Slashdot Log In
Australian Government To Mandate Internet Filters
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Dec 31, 2007 04:25 AM
from the just-a-bit-filtery dept.
from the just-a-bit-filtery dept.
ratzmilk writes "The Australian government is mandating the creation of 'clean' internet feeds. To be optionally made available to schools and homes that request it, the feed would offer built-in filters of 'pornography and inappropriate content'. Said Senator Controy: 'Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road ... If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Better check the details (Score:5, Informative)
There is a lot of handwaving in this. Don't mention torrents or proxies. I would be very surprised if they try to block major porn sites which have a mix of content. Conroy has had his photo opportunity. Probably nothing more to see here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a. You call these 17yos legal, we'll call it kiddie porn
b. You call these not pornographic, we'll call it kiddie porn
c. There's a significant part of the web where you can post kiddie porn with impunity
At any rate, I think it's so tr
Re:Better check the details (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better check the details (Score:4, Interesting)
This filtering list is supposedly secret, but when it leaked, it contained a lot of non-porn sites, among them one Korean site dedicated to bonsai trees. I suppose the reasoning was that these baby trees were being exploited, or something. Pure madness.
Also, they were going to add The Pirate Bay to the list, but that plan leaked as well, so they had to back down.
Parent
Re:Better check the details (Score:5, Insightful)
You should be able to simply ad-hominem them out of the discussion in that case. Get to state their position on TV and simply respond with "So then, what you're saying is that if you saw a picture of a little boy getting it on with a dog you would be sexually aroused?"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better check the details (Score:4, Insightful)
No,it is not "logical". You may have noticed that there are "children" in the REAL WORLD. Anyone likely to be sexually stimulated by looking at pictures of children would already have noticed he was getting a hard on when walking past a kindergarten, or at the beach or swimming pool.
This kind of thinking is exactly why women are compelled to wear burkahs in fundamentalist Muslim countries.
And besides, even if some people did "develop a taste for kiddie porn", the evidence that that translates into real world action is thin. Lots of people sit on the subway reading horrific serial killer novels on the way to work. Hardly any go n to become serial killers. However, kiddie porn itself should be illegal, because of the harm done to the participants in the making. But that is a completely separate issue, and filtering is going to make zero impact on that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
* "good" ideas can sway people to behavior while "bad" ideas have absolutely no power over people or
* no ideas have any power-- so why even respond to me since your argument would have no effect on me or others since we are unchangeable in the face of new ideas or arguments.
Either people are changed by the things they see and learn or they are not. You can't logically hold both positions.
No some people who always saw children just as children and then saw a picture of them having se
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly he does not. Some people, a lot of people, want to be told what to think, want someone, anyone, to keep all the bad stuff away from them, all the bad thoughts out of their pretty little heads. I think it's some kind of a longing for a return to early childhood, I don't know. But he's right about one thing: ideas have power. The problem is, being afraid of exposure to ideas can enable other people to have power over you. Personally, I think it's better to accept that life has an ugly side
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have the freedom to go to a website without being spammed with por
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Arguably, there is nothing you couldn't brainwash someone to do, but simply viewing an image, accidentally, isn't going to change you, other than perhaps inducing MORE revulsion at child porn in normal people.
Besides, there are few places on the normal internet where you just "oops, porn!" Racy ads, perhaps, but I was under the
Contradicting Statements. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they really stick to that deal, then maybe there won't be a problem.
However, if the "control" is optional, why is it called regulation? Last time I checked regulation was not optional. Furthermore, why even start in this first place. People can apply their own filters. It's called free will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Contradicting Statements. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that only a pedophile would want to turn off child porn filters. So, if you turn them off, you must be a pedophile and kept under surveillance. It is a perfect excuse for search warrant, phone tap warrant, mail scanning warrant, and whatever others there are.
And of course, i
If its optional, who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the sounds of it the ISP will be implementing the filter, which means you don't need to download or install anything.
Yeah maybe. The only filter they have at the present is the client side one. ISP level filters are trivial to get around unless you do massive port blocking, while filters at the level of (for example) a school internet gateway can afford to be much tighter.
The bottom line is that we don't really know what they want to do and I personally doubt Stephen Conroy does either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't compare real world problems with internet problems. Even at its worst, the internet can't kill and your actions online can't hurt other people.
I wasn't doing that. I was taking one example of the government doing something, and then saying at its extreme its a bad thing (luckily they haven't taken it to its extreme). Then saying that just because they're doing this other reasonable thing (mandating ISPs provide optional filters), doesn't mean they're going to take this (the filters) to its extreme.
It's the job of the owner of the computer to decide how and what to filter if there even needs to be any filtering at all.
Which job they'll still have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, the more convincing argument would be that the spread of such images itself perpetrates harm upon the victims. I cant even imagine how much more difficult it would make dealing with such psychological trauma.
Of course, the rational arguments are usually rapidly thrown out the window as they then continue to ban everything from artist depictions to CGI.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when they come for you? they aren't? how long before they do?
Or is your definition of pain that of the UK queen having a great big TAX on beers locally brewed or otherwise up your arse so far every time you take a dump you brick a impression of the good queen Elizabeth?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If there is consumer demand for ISP level censorship, then capitalism dictates that ISP's would offer such services (either that or there isnt sufficient competition to encourage ISP's to change).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, according to the AEC [aec.gov.au] 3.95% of the votes were informal. Moreover, in recent years the donkey vote (voting 1-whatever down the list of candidates) seems to have been less than 1%. [abc.net.au] Of course, one must also take into account that some people actually want to vote in the order the candidates are listed on the paper.
So it would appear that the total number of voters turning up and voting properly might be around the 94% mark.
Re: (Score:2)
slow boiled frog (Score:2, Informative)
But it is going down that road. While (I hope) only the most of extreme libertarians would agree that you should be able to watch kiddie porn, it's still a step down that road, and one step leads to another.
It should be clearly stated what is and what isn't to be cen
Re:slow boiled frog (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue with 'child pornography' is whether you define the veiwing/possesion/dissemination of it to be a lesser/equal offense to creating it. Clearly, the act of creating it is counter to our current collective sociatial morality, but the problem with our current laws is that they equate possesion/dissemination with creation. The problem here, is that the laws are written so broadly, that they can be used against minors as in this case http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm where the minor charged with possesion and dissemination of 'child pornography' (along with child abuse) was the minor depicted in the aforementioned pornography.
Add to this the problem of the label 'sex offender,' and you have a recipie for disaster. The biggest problem with the label 'sex offender' is that it is so broad, encompasing everything from raping and murdering an adult, to molesting (a) child(ren), to public urination. Add to this that politicians make laws abridging the freedoms of these so called 'sex offenders' all whilst waving the 'protect the children' banner. The best example of this are laws requiring 'sex offenders' from handing out candy on Halloween. The issue here is that the 'sex offender' label does not differentiate between granny-rapists and child-rapists, thus unnecessarally abridging the freedoms of those who have never sexually exploited children.
I have little problem with laws that punish certian offenders equally and equitibly, but I feel that current laws restricting 'sex offenders' are so broad, that they associate such completely different crimes (public urination has as much to do with intercourse as my use of a car to get to a bank has with a bank robber's use of a car for his getaway) with one another thus causing it to fall into the realm of "cruel and unusual punishment" as people automatically assume that 'sex offenders' have sexually exploited another human (usually a minor) resulting in those so labled having difficulty living 'normal' lives.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:slow boiled frog (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a Labour party senator you have bought valuable votes to tuck away for the next election, and got your face on the evening news. That is well worth the millions of dollars.
And if you want to bypass a filter, a 13 year old is definitely the person to see about it.
Parent
logic takes a breather (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, because looking at ANY "inappropriate" material (and who decides what "inappropriate" is, anyway?) is the EXACT same as looking at child porn. No difference whatsoever.
Granted, you can opt out of this service, so I'm not 100% incensed that such a thing is being called for (but I'd be much happier if it were opt-in instead of opt-out). However, I am very pissed that people can make statements like the above and not get laughed out of office. When did false equivalency become acceptable? It makes my head asplode sometimes.
Talking about a breather... (Score:4, Insightful)
How you folks continue to justify one step down the slippery slope is beyond me. How about the idea "stay the fuck out of my home and I'll stay the fuck out of yours?"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think he said it harms 'him'. (forgive me GP if I have your gender wrong). Just because something doesn't harm you directly doesn't mean you should let it happen.
As for your question about where to draw the line on your 'slippery slope', it's fairly simple to figure out... was a person or animal harmed during the creat
Whitelisting (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, the first blocks should go on lines servicing Government agencies. After all, they shouldn't be surfing pr0n at work.
I figure a week of virtually no internet would turn the heads of the lawmakers.
The Pervert Bit (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does the government have to require this? If the consumer demand is for filtered access, there are tools already in place to help parents "protect" their children. Many of them are free. If the demand were high enough, an ISP could also offer their own filtered service (it would probably not cost them any extra since those users are less likely to use lots of bandwidth).
This will suck for people who want to access filtered material. They'll either have to call the ISP or register somehow, possibly in writing, which goes in the face of privacy.
The ISP will have a database of users with the "pervert" bit and who knows what might happen with that. Will that data be confidential? Or can the ISP sell the list to its "marketing partners" and send users direct mail offers for porn?
If subpoenaed, can that data be brought up in court? "Your honor, the only evidence we have that this man committed the crime is that he is - pause for effect - an unfiltered user. And you know what that means."
The filtering service needs to be opt-in, not required of the ISPs, and controlled via the market.
Tired of Censorship Tag (Score:3, Interesting)
sad state of affairs.. (Score:3, Informative)
Sadly, conroy is the next in a series of ministers in charge of "technology" who just dont get it - they are sadly idiots. Dont get me wrong, i dont have much respect for politicians in the first place. But theres a level of stupidity you always assume when it comes to sections of government and the people that oversee them. And when it comes to tech and comms, the ministers in charge have fallen so far below par (compared to the rest of the rabble) that its really quite sad.
Perhaps to be fair i should "lack of knowledge" rather than "level of stupidity", but conroy is just a moron im surprised he's not blue in most photo's because he's forgotten to breath again. The prior governments plan was more intelligent, and thats a sad state of affairs in itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called shock value -- the media have done it for years...
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some FUD here? Then is a v-chip gov. censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent