08:14 PM
Yes. I'd trust the first 100 names in the Brisbane phonebook over politicians and government bureaucrats to decide what is suitable for the public.

actually among those first 100 names would be dud numbers answered by bureaucrats to catch those nuisance callers who like to phone the first name they find :P

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2008, 11:03 PM
I should note that I'm all for censoring the internet as you would any other publication. And that any 18+ material should be censored unless they have a foolproof system of the age of people entering.

I'm all for censoring the internet as I would any other publication, that is to say, hardly at all. :lol:


My concern is that the Government is so desperate for the support of Fielding and Xenophon, and so unconcerned about censorship that it just may do a deal in exchange for their support on other legislation.

The Government would also have to do a deal with the Greens, who are in principle not too hard to buy off, but who may find that their voters would not be welcoming of a pro-filtering stance.

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2008, 03:17 PM
The lies of the internet censors: Your. Filter. Won't. Work.
Stilgherrian writes (in a Crikey email)

Gloves-off time. The purveyors of pervasive internet censorship — handful that they are — have burned their goodwill. It's time to call them out on their lies and demand to know why they're not advocating the real solutions to child s-xual abuse.

Bernadette McMenamin of ChildWise, you've crossed the line, defaming everyone who’s protested the government’s plans. "Most of these people are not fully aware of the facts and secondly, those who are aware are, in effect, advocating child p-rnography," you said. How dare you!

Ms McMenamin, to really stop child abuse we need to spend our resources efficiently. Let's run through it one more time. And let's skip those hysterical, made-up "statistics" you still peddle. Child abuse is bad enough without heading into your paranoid fantasyland.

Kiddie-p-rn is hard to find. As Inspector John Rouse, former head of Queensland Police's Taskforce Argos told the authors of The Porn Report, "the chances of stumbling across this material … are minimal as it isn’t really distributed on web pages." P-dophiles use peer-to-peer software and, as Crikey reported six months ago, none of the filters can deal with P2P. The filter will not work. The. Filter. Will. Not. Work.

Every single dollar wasted on a demonstrably unworkable filter isn't just wasting taxpayers' money in tough times. It’s a dollar that hasn't gone to the police so they can do what does work. Good old-fashioned policing and the kind of undercover sting that resulted in 19 arrests last week, including a retired QC and a NSW police officer.

But, as blogger Jon Seymour points out, Ms McMenamin has a vested interested in moral panic. "An ineffective filter is actually a very good thing, because it means the oxygen that sustains the flames of moral panic, and her organization ChildWise, will never disappear," he writes.

"Perhaps McMenamin and ChildWise have done worthy work in the past. Perhaps they do some now. But why should anyone continue to be charitable about a person who unapologetically accuses her opponents of being witting or unwitting supporters of child p-rnography?"

"Public intellectual" Clive Hamilton has been the other public face of censorship since 2003. In Crikey last week he deconstructed Paul Kelly's writing about emissions trading, saying "Kelly’s spray could be used as an exemplar in a course on how to use debating tricks to try to win a losing argument." The same could be said for Hamilton’s own writing in support of censorship.

In a piece for ABC News, Hamilton cherry-picks blog comments to construct an anti-censorship straw man of such awesome proportions his hay fever will last a century. He fails to even mention the rational arguments he should be addressing, and then admits, "I have deliberately not considered the question of whether it is feasible to effectively filter extreme and violent p-rnography on the internet." Let's not let reality get in the way, shall we Clive? Fortunately the post’s 275 comments re-introduce that reality.

And finally the minister, Hamilton claims Senator Stephen Conroy is boldly going ahead with filtering trials billed as a "live test". But no, it's another closed network test and won’t involve actual customers. Even the list of "10,000 sites" is a made-up number.

Opposing the filter are the Opposition, The Greens, Save the Children (who’ve rolled up their sleeves and done the dirty work of protecting kids since 1919), the National Children's and Youth Law Centre and even ultra-conservative Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi and Glenn Milne.

Why is taxpayers' money still being spent on this farce?

arosar
27-03-2009, 11:15 AM
Last week, there was plenty of news (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikileaks-expos.html) about the ALP's plans to filter the net. It seems that this list of "banned" sites contains perfectly harmless properties including dentists, artists and poker sites.

What's the opinion of members?

Spiny Norman
27-03-2009, 11:21 AM
Best everyone should get their facts straight. Was discussed in detail last night on the ABC. Some of the Wikileaks stuff is a bit off the mark.

useless patzer
27-03-2009, 11:46 AM
Snail King, did you mean the "Q & A" show? It was discussed in the Age (link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/conroy-admits-to-henson-blacklist-error/2009/03/27/1237657120642.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1))

I am not opposed to censorship of material online that would be illegal to read in print form. But it seems to me that the technical obstacles are great, and I have reservations about the ability of the relevant authorities to do the job.

What is it that makes our Communications ministers into such luddites?

Spiny Norman
27-03-2009, 12:41 PM
Yes, I was referring to Q&A. I watched it almost in full. I know Senator Conroy has been portrayed as a luddite, but he was surprisingly (to me anyway) well informed on Q&A last night ... and I only picked up one or two technical mis-statements that only a pedantic techy like myself would bother about anyway.

To sum up ... the Labor gov't is proposing that the rules which apply to all the usual media (books, film, magazines, DVDs, CDs, radio, cinema, etc) should ALSO apply to Internet content.

This is rather a yawn. The only issue then is whether its technically feasible. If it is, what's the problem? If it isn't, they won't do it.

Given that the relevant authorities are already doing this job, why do you doubt their ability to do it? Do you mean the dentist website story?

Yes, perhaps they need to be more responsive to requests to un-ban sites after objectionable material which has been injected into the site is subsequently removed.

Yes, we should be suspicious as to whether the development and deployment of filtering technology by the government might one day be used to filter other things.

But really, is this very likely? I suspect not. Its a storm in a teacup.

arosar
27-03-2009, 12:48 PM
Crikey on Conroy: http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090327-Conroys-really-bad-week-347-Classification-Board-website-hacked.html

Ouch!

AR

useless patzer
27-03-2009, 12:56 PM
I guess my real concern is the lack of transparency over the whole process. What happens to a site that gets blacklisted? Do they get contacted? Is there a chance to appeal? Given what happened to the dentist, the tuckshop, and the like, I guess the answer was no.

I guess if you trust the government to do the right thing, then you don't have much to worry about. Cynics, on the other hand....

Spiny Norman
27-03-2009, 01:11 PM
I'm all in favour of transparency ... but how would you propose that "refused classification" material such as child pronography be made open to transparency?

Perhaps there should be an audit, the results of which could be made available for public scrutiny?

pax
27-03-2009, 02:30 PM
At the risk of inflaming Jono's left=fascist obsessions:

tH35CVig3fQ

By the way, did anyone see Conroy's useless performance on Q&A last night?

Desmond
27-03-2009, 03:02 PM
Didn't they promise to make our Internet faster, not slower.

eclectic
27-03-2009, 03:14 PM
i wonder what would happen if the filtering of the net slowed down the transmission of information to such an extent that critical warnings about an impending terrorist attack could not reach the appropriate authorities here in time ... :hmm:

Spiny Norman
27-03-2009, 03:33 PM
... did anyone see Conroy's useless performance on Q&A last night?
I thought he acquitted himself reasonably well, for a non-technologist.

Mephistopheles
27-03-2009, 03:41 PM
Why is it that Ministers for Communications are always completely useless?

Howard's mob partially privatised Telstra and went about it in precisely the wrong way and now Rudd's mob give us this complete clusterwalrus.

The whole thing has been a comedy of errors from day one and goes on handily to demonstrate that there are no technologists sufficiently high up in the department to correctly advise the Minister. It is only just now that they seem to have realised that the majority of what they stop is unstoppably being done on peer-to-peer networks. I would have thought that such an observation would be Teh Internets 101 and even Senator Conroy would be vaguely aware of it.

Fortunately, the whole thing has a snowflake's chance in hell of being implemented outside the trial. It has simply been far, far too embarrassing for the powers that be and I can only say that they deserve it.

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2009, 03:44 PM
At the risk of inflaming Jono's left=fascist obsessions:
Good for splattering Pax' right=fascist delusions :P

I agree of course that internet censorship is an abomination.

Not exactly accurate subtitles of the German :lol:

arosar
27-03-2009, 03:45 PM
I thought he acquitted himself reasonably well, for a non-technologist.

You musta been watching a diff program..

Anyway, there is actually a side story to this whole debate. It involves a certain Telstra employee who's been lampooning Conroy on Twitter. Here's the story. http://newmatilda.com/2009/03/18/well-that-awkward

Leslie Nassar has since been fired by Telstra.

And lastly, check out http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

AR

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2009, 03:50 PM
Leslie Nassar has since been fired by Telstra.
It would be ironic if Nassar could use the new Laba industrial laws to exact a hefty go-away payment from Telstra to avoid an unjustified dismissal claim.

pax
27-03-2009, 03:51 PM
Good for splattering Pax' right=fascist delusions :P

While you like to bleat about left=fascism at every opportunity, I don't believe I have ever made such assertions about the right. As usual, your imagination is running away.

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2009, 03:53 PM
While you like to bleat about left=fascism at every opportunity,
You're the one who brought it up here without provocation, and on an issue we probably agree about! Anyway, why did you start a new thread rather than use the existing one on the exact same topic (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924)?

Mephistopheles
27-03-2009, 03:55 PM
You're the one who brought it up here without provocation, and on an issue we probably agree about! Anyway, why did you start a new thread rather than use the existing one on the exact same topic (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924)?
Thanks, Jono. I'd been looking for that for aaaaaaages. I must be going blind.

arosar
27-03-2009, 04:11 PM
Buy Conroy "FAIL" tees: http://www.redbubble.com/people/disgruntled/t-shirts/2807035-3-conroy-fail

AR

Miranda
27-03-2009, 04:25 PM
Buy Conroy "FAIL" tees: http://www.redbubble.com/people/disgruntled/t-shirts/2807035-3-conroy-fail

AR
I think that t-shirt is a fail in itself because the generation that actually USES the word "fail" has no idea who the guy on the shirt is.

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2009, 04:29 PM
Why a third thread rather than the existing one (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924)? It should be in Politics too.

eclectic
27-03-2009, 04:36 PM
Why a third thread rather than the existing one (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924)? It should be in Politics too.

the second and third are proxy threads! ;)
why in politics?
didn't conroy say that political sites wouldn't be targetted?
if you believe that then you'd believe in the tooth fairy :eek:

arosar
27-03-2009, 05:03 PM
Why a third thread rather than the existing one (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924)? It should be in Politics too.

Cos I didn't see that OK...

AR

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2009, 05:22 PM
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Archibald Stuart, Philadelphia (December 23, 1791)

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2009, 06:48 PM
Three threads on this subject merged.

I saw about ten mins of the Q+A thing last night and it looked a bit like a bottom of the table clash. Against Conroy, who is an easy target, they had some ultra-libertarian who was basically suggesting the government shouldn't even stop people looking at kiddie-porn. My view is that there are a few things the government should try to stop people looking at (albeit nowhere near as many as it thinks), but in general it should do so by keeping viewing of certain kinds of sites illegal, rather than by attempting to block them to the disadvantage of other internet users or ISPs.

An anonymous industry source cited in Crikey yesterday reckoned that the blacklist filter only catches 0.5% of the kiddie-porn that is available on the web anyway, never mind that being only the tip of the iceberg compared to other methods of transmission.

Mephistopheles
28-03-2009, 07:58 AM
An anonymous industry source cited in Crikey yesterday reckoned that the blacklist filter only catches 0.5% of the kiddie-porn that is available on the web anyway, never mind that being only the tip of the iceberg compared to other methods of transmission.
What is available on the web is almost literally a drop in the ocean compared with other methods of transmission. The Crokey source is probably correct and that is very telling.

pax
28-03-2009, 10:20 AM
Anyway, why did you start a new thread rather than use the existing one on the exact same topic (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924)?

Because I was too lazy to go past the first page to dig it up :)

Garvinator
07-07-2009, 06:40 PM
Internet filter danger
Article from: The Courier-Mail

REMEMBER the images of German soldiers marching through the Arc de Triomphe after conquering Paris during World War II?

Or those grainy black-and-white photographs from May 1933 when the Nazis embarked on their campaign of burning all books considered to be subversive?

Do you recall the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984? Perhaps the burning books in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451?

Welcome to Australia in the 21st century, where totalitarian history meets science-fiction and dark political satire.

Welcome to the Rudd Government's internet filter.

Like most authoritarian pogroms, the internet filter is being sold as a measure to protect the greater communal well-being.

A quick recap: Australia's "Minister for Truth", Stephen Conroy, has claimed the filter will help stamp out child pornography, protecting the young and vulnerable from accessing inappropriate online material.

This will result in the internet being filtered at two levels. Firstly, all internet service providers will be required to block sites deemed unsuitable for children (hopefully this includes reruns of The Simpsons but that's a column for another day).

Anyway, we can opt out of this kiddie filter if we contact our ISP. What we can't opt out of, however, is the second-level filter that blocks all sites deemed illegal or unsuitable for adults to view.

This was sold as an attempt to free Australia from the scourges of child pornography, terrorism and so forth.

The great logical fallacy of that argument is that those who trade in child porn or bombmaking recipes don't do so in the public domain but swap their information on obscure message boards or by way of peer-to-peer file-sharing sites.

And what is terrorism? Is it a bunch of activists organising a demonstration against an OECD meeting, for example?

None of this can be blocked without effectively shutting down the entire internet to all but the likes of the ABC Kids webpage or official government websites.

So what will be caught?

Given that the Government has taken a leaf out of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbel's book and decreed the list of blocked sites will remain secret, we only have a broad indication of what we are to be protected from. Initially, it was to be material that would be refused classification by Australian censors: largely banned films and imagery of an explicit sexual and/or violent nature.

It also is likely to include a lot of milder X-rated material: what we married and consenting adults do in the privacy of our own homes, or in fact what various state governments sanction and tax through the licensing of legal brothels.

There are brothels in Brisbane, for example, that legally offer fairly mild dungeon and dominatrix fantasies that, if filmed, would be banned from ever being released on disk, even under our existing X-category. Go figure.

Sex aside, though, the nanny net also will include computer games.

Australia bans the sale of all computer games that attract anything higher than an MA 15+ rating.

Any game that might attract an R rating is banned from sale or must be heavily censored.

But computer gamers don't just buy a disc to slip into their PlayStation. They often participate in multi-player online games such as World of Warcraft.

These aren't rated and may well fall foul if there is a complaint of our new net nanny regime. If in doubt, ban it. Where will it end?

As internet freedom advocacy group Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Colin Jacobs was recently reported as saying: "This is confirmation that the scope of the mandatory censorship scheme will keep on creeping.

"Far from being the ultimate weapon against child abuse, it now will officially censor content deemed too controversial for a 15-year-old."

The office of Stephen Conroy also confirmed that online retail sites, which offer games refused classification in Australia because they fall into the restricted category, also could be blocked.

Hello? Is there anybody out there?

Wouldn't that include the likes of Amazon and eBay?

Right now, I could log on to Amazon and order copies of banned computer games such as Fallout 3 or Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, which was banned because it allegedly promoted graffiti art.

And what of banned or unclassified films?

Lets go to Amazon again and see if we can buy the likes of Pasolini's (banned) classic tale of fascism and mass human debasement Salo, the banned uncut version of Caligula, or perhaps even more confronting material such as Jorg Buttgereit's Nekromantik or Fred Vogel's August Underground.

Check, check, check and check again. Better block Amazon and every other online retailer on the planet that sells game and film titles refused classification.

Oh, and also block the likes of YouTube, which carries clips from these banned films and games.

And don't forget to block access to the thousands of movie and gaming forums that also discuss, and host sequences of, films and games that are forbidden here.

It's idiocy. Offer, and that means offer not impose, filtering for children's net use by all means but let adults decide for themselves what they want to watch, play and talk about, or buy online.

If this draconian madness of the internet filter comes to pass, I promise to publish whatever I can when it comes to ways of circumventing it.

And if that is deemed illegal, then just email me and we'll conduct the resistance by other means.

Spiny Norman
07-07-2009, 06:46 PM
Article ^^^^ is a beat up. We have censorship now (of TV, of films, of books, of people denied entry to Australia, the list goes on and on). What makes the Internet so special that it ought to be unregulated? I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned argument for the "no censorship" case. The "people will try to get around it [the filter]" argument is a crock if you ask me.

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2009, 06:50 PM
I suggest that these posts be moved to the Internet Censorship thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924).

Garvinator
07-07-2009, 07:16 PM
I suggest that these posts be moved to the Internet Censorship thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924).
Oh ok if the mods think that is the best place for it. I had more put it here as another example of this Labor gov trying to force its idealogy on to the voters.

Kevin Bonham
07-07-2009, 07:54 PM
Article ^^^^ is a beat up. We have censorship now (of TV, of films, of books, of people denied entry to Australia, the list goes on and on). What makes the Internet so special that it ought to be unregulated? I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned argument for the "no censorship" case.

I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned argument for most of the existing censorship. :lol:

kjenhager
07-07-2009, 09:21 PM
I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned argument for most of the existing censorship. :lol:
Bravo ! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Spiny Norman
08-07-2009, 06:02 AM
I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned argument for most of the existing censorship. :lol:
No censorship of anything at all is one logical position. Censorship of some kind of every form of communication is another. Those currently frothing at the mouth over the Internet filter seem to want to walk the middle ground, because they know that the community at large doesn't want the "no censorship at all" position, so are advocating a "just don't censor the Internet" view. This is the bit I don't get. If you advocate "no censorship at all", I concede that this makes sense to those philosophically committed to an unrestricted free speech position (which should also include the freedom to make verbal threats against the government, against individuals). But what I don't get, at the risk of repeating myself, is what makes the Internet so special that it ought to be treated as a different category to, say, books, film, TV, radio, etc?

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2009, 12:42 PM
No censorship of anything at all is one logical position. Censorship of some kind of every form of communication is another. Those currently frothing at the mouth over the Internet filter seem to want to walk the middle ground, because they know that the community at large doesn't want the "no censorship at all" position, so are advocating a "just don't censor the Internet" view. This is the bit I don't get. If you advocate "no censorship at all", I concede that this makes sense to those philosophically committed to an unrestricted free speech position (which should also include the freedom to make verbal threats against the government, against individuals). But what I don't get, at the risk of repeating myself, is what makes the Internet so special that it ought to be treated as a different category to, say, books, film, TV, radio, etc?

Many of those opposed to internet censorship would be very happy with a filtering system that just blocked kiddie-porn, terrorist recruitment drives and other ultra-objectionable material provided that that filter actually (a) worked reliably (b) did not affect other material (c) did not create costs for internet users. Clearly this is not the case - filters are an adeed expense for ISPs, ineffective and prone to censor innocent material. Thus, much of the objection to internet censorship is not about its aims but about problems of practicality that apply specifically to the internet and not to other media.

Some of those opposed to all censorship may be particularly keen to oppose internet censorship simply because it is a fight that is still winnable whereas the fight against censorship of other media is much harder, simply because censoring other media is so much easier.

Some may also have genuine views that the internet deserves to be freer than, say, free to air television. On TV, if there is objectionable material then a person might just randomly switch their TV on and see it immediately without any warning that it will be there. On the internet, with the exception of forum spam (and usually even then the title is a giveaway) you're fairly unlikely to just randomly stumble across the really nasty stuff.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2009, 02:54 AM
Oh ok if the mods think that is the best place for it. I had more put it here as another example of this Labor gov trying to force its idealogy on to the voters.
I don't disagree with that. Labor deserves to lose the next election for this alone.

arosar
09-07-2009, 09:05 PM
Here's one for those f... (oops, sorry Rincey), bloody idiots who support censorship, especially these religious types.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2621354.htm?section=justin

AR

kjenhager
09-07-2009, 10:03 PM
Here's one for those f... (oops, sorry Rincey), bloody idiots who support censorship, especially these religious types.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2621354.htm?section=justin

AR
What about the f... hypocrites ?

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2009, 11:05 PM
Here's one for those f... (oops, sorry Rincey), bloody idiots who support censorship, especially these religious types.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2621354.htm?section=justin

AR

I read the article. Who supports the censorship?

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2009, 06:18 AM
Here's one for those f... (oops, sorry Rincey), bloody idiots who support censorship, especially these religious types.
Who says it's those religious types? It's a secular lefty government that's trying to impose it, while a one of the most conservative Coalition MPs, Cory Bernardi, is a staunch opponent.

Basil
10-07-2009, 09:07 AM
I haven't followed any of this in depth and I certainly haven't followed any links, but ...

In the same vein that one's right to free speech stops at various points and is not absolute, isn't it true that censorship as discussed here, applies where material breaches various rights and other agreed values.

Developing, isn't the banning of a child porn site (among other measures) an acceptable form of censorship. For instance, the site is not left 'on air' while action is taken through the courts against the perpetrators.

Do I have a different working definition of 'censorship' from this users of this board?

Igor_Goldenberg
10-07-2009, 11:33 AM
Developing, isn't the banning of a child porn site (among other measures) an acceptable form of censorship. For instance, the site is not left 'on air' while action is taken through the courts against the perpetrators.


That's fine. But reactive censorship (i.e. punishing the law breaker) is not the same as pre-emptive censorship, as the government has to prove the law is broken.

In the government proposal they will put filters that arbitrary decide (and very ineffectively, btw) what is allowed, circumventing normal judiciary process (and thus curtailing the liberties).

Basil
10-07-2009, 12:24 PM
Yeah yeah. All good. Rudd's plan - like most of everything else he plans, is hopeless. I knew that. I was addressing the idea that apparently 'no case for censorship' existed, viz censorship in general - just not the net (although I did use a net example).

pax
10-07-2009, 05:06 PM
Who says it's those religious types? It's a secular lefty government that's trying to impose it, while a one of the most conservative Coalition MPs, Cory Bernardi, is a staunch opponent.
The Communist Party Greens are also staunchly opposed.

Kevin Bonham
10-07-2009, 08:02 PM
Developing, isn't the banning of a child porn site (among other measures) an acceptable form of censorship. For instance, the site is not left 'on air' while action is taken through the courts against the perpetrators.

This form of censorship already exists through the secret (until it was leaked recently) blacklist. Of course the blacklist is a total joke anyway only catching a miniscule portion of such sites.

Once again, though there are a few extremists who take the view that there should be no censorship whatsoever, the debate is not primarily about that. It is primarily about impracticality and cost, and also to a degree about whether censorship of existing media goes too far.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2009, 04:10 PM
Clive Hamilton was a truly dreadful choice of Greens candidate. Not only was he a bad choice for that by-election but preselecting him will continue to damage the Greens because it prevents them from taking a clearcut stand on internet filtering, an issue which might otherwise attract them a small number of protest votes from the major parties.
Abbott should make a stand against the KRudd/Conroy mandatory internet censorship filtering.

Spiny Norman
16-12-2009, 04:13 PM
Abbott should make a stand against the KRudd/Conroy mandatory internet censorship filtering.
Why? If you had said "could" instead of "should" I would understand it as a political p.o.v. but you seem to imply a moral imperative?!

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2009, 05:10 PM
Abbott should make a stand against the KRudd/Conroy mandatory internet censorship filtering.

"Should" but probably won't - firstly because the base would like that even less than they liked Turnbull's stance on the ETS, and secondly because the whole thing is a potentially major wedge issue. There are few votes for the Libs to potentially gain by opposing censorship (since anti-censorship lefties generally hate the Libs because of their stances on other social freedom issues) but a poorly considered stance on the issue could be used to portray the Liberals as "failing to sufficiently protect working families from kiddie-porn" (or something equally silly but believed by the gullible along those lines).

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Libs are still not trusted because of their extremist rdeforms to film classification laws in the early days of Howard, under which, among other things, a wide range of consensual fetish material became banned for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

The politics of this issue are unfortunately very clear - parents who are overwhelmed by the difficulty of controlling what their kids see on the internet are alarmed and clamorous to be led to safety. The best we can hope is that whatever steps in that direction are taken (whatever the marketing) are in fact as minimalist, inexpensive and narrowly targeted as possible. Whatever is introduced won't work. Certainly a blacklist approach is preferable to trying to filter for types of material (which carries a much higher false positive rate) - the danger being whether the blacklist will be administered in any remotely competent fashion and the difficulty of adequate public oversight over the blacklisting process.

This issue will be an interesting test of Abbott's pledge that he will oppose. If he does not oppose on this issue then that pledge should be condemned as a sham, but if he does oppose then his party will be hypocritical. So the only way forward in that sense seems to be to repudiate past policy - and the big ears brigade won't like that at all.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2010, 06:15 PM
Conroy's filter plan unworkable, says Google Australia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/conroys-filter-plan-unworkable-google/story-e6frgakx-1225844270444)
Fran Foo
Australian IT, 23 March 2010

FRESH from halting censorship of search results in China, internet giant Google says Australia's mandatory ISP filter is both unworkable and unwanted by parents.

The federal government plan will force ISPs to filter web pages that contain refused classification-rated content based on a government blacklist.

Labor senator Kate Lundy, Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam and a host of privacy advocates and child groups say they prefer an opt-in version of the filter.

...

Basil
23-03-2010, 08:20 PM
Conroy's filter plan unworkable, says Google Australia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/conroys-filter-plan-unworkable-google/story-e6frgakx-1225844270444)...
A lefty plan that doesn't work. Geez, there's a shock.

Ian Murray
23-03-2010, 08:38 PM
A lefty plan that doesn't work. .
Always was a silly idea

Rincewind
23-03-2010, 09:42 PM
Always was a silly idea

True it was silly when the Libs proposed it in 1999 and it is still silly now, more than a decade later.

Basil
23-03-2010, 09:47 PM
True it was silly when the Libs proposed it in 1999 and it is still silly now, more than a decade later.
Do you recall approximately what the Libs opposed back then? I have no recollection of it.

Rincewind
23-03-2010, 11:03 PM
Do you recall approximately what the Libs opposed back then? I have no recollection of it.

My recollection was the plan was tied up with the sale of Telstra. As I said the idea was always a bad one and the Libs (I think) realised that.

Then in 2003 there were new plans to install compulsory filters to block x-rated content. You can read a story from that time from The Age website

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/04/1046540188131.html

Again we got some nice free firewalls (the licenses of which are running out in June this year, I think) but no ISP level filtering.

My comment was just highlighting that the plan is hardly a left-only plan. Just a bad idea regardless of which side of politics is promoting it at present.

Basil
24-03-2010, 04:00 AM
Thanks. With that I now see that the two examinations of the problem (Libs back then and Labor now) of x rated content aren't parallel.

My recollection was the plan was tied up with the sale of Telstra.
Yes, your link has prompted my recollection of independent Harradine's urging of the government to bring in the non-compulsory filter which had to be requested by the consumer.


As I said the idea was always a bad one and the Libs (I think) realised that.
I presume that's why they didn't foist it upon the Australian public. A distinction needs to be made between in the first instance of looking at the issue of x-rated content, and in the second bringing to bear big brother strategies. Both sides have considered the former while only the Rudd government is presenting the latter as intended policy.


Then in 2003 there were new plans to install compulsory filters to block x-rated content.
I think fairer to say that mooted is a more accurate word than plans and even that might be too strong. And again, the idea was a non-compulsory one. Nothing like the development of the filtering that Rudd and Conroy have hatched, which is loathed on many levels.

Rincewind
24-03-2010, 06:33 AM
I think fairer to say that mooted is a more accurate word than plans and even that might be too strong. And again, the idea was a non-compulsory one. Nothing like the development of the filtering that Rudd and Conroy have hatched, which is loathed on many levels.

I see it as a continuum. The present government seems to have gone further down the path. My point is the plan is not new and not unique to the left. My understanding, for example, is that Senator Fielding supports the idea and the Greens don't. Who is more left, Fielding or the Greens?

AzureBlue
26-03-2010, 12:25 PM
Governments across the world classify and censor some material in some media. This is the role, for example, of the Office of Film and Literature Classification in Australia.

Australian governments do not currently filter the internet. While some organisations and people choose to use filters to restrict their internet access, most people are able access anything on the internet. This includes information about government and politics. It also includes things like illegal pornography and material promoting terrorism. People may access these things on the internet, but creating, distributing or even accessing them might be a crime. The material is thus illegal but uncensored.

The current federal government has proposed a national internet filter that would seek to prevent people in Australia from accessing certain websites.

http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/speeches/2009/075
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/014/
http://openinternet.com.au/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm

Negative Points
- Access to information
- Police have a whole centre in their force that is focused on internet protection
- Policing, it would be too hard to police (who gets to choose what is filtered) How do you do this? Eg. Do you completely block out Youtube? If you google search something innocent eg. Buddha, pornographic content/viruses etc can still come out... Do we completely block out the word Buddha?
- Should we be spending our resources on a filter or making sure that kids are educated on how to use search engines etc?
- Freedom (democratic country)
- Current firewalls, monitoring, responsible parenting can already protect our children
- Jump between nanny state and totalitarian state is not that big too much government control where people cant think for themselves.
- People don’t take responsibility for themselves in “nanny states”
- This current government has always been keen on an internet filter – made the internet really slow
- China has a strong filter but people still do get around it.
- Affects legitimate internet
- Economic disadvantages
- Causes more illegal activity: trying to get around the filter
- Money can be used much more wisely elsewhere – health system, education
- It is complete media censorship
- Assumes we can’t be trusted.

Affirmative Points
- Protection of children from paedophiles
- Elderly people need protection from financial scams etc
- Decrease in viruses
- Could help to refine searches – filter out rubbish/irrelevant sites
- Some IT jobs would be created
- Effects of pornography in particular can have long term unforeseen consequences

arosar
26-03-2010, 12:57 PM
Decrease in viruses? How?

Anyway, this government should worry more about its broadband agenda. While they're still talking about fibre optics, my Tokyo apartment has had it for a couple of years!

AR

Rincewind
26-03-2010, 02:35 PM
Affirmative Points
- Protection of children from paedophiles


I don;t see this as all that realistic. What is being proposed is a filtering of the http and https protocols but child pornography is already underground and not reliant on these protocols.


- Elderly people need protection from financial scams etc


This is true and not a problem with the internet really but a problem with people having financial control over their assets past when they are competent to manage them.


- Decrease in viruses


I don't think this is a realistic outcome either. Unless you are scanning every .exe and .zip downloaded by http https and possibly ftp. But there will still be issues like detections vs false positives. Antivirus software in particular would be difficult to virus scan since it contains a database of virus signatures, etc. In short I think there isn't the resources or the will to implement anything even vaguely workable, even then you have virus still transmitting via other protocols.


- Could help to refine searches – filter out rubbish/irrelevant sites

This has the problem of filtering out potentially useful site (ie the false positive issue mentioned with viruses).


- Some IT jobs would be created

It is jobs we are paying for doing work which is ineffective and unneeded. It's like hiring extra police to scan the astrology columns in newspapers. Yes it will stimulate the labour market (and newspaper sales) but society is paying for a job which produces no benefit.


- Effects of pornography in particular can have long term unforeseen consequences

Since they are unforeseen you would have to concede that these effects might be positive rather than negative.

For example restricting access to pornography over the internet may stimulate a domestic low-tech pornographic network. Or may lead to deviant behaviour to be acted out in cases of sexual assault rather than sating the desire of that deviant behaviour vicariously.



My personal view is that Conroy's internet filter plans are so stupid not because they are unworkable and will cost a lot of money. (Both of which I agree are true and valid reasons to oppose the plan). But precisely because it will be of zero practical benefit to anyone. Children will be no safer, the elderly will be no safer, there will not be a decrease in virus activity. Even if the plan was to cost 1/100 the of the planned budget to implement it would still be a complete waste of money.

And that is without invoking an appeal to eroded civil liberties.

Capablanca-Fan
26-03-2010, 06:09 PM
Very good points by RW. :clap:

AzureBlue
26-03-2010, 07:51 PM
Indeed ;). I oppose the internet filter scheme too.

Rincewind
26-03-2010, 07:54 PM
Indeed ;). I oppose the internet filter scheme too.

:)

It seems a lot of people do. But unfortunately not enough. :(

AzureBlue
26-03-2010, 07:55 PM
:)

It seems a lot of people do. But unfortunately not enough. :(
So, is there a internet filter that is going to be implemented in Australia? Sorry, I don't know that much background information, I didn't debate that round.

Rincewind
26-03-2010, 08:01 PM
So, is there a internet filter that is going to be implemented in Australia? Sorry, I don't know that much background information, I didn't debate that round.

That is still the plan.

AzureBlue
26-03-2010, 08:05 PM
That is still the plan.
Nooooooo what a waste of the government's resources. This internet filter is doomed to fail, technically, and economically. :owned:

Basil
26-03-2010, 08:07 PM
Nooooooo what a waste of the government's resources. This internet filter is doomed to fail, technically, and economically. :owned:
Yup. Perfectly conceived Laba policy in every way.

AzureBlue
26-03-2010, 08:14 PM
Yup. Perfectly conceived Laba policy in every way.
Yeah, and the economic stimulus handouts were really screwed too - although it prevented us from going into a recession in the GFC, apparently, Australia is now in lots of debt. Even Abbott's maternity leave scheme could've done better and has more reason than handing out money to everyone... yes, the money most likely be spent in Australia, but there's no purpose to it.

And no, I didn't get any extra money from the handouts :(

Rincewind
26-03-2010, 08:16 PM
You could try writing a letter to Stephen Conroy.


Senator Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002

Basil
26-03-2010, 08:58 PM
You could try writing a letter to Stephen Conroy.


Senator Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002
Dear Stephen

You are a prat.

Apologies for the non-constructive abuse, but your daily attending on Rudd's government and your tenure as a minister, no doubt a result of your being addled by your dad coupled with university hot-housing makes you not only beyond (real world) reason (QED for the abuse), but also a target on account of you and your colleagues' arrogance in implementing a vast array of policies on which you have no clue whatsoever.

If you would kindly consider back-flipping on the internet filter, that would be ace.

If you do bring this policy to bear, along with CrapWatch, DudWatch, KyotoDud, BatsBallsUp, SchoolsBribeWaste and other policies I have detailed elsewhere, I'd be terribly grateful if you, Peter G, Penny W, Wayne S and Big Kev could see yourselves clear of not touching another dime until my lot gets back in.

Thanks in advance.

Howard of Brisbane

Rincewind
26-03-2010, 09:07 PM
If you do bring this policy to bear, along with CrapWatch, DudWatch, KyotoDud, BatsBallsUp, SchoolsBribeWaste and other policies I have detailed elsewhere, I'd be terribly grateful if you, Peter G, Penny W, Wayne W and Big Kev could see yourselves clear of not touching another dime until my lot gets back in.

I think 'your lot' could block the legislation in the upper house should they so desire. The Greens will certainly vote against it and unless Xenophon changes tune he is not supporting it. They are all the crossbenchers the Libs would need to stop it. If Xenophon does get concessions from the government for support there is still a chance if a National or Country Liberal can be persuaded to vote with the Libs.

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2010, 01:38 PM
Yeah, and the economic stimulus handouts were really screwed too — although it prevented us from going into a recession in the GFC, apparently, Australia is now in lots of debt.
Not only that, but it's likely that the economy would have recovered anyway, as the American economy recovered under the "do nothing" policies of Coolidge and Reagan.


Even Abbott's maternity leave scheme could've done better and has more reason than handing out money to everyone... yes, the money most likely be spent in Australia, but there's no purpose to it.
Agreed.


And no, I didn't get any extra money from the handouts :(
Me neither.

Spiny Norman
27-03-2010, 03:47 PM
My take on AzureBlue's points:

Negative Points

- Access to information

TSK: won't have any impact at all (i.e. zero)

- Police have a whole centre in their force that is focused on internet protection

TSK: doubtful that this will happen. Police, at least in Victoria, are likely to be too busy being socially relevant and racially sensitive to have any extra time left over for enforcing issues to do with accessing the internet

- Policing, it would be too hard to police (who gets to choose what is filtered) How do you do this? Eg. Do you completely block out Youtube? If you google search something innocent eg. Buddha, pornographic content/viruses etc can still come out... Do we completely block out the word Buddha?

TSK: this whole line is a furphy, typically promoted by leftie anti-government, mindless people, who wouldn't recognise a fact if they tripped over it. The idea that sites such as YouTube would be blocked is laughable

- Should we be spending our resources on a filter or making sure that kids are educated on how to use search engines etc?

TSK: logical fallacy restricts this argument to only an OR ... its possible to embrace the AND and to do both

- Freedom (democratic country)

TSK: another furphy ... freedom is not unlimited now and it never has been unlimited

- Current firewalls, monitoring, responsible parenting can already protect our children

TSK: yes, but many people lack the knowledge or the skills to implement anything like an effective solution. Most content that typical parents would find offensive and inappropriate for access by young children will be completely unaffected by the government filter anyway.

- Jump between nanny state and totalitarian state is not that big too much government control where people cant think for themselves.

TSK: I do agree with the proposition that, by and large, the government ought to be small and stay out of people's private business. If people think that preventing access to kiddie porn on the Internet (which already happens in respect of human trafficking, printed materials, etc) constitutes "nanny state" behaviour, then I respectifully disagree.

- People don’t take responsibility for themselves in “nanny states”

TSK: and? People often don't take responsibility for themselves in ANY state.

- This current government has always been keen on an internet filter – made the internet really slow

TSK: furphy again

- China has a strong filter but people still do get around it.

TSK: and? People sometimes kill other people with guns too, despite laws against the sale of guns under certain circumstances and laws against murder. Arguing that "some people will get around it" is irrelevant as to whether there ought to be things in place to try to enforce existing laws.

- Affects legitimate internet

TSK: so what? the impact on the vast majority of people will be TINY

- Economic disadvantages

TSK: Baloney

- Causes more illegal activity: trying to get around the filter

TSK: taking this to its logical conclusion, we ought not to have laws, because as soon as you make them people break them, and that looks bad?! More baloney.

- Money can be used much more wisely elsewhere – health system, education

TSK: yeah, yeah, yeah, they could spend it on me too ... money spent anywhere on any thing can always be spent somewhere else on some other thing ... so what?

- It is complete media censorship

TSK: more baloney. Its nothing like COMPLETE and its nothing to do with the MEDIA. It is indeed CENSORSHIP, and it is extending existing censorship of printed materials to include electronic materials.

- Assumes we can’t be trusted.

TSK: some people can't be trusted, that's a fact; evidence is those already being convicted, for example, of offences relating to access of child pornography in electronic or printed form.

Affirmative Points

- Protection of children from paedophiles

TSK: I seriously doubt that the filter will impact on cases of paedophilia in the slightest, so I would call this a furphy argument.

- Elderly people need protection from financial scams etc

TSK: I don't expect the filter will have anything to do with such scams, nor would it have even the slightest impact if it did ... another furphy.

- Decrease in viruses

TSK: Dream on ... more baloney

- Could help to refine searches – filter out rubbish/irrelevant sites

It will have a TINY impact, less than 1% of 1% of 1% (and probably less than that). Another furphy argument by the pro-side.

- Some IT jobs would be created

TSK: Not a good reason to do it. Complete waste of money actually. It would be a lot cheaper to do just about any other kind of job creation.

- Effects of pornography in particular can have long term unforeseen consequences

TSK: Another furphy. People in Australia will still have access to all sorts of legal pornography, in printed and electronic formats. The proposed filter will have no impact on this.

---------- in summary

The only argument in favour of the filter that makes any sense at all to me is this: we already ban certain types of material in PRINTED form; the purpose of the filter is to ban that exact same type of material in ELECTRONIC form ... and whilst we know it cannot be perfect, nevertheless for a large percentage of the population it will be effective and it is therefore worthwhile.

If it later turns out to be ineffective, then turn the thing off and move on.

TheJoker
16-04-2010, 04:47 PM
Dear Stephen

You are a prat.

Apologies for the non-constructive abuse, but your daily attending on Rudd's government and your tenure as a minister, no doubt a result of your being addled by your dad coupled with university hot-housing makes you not only beyond (real world) reason (QED for the abuse), but also a target on account of you and your colleagues' arrogance in implementing a vast array of policies on which you have no clue whatsoever.

If you would kindly consider back-flipping on the internet filter, that would be ace.

If you do bring this policy to bear, along with CrapWatch, DudWatch, KyotoDud, BatsBallsUp, SchoolsBribeWaste and other policies I have detailed elsewhere, I'd be terribly grateful if you, Peter G, Penny W, Wayne S and Big Kev could see yourselves clear of not touching another dime until my lot gets back in.

Thanks in advance.

Howard of Brisbane

Howard you might have more success with something like this


Dear Mr Conrad,

I strongly support your initiative for an internet filter as it might cause some of the electorate to stop fiddling with their bed flute and actually get a clue. Should that happen it would most certainly be the end for your lot. Carry on.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-04-2010, 05:26 PM
Howard you might have more success with something like this


Dear Mr Conrad,

I strongly support your initiative for an internet filter as it might cause some of the electorate to stop fiddling with their bed flute and actually get a clue. Should that happen it would most certainly be the end for your lot. Carry on.
:clap: :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2010, 06:27 AM
Superfast broadband or internet freedom. Choose one. (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/blogs/the-geek/superfast-broadband-or-internet-freedom-choose-one/20100813-122br.html)
SMH, 13 August 2010

Don't trust the government to decide what we should see over the Internet. This power is far too dangerous. Instead, encourage *parents* to keep a closer eye on what their kids are watching.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2012, 09:11 AM
Conroy backflips on web filter (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/conroy-backflips-on-web-filter/story-e6frg996-1226513379862)
The Australian November 09, 2012 12:00AM

COMMUNICATIONS Minister Stephen Conroy has revealed the government is backflipping on its commitment to provide a national internet filter and will instead solely focus on banning websites related to child abuse.

Despite much talk to the contrary since 2007, Senator Conroy said there would be no "mandatory filtering legislation" and instead the government would employ powers under the Telecommunications Act to target sites on the "worst of" list of Interpol.

Desmond
15-11-2012, 09:14 AM
^ yes, and thank goodness for that

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2014, 09:49 PM
Filters installed by UK ISPs (which do allow for opting out) have been overblocking, including blocking the Liberal Democrats gay rights policy pages (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/20/official-lib-dem-lgbt-website-blocked-by-talktalks-porn-filter/) by deeming them to be pornographic. As the UK government has been flirting from time to time with introducing mandatory filtering (with no guarantee of an opt-out provision), the inadequacies (in both directions) of filtering by ISPs suggests that mandatory filtering there would be both illiberal and disastrously bungled.