Some Of Australia's Tubes Are About To Be Filtered 339
Slatterz writes "The first phase of
Australia's controversial Internet filters were put in place today, with the Australian government announcing that six ISPs will take part in a six-week pilot. The plan reportedly includes a filter blocking a list of Government-blacklisted sites, and an optional adult content filter, and the government has said it hasn't ruled out the possibility of filtering BitTorrent traffic. The filters have been widely criticized by privacy groups and Internet users, and people have previously even taken to the streets to protest. While Christian groups support the plan, others say filters could slow down Internet speeds, that they don't work, and that the plan amounts to censorship of the Internet. At this stage the filters are only a pilot, and Australia's largest ISP, Telstra, is not taking part. But if the $125.8 million being spent by the Australian Government on cyber-safety is any indication, it's a sign of things to come."
Just boycott the asses pleases (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, if you use one of the ISPs in this program, send a very strong message and dump them as soon as the filters go live. Tell them that you are quite capable, thank you very much, of filtering your own content.
I guarantee that if this gains traction it will not stop at porn. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.
Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (Score:5, Informative)
Mmm... no.
1) my ISP (iinet) has repeatedly stated [slashdot.org] that it is only taking part in trial to demonstrate how badly it will fail, so I wouldn't be sending them any message they didn't already know
2) there's no way I'm joining Telstra if I have a choice! Which of the good ISPs aren't in the trial?
Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (Score:5, Insightful)
my ISP (iinet) has repeatedly stated [slashdot.org] that it is only taking part in trial to demonstrate how badly it will fail, so I wouldn't be sending them any message they didn't already know
Apparently they don't already know that even flirting with this will lose them a lot of business, which is the message that I hope is sent to them. No buying this "No seriously guys, we're doing it IRONICALLY" crap The history lesson to ISPs and "christian groups" that should be written here is that censorship is radioactive, if you even give the IMPRESSION that you're okay with censorship you will go bankrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
"The initial round of ISPs are Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1.
No doubt they were selected due to not being to vocal about the filter and being rather small ISPs here in Australia. Primus is probably the biggest out of the lot of them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (Score:5, Insightful)
Which of the good ISPs aren't in the trial?
All of them.
The trial will happen, it may even get extended, but the filter itself will never happen.
It will never get through parliament, and even Conroy himself isn't actually saying the filter is a certainty - just that the trial is.
Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (Score:5, Informative)
I'm with iiNet, but there's no way I'm dumping them, and here's one reason why: http://www.iinet.net.au/customers/iinews/internet-filtering.html [iinet.net.au]
To summarise it, iiNet's only going along with the trial to demonstrate the futility of filtering. They're also currently fighting a court case regarding copyright infringement to maintain their user's privacy, instead of just rolling over like most other ISPs would.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"o summarise it, iiNet's only going along with the trial to demonstrate the futility of filtering."
I'm going to punch you in the face now...
I'm doing it to prove that, one day, someone tougher than me will come along and make me pay for it, but for now I will continue punching you in the face.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem we now have, and it's a hugely problematic problem, is that the government is going to use this legislation as a bargaining chip to push through it's economic stimulus plan.
Late last year I was hoping and sitting rather comfortably in the knowledge that this would never make it through the senate.
But now a few individual senators are holding the government over a barrel regarding the stimulus plan, the same senators that support the censorship (except the greens). So expect the government to sacrifice the internet giving them everything they want to gain support for their new financial endevours.
The internet in Australia doesn't have a hope I'm afraid.
I won't even mention that yet again Rudd seems to be bringing us into line with China. He really seems to have an infatuation with that country and everything they do, and I think it's got a little more to do than just being able to speak their language. It's getting to be really quite creepy.
In other words I'm waiting for the bastard to sell us out.
I voted for labour above the libs, something I'm somewhat regretting now (and not just for the internet censorship) I must say.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I voted for labour above the libs, something I'm somewhat regretting now (and not just for the internet censorship) I must say.
So all of this is YOUR fault! BASTARD!
But seriously, most of Australia was fooled by this tourist. Personally I saw the crap that our (Labour) state governments were doing and thought, FUCK THAT! So I stuck with the Libs.
Actually, I want an alteration to be made to our voting slips. All voting slips should have a question on the bottom of it which says:
Do you watch any of the following TV shows or formats:
a) Australian Idol
b) Big Brother
c) Biggest Loser
d) Dancing with the stars
e) So you think you can dance
I
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, most of Australia was fooled by this tourist. Personally I saw the crap that our (Labour) state governments were doing and thought, FUCK THAT! So I stuck with the Libs.
The problem was we were only given a "one horse race" what with Howard stating he was not going to complete his term no wonder the majority voted Labour. Having seen what the Labour party had done in NSW I was not going to vote Labour, however the dilemma was who to really vote for.
:)
As for the TV shows how about adding "Home and Away" as well. I usually find that I can find plenty of things to do rather than watching those shows
One of the problems with Labour IMHO is they seem to listen to many of the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit.
Firstly, when the opposition opposed the stimulus plan their approval rating dropped 4 points, they're going to show some token objection and get a few tax cuts in and cave because they don't have a choice.
Secondly, without either the greens or the liberals, it still won't pass the senate. The greens hate it, and if the libs are going to support it, then it'll happen with or without the loonies.
This may pass, but it's not going to pass as part of the economic stimulus package and it's not going to
Re: (Score:2)
The internet censorship was clearly stated before the election. Yes it's hair-brained, no it won't work, but they DID tell you they were going to try.
That Rudd is trying to "bring us into line with China" is a pretty ridiculous assertion based on one single thing.
Sure is lucky the ballot boxes only require numbers anyway, it's "Labor".
Re: (Score:2)
Howard would do exactly the same - it's the policy of trying to impress the people with the money. Rudd would have been doing the same with the USA if they had swapped places in time - possibly even the same blank cheque of Australian support Howard promised immediately after 911. I think the trade deal would have worked out a bit differently however since more competant people would have been involved that wouldn't have
Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (Score:4, Funny)
it's a hugely problematic problem
As problems tend to be...
Re: (Score:2)
OK guys here's what we'll do (Score:5, Interesting)
"Oh that'd probably be the internet filter causing your drop-outs, thank Stephen Conroy"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To be fair, everyone was under the assumption that filtering was going to be completely opt-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Might not need to, though, should the EU do something right.
Whose fault is that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its people's fault. Plain and simple.
Because after this tragic act of censorship, the people in the next elections, while having the opportunity to vote down the current government, most probably will not. Even if they do, they will most probably vote for another party that has most probably done something equally bad when they were government.
It's called mass amnesia, and its the reason why our democracies are in fact ""democracies"".
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is the Alcopop tax, to curb binge drinking in young adults. Well all pre-mixed spirits have become so expensive that said young adults are turning to post mixing there drinks, so instead of getting a controlled, albeit high amount, they are getting an uncontrolled and in most cases stronger mix, leading to an actual increase of binge drinking in young adults.
K
Re: (Score:2)
right. Now name one Australian politician that has shown an approximation of competence in the past twenty years.
Great hospitality (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's begun (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand these alleged Christians' obsession with force and control. Forcing your own will upon someone else is the very antithesis of Christianity.
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, you're right! Shit, how did they miss this! And this is just a new phenomenon too!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're very right sir. We very much prefer nice comfy chairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I apologise if my comment was overly obvious. It's only recently become apparent to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Forcing your own will upon someone else is the very antithesis of Christianity.
No. The sentiment "Mind your own business" is not really a strong theme in Christianity at all.
how did Christians get into this? (Score:2)
The Australian Labor Party that's pushing this isn't particularly known for its ties to Christianity, growing as it does out of the historically anti-religion Socialist movement.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia does not have a bill of rights. Our courts have interpreted our constitution to read that we have "implied rights" but there is nothing set down in black and white, unfortunately
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tor (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm going to venture a guess that tor [torproject.org] is going to become very popular in Australia very soon...
Though, I'm sure some teenagers will figure out how to bypass those filters even more simplistically. Good on them. Say no to a censored Internet!
Hong Kong is facing the same problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Note: Not just Australia's largest... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apologies to Banjo Paterson (Score:5, Funny)
Once a jolly swagman plugged into the internets,
Under the shade of a coolibah tree,
And he sang as he watched and waited as he torrented
"Don't go deploying your filters on me".
"Deploying your filters, deploying your filters
Don't go deploying your filters on me"
And he sang as he watched and waited as he torrented,
"Don't go deploying your filters on me".
Down came the content speeding through the internets,
Up jumped the swagman and viewed it with glee,
And he sang as he shoved that content on his backup disk,
"You'll be a-wasting your filters on me".
"Wasting your filters, wasting your filters
Don't go a-wasting your filters on me"
And he sang as he shoved that content on his backup disk,
"Don't go a-wasting your filters on me".
Up rode the Conroy, mounted on his ISP,
Down came the troopers, one, two, three,
"Where's that jolly content you downloaded so illicitly?
You've been evading the filters from me."
"Evading the filters, evading the filters
You've been evading the filters from me."
"Where's that jolly content you downloaded so illicitly?
You've been evading the filters from me."
Up jumped the swagman and handed them his backup disk,
"You'll never crack my encryption", said he,
And his packets are tunneled and proxied through the internets,
"You'll never get your bloody filters on me".
"Your bloody filters, your bloody filters
You'll never get your bloody filters on me".
And his packets are tunneled and proxied through the internets,
"You'll never get your bloody filters on me".
Re: (Score:2)
That was brilliant. Thankyou.
Re: (Score:2)
Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong,
Under the shade of a Coolibah tree,
And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boil,
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.
Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda,
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me,
And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boil
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.
Down came a jumbuck to drink at that billabong
Up jumped the swagman and grabbed him with
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent. Parody, satire & humour in general has always been one of the best ways of showing up these types of ridiculous auhoritarian practises IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow!
Re: (Score:2)
For those who WTF'ed at the above ballad, this video will give a little insight to what it means to Australians
Bledisloe? [youtube.com]
It's the only response we have to the New Zealand Haka.
Re: (Score:2)
But at least we're not getting the fires of hell burning entire towns. Chins up, Aussies. I sincerely hope you beat this.
Providers (Score:5, Insightful)
David from South Australia I would like to say that; I am so happy using Webshield because I don't have to worry about what the children are doing, passwords or anything. I was constantly keeping tabs on things before, but now I know Webshield is doing it for me.
Angie from South Australia Before I used Webshield, I would constantly be checking my children on the internet, worried and anxious about what they might 'accidently' find. But now with Webshield, I can leave them to their homework, etc and not stress."
Julie from Queensland With 2 boys approaching teenage years and a husband who works late into the night at times, we (and I say âweâ(TM) on behalf of my husband as well) are glad for the peace of mind webshield provides. With pornography and all that it leads too, sweeping through families â" even strong families â" as it is channelled right into our houses, wreaking absolute heartache and havoc, we can only be glad for protection.
Those three quotes are quite probably the most disturbing potential outcomes from such a system.
The brutal truth of the matter is that what ever you can _easily_ find on the web via http is far less dangerous than Predators lurking on Friend face or Instant Messaging, which cannot be filtered. (You could block them entirely, but could you imagine the uproar of Millions of people then!). And wanting to block "Unwanted Material" this screams scope creep in a big way.
I am an Australian, and the B/S the Dis-Honourable Senator Conroy continues to feed us is quite alarming. I have met the man in person and witnessed first hand his obvious technical ineptness.
I for one will be fighting tooth and nail to inform everyone I know and I am already geared up at home to "circumvent" any filter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Chances are, they are not real quotes.
I hope so. I really do.
Re: (Score:2)
Tying the Tube Tyer's Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
There must be some way to bypass the tube tying that these folks in the governments around the world are doing. Yes, sure there are snoop blockers and other web sites that enable encrypted bypassing of restrictions but State based Freedom Limiting Terrorists have figured out that firewalls exist. I'm wondering about legal means to assault these State Based Terrorists who continue to assault our freedoms including our freedoms of communication.
Sure it's likely different in each country due to the differences in laws but there must be strategies that will work across the entire planet to protect the masses Natural rights to free communications.
One idea is the open project to monitor ALL GOVERNMENT AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, STAFF and POLITICIANS and publish their movements, their activities, their lives. Millions of Little Brothers watching the members of the Big Brother control freak cult (aka members of any group that considers itself a State or Government at any level).
The purpose in part is to expose the hypocracy of these members of the governments but it's also to let them know that they are being watched.
Who watches the watchers? The population must be the ones who watch the watchers. This is why all public business must be in the public domain for it to be valid public business, otherwise it's just the work of "terrorists pretending to be the State"!
ps. If I vanish you'll know why.
Australia's Tubes Are About To Be Tied (Score:2)
First, the little penguin bites Linus, and now it bites the internet!!
Idiots (Score:2)
Needs to pass Parliament first (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter... (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear Senator Conroy,
I am a member of the Western Australian Labor Party and a long time supporter of the ideals and values the Australian Labor Party and Trade Union movement promote in our country. I am writing to express my extreme concern on the mandatory Internet filtering you and your office are trialling over the next six weeks.
I understand that the decision is being considered as an option to assist parents, schools and public resources (such as libraries) to keep children away from unwanted Internet
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of tragic... (Score:5, Insightful)
All those filters are usually erected in an attempt to 'protect the children' but so far I haven't seen any kind of hard evidence showing the children are 'damaged' from looking at porn or similar.
Actually I've seen a study showing quite clearly that porn has no negative effect on children at all. Back in 1968 porn was legalized in Denmark and porn shops popped up everywhere, especially in a section of Copenhagen called Vesterbro. About 1/3 of all shops there were porn or porn-related shops in those days. This meant that almost no matter where children looked they saw porn (dildos, explicit magazines, books, movies) and there was a lot of prostitutes in the area as well. All this happened when the children was mostly unsupervised by adults (on the way to school etc.). Now the study compared the children that grew up in this area with similar children from similar backgrounds growing up elsewhere, and looked at deviations from 'normal' when it came to crime (especially sex offenses), sexual preferences and orientation, attitude towards sexual deviations and so on. The result was quite clear: The 'porn-exposed' children had a similar life to the 'normal' children but had a more tolerant attitude towards everything sex-related, and often had more friends from the 'deviant' groups like homosexuals, transsexuals or so on.
The conclusion was therefore clear: Porn does not hurt children emotionally or sexually and it even seems to create more tolerant adults that is less likely to be ignorant of sexual themes. This is a good thing in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing people like senator conroy want is a more tolerant attitude towards everything sex related.
iiNet? (Score:2)
Why aren't iiNet participating in the trial?
They have been the most vocal in agreeing to the trail since it was announced, specifically so they can use the results to show how stupid this is [iinet.net.au]!
Have they been banned from the trial because of this attitude?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No censorship please (Score:2, Interesting)
Pure unadulterated laziness of the parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
These so-called Christian and Parent groups who advocate such nanny state intervention are only doing so because they are too lazy.
You want to protect the children? You supervise them. You don't give them a computer with internet access that they can use privately in their bedroom in the dead of night: You put the computer in some family location where a responsible adult is available.
Or... Lock the router in a cabinet with a simple timer switch on the power brick.
The phrase which sums up our modern era : "Can't someone else do it?"
Bah!
Re: (Score:2)
I know what a secure proxy is, you insensitive clod!
Better to dump the ISP (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do complicated things with VPNs when you can simply dump the ISP? It's still possible, sends a clear signal, and if people start using VPNs en masse to get around the filtering, they'll simply filter that as well. And you want a clear signal that filtering isn't wanted before all choice is gone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have thought a filter would be good if you wanted to send a clear signal...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is all the ISPs (except iPrimus) are absolutely tiny, so it is in fact impossible for customers to dump them "en masse" - there is no mass of customers to begin with. Even iPrimus is pretty small fry by ISP standards, really. The only large ISP that was interested in participating was iiNet, and they're not involved in this phase for some reason. Smells fishy to me; I suspect Michael Malone was intending to provide actual feedback about the filtering, and that's not what they're after.
Either tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to not get how this should work. Smaller ISPs with 500 customers getting stung by just 50 customers leaving sends a MUCH more clear message than 300 leaving an ISP with 200,000+.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, who am I kidding, we're all lazy. And our general populous is just as ignorant as the American general populous.
I have not read TFA, due to the aforementioned laziness, but I think the summary misses some of the biggest news in regard to the filter trials: every damn ISP on the list (with the exception of iPrimus) are tiny little no-name setups that likely have customers numbering in the hundreds. Two major ISPs with large customer bases, Optus and iiNet, were excluded because, I would assume, their data would reflect poorly on the filtering scheme.
These "real world" trials are a sham, and Conroy's a bastard.
Re:You know... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
And one of the ISP's, Webshield, is only known because it's business model is based on already offering a "clean-feed" connection.
Which is a fine business model---it's selling something that people want. And by participating in this trial, they might demonstrate that they've got a product that works. (Maybe. For some value of "works.") Or get some free publicity.
What's not OK is imposing a filter on people who don't want it.
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would think they would be against the filter, since if it becomes widespread, there is no need for their business model anymore. They will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't say anything at all about Webshield, but most commercial filtering software also blocks things like game sites and employment resources(job search sites, as well as sites with information about how much people in specific jobs get paid) .
They wouldn't have to pay for an anti-porn blacklist, so that saves them a little money and they probably offer services(or at least could) above and beyond just porn and IP filtering.
Re: (Score:2)
Iprimus is just in there to lend credibility, I have never heard of the other ISPs.
But wait, iPrimus is not actually listed only their parent company Primus Communications who won't have the same infrastructure configuration as an actual ISP.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Half the equation is that Australia's population is aging badly, and most old people think that everything is too fast, too loud, too dangerous and too untidy. This is a problem when a sizable portion of the voting public makes up this group.
The other half of the equation is, as I said first up, that life's too good here. We don't worry about getting shot at or knifed. The worst we generally have to contend with is bushfires (just had a doozy but it's been a few years since the last big one before that) and poisonous native animals. Out of work? No problems, Centerlink will pay for your cask wine and internets.
When people spend too long without serious threats to life and limb, their brain adjusts to see trivial things as big and important. Humans do that, our brains are great at adapting to their circumstances... but in this case, people rate their top 3-4 concerns as "life threatening" even when they are things like "my neighbour plays music after 7pm" and "my kid might see a digital nipple if he plays this M-rated game".
Another exacerbating effect of the general pantywaistness of the proletariat is that our political system is, for want of a better word, pan-partisan. Campaigns are based either on smearing the opposition (the last couple of federal elections have done this) or making a stand on the traditional party differences (unions and workers rights vs. tax breaks for businesses, for instance). Any remotely controversial issue is swept under the carpet and then laws about it are ninja-passed at 3am. As an Australian citizen I feel about as far removed from the running of this country as I am from the running of Uzbekistan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're just saying:
Harden the fuck up Australia!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dude, you live on an island with the most poisonous animals on earth. Ridiculously poisonous spiders that snuggle up in the toes of slippers and are native to your capital city.
I live right outside of Washington, D.C., and if I couldn't walk around at night in my apartment for fear of poisonous, deadly varmints holing up in my Nikes the last thing I would be is complacent.
Re: governance, I would like to point you towards a recent statement by our new president in which he said something along the lines of,
Huh. (Score:3, Informative)
I wish.
That would at least be interesting. Instead we have a narrow-minded, suburban, mealy-mouthed motherfucker who is content to run around screaming ohmygodohmygodwhataboutchechildren rather than actually do anything valuable or useful with his office.
All his blathering about "rolling up our sleeves" has no meaning other than that he doesn't want his cuff-links to bruise his butt.
Although I heartily despise the asswipe he replaced, Kevin Rudd is a serious disappoint
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but he's been "Feilding" some bigger problems.
Personally I would be happier with the very dishonest way this "for the kiddies" stuff was done by the previous government to keep Harridine happy than the stupidity of actually keeping the promise to keep Feilding happy. When single issue loonies like the Philanderers First Lesbians Last party (the very hypocritical "family first") have the deciding vote in the senate all kinds of cra
Re:Kevin (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck that is one of the most idiotic things I've read today (I won't go 'ever'). Are you that much of an opportunist? You've never alluded to this in earlier posts.
It is so dumb that you sound like one of those people who watch and believe 'Today Tonight'
Kevin caused the financial crises, eh? The coalition never had plans for filtering? This is Australia ... nobody else gives a fuck ... and I like it that way.
C'mon, you're smarter than this.
Re:Kevin (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not sending us into debt, we're already in debt! It's amazing how the coalition fed us the bullshit of historical consecutive surpluses and 'fiscal conservatism' but managed to DOUBLE the national debt to a trillion dollars in ten years.
This is after record taxation rates on the population (remember that the GST was meant to get rid of various taxes ... no wonder he promised never to move the GST to 11% ... Costello never needed to. How much after PAYG tax do you then end up paying on more taxes? Petrol? Milk? Bought a house in the last ten years? How much tax do you pay?) and a mining industry that brought in such huge amounts of cash from China and other developing nations but somehow the tax gained from that never found its way towards infrastructure or reducing the national debt.
They are all the masters of spin. Feed with one hand and rob with the other.
The filtering software was a first step that was deemed to be inadequate. They just got booted out before they could initiate secondary protocol.
Apologies for getting an Insightful mod on my previous post. It never should have.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
i'm not buying that without some kind of credible link. to my knowledge Costello paid off 100 billion in debt after the last labour government,and it took 10 years to do it. as for petrol, you were paying excise which is levied by STATE governments, which were all labour most of howards term. The same goes for stamp duty on houses - state government levied (and yes i have purchased a house). you never paid GST on milk, it was exempt as an essenti
Re: (Score:2)
You made me check my facts ... I was wrong.
In 1996, the national debt was 298.8 Billion [abs.gov.au]
In 2008, the nation debt was $1032 Billion! [cia.gov]
The states didn't remove the taxes because the government didn't let the *full* money from the GST flow through to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sending the government into debt is the most widely held view by economists on how you bloody well SHOULD fight a recession.
But I suppose you're one of those nutters who believes we shouldn't borrow money at an interest rate of basically zero (rate - future inflation) while people lose their jobs.
If it makes sense for companies with good future revenue and credit rating to borrow money to fuel growth why does it not make sense for governments to do the same when the private sector is incapable?
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're thinking emotionally and not with your head, if governments are unable to act on a timeline longer than 4 years then they've got the same problem as the private sector and cannot act as a buffer.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the numbers from december are in, and we saw a significant trend spike that has been wholly attributed to the 10bn.
Booze, smokes and pokies all have massive taxes on them, so if you're interested in the government recouping their money then that's a surefire hit. The idea that most people in Australia who make less than 100k are going to spend it on that is a bit absurd however.
If this is bad, what's YOUR excuse for....? (Score:2, Informative)
Don't like content filtering / tampering / snooping?
So what's YOUR excuse for...
Not having a PGP key of your own so people can send you secure emails / files?
Sending emails without digitally signing them (anyone can do it) and by default encrypting them to any/all recipients who will provide their keys for that purpose?
Complaining about "internet filtering" yet not even running the software to check and see whether YOUR internet / ISP is filtering / port blocking / et. al.? Last time I checked there were p
Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (Score:5, Insightful)
And I thought that censoring what my 7 year watches would be MY responsibility as a parent. Turns out you can just get the government to do it for free. Who'da thunk it ?
Just turn OFF the damn TV, parent your OWN kids, and stop spoiling the fun for the rest of us who ARE old enough and mature enough to decide what we watch.
Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (Score:5, Insightful)
when all of you geeks become parents, either you will spend 95% of your time manually filtering your child's on-line access, buy closed-source software from some "very dependable" company or be a very bad parent.
I can tell you first-hand (as a parent and someone from a "very dependable company") that Internet filtering is not all it's cracked up to be. The filters are simply not accurate enough to rely on for home use; there are sites out there which deliberately try and remain unfiltered. There are a LOT of ways to get around them, depending on the tech. I can tell you that none of the companies that I know of are perfect. The government's expensive testing even proved that. The only reason Internet filtering works in schools and businesses is group mentality. Students and employees start to think they're being watched and tend to avoid doing things that are inappropriate lest they be found out and others find out what they're doing.
Porn is not a problem. If you're letting a young child out onto the Internet unsupervised you're a fucking moron. You are the problem in that case. Plain and simple. Are you so fucking stupid you let them swim in a pool without watching them too? I bet it'll be the government's fault for not when they drown! Do you take them to large events (sporting ones perhaps) and let them run around where you can't see them? Oh, Uncle Sam should have protected them there too because you were too fucking lazy to!
Being a parent is not the job of the gumbiment. Being a parent is your job, and I've got some news for you shit-stick; it's a full time job. I know this because I am a parent and it never ends. It may be hard work, but it's also great fun and a real rush, knowing you're molding and shaping them into responsible little versions of you.
*end rant*
I make no apologies for flying off the rails. It sickens me to the very core that some people actually think they shouldn't have to look after their own children.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who said ANYTHING about mollycoddling children? I certainly didn't. I merely pointed out that expecting the Government's Internet filter to protect them from the evil 1nt4rw3bs is madness. In my own very pissed off way I pointed out other things that you wouldn't expect the government to protect your kids from.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Filters seem to be either fall on false positives or ineffective. Working for Ed Queensland, and sites that are definitely safe are blocked. I've been to sites that (IT research) that had inappropriate (for children) ads.
The balance required is too fine to be practical for anything other than the one in your head.
Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (Score:4, Insightful)
like it or not, when all of you geeks become parents, either you will spend 95% of your time manually filtering your child's on-line access, buy closed-source software from some "very dependable" company or be a very bad parent.
Why does no one ever demand actual evidence of harm from people like you? You claim that all of these dire consequences will arise from allowing your children unfettered access to information, and that we, as a society, will have to accommodate your beliefs. We've heard it before, over and over, for a large part of a generation now.
If you actually had to cite concrete, peer-reviewed, reproducible studies demonstrating the societal benefits of draconian ISP-level censorship before your position was taken seriously, it'd be amusing. Because such a requirement would leave you gasping and sputtering and waving your hands, unable to point to any evidence that children are actually harmed by media content. Yet, for some reason, people with your opinion are exempt from such requirements.
So... let's see that evidence, shall we?
Re: (Score:2)
Just a couple of nitpics for you there old mate...
A) I have two children aged 1 and 8 and another on the way. Which makes me a parent, so no you are not special and you don't get to corner any sort of moral high ground in this debate.
B) If in your household it's possible for your seven year old daughter to come across content like you mention then your already a failure as a parent, sorry.
C) Don't push me (a real dad) and the rest of us down because you can't swim. We real parents can handle the internet
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ANSWER HER QUESTION. And TELL THE TRUTH. Damn, how hard is that? Coward.
I'm a software engineer. I write software, both closed source and open. I write it at work and I write it at home on my own time. I think that qualifies me as a geek. I'm also raising a 10 year old girl. Last week she wanted to know what a phallus is. Her mother and I were sitting on the couch together. "It's a man's penis," we said, after a second. "Oh," she says. That was all. Yes, she knows what a penis is. She's 10.
Re: (Score:2)
If the customers leave, the money stops. If the money stops, the lobbying stops.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there are technological measures you can take, they are worthless since the opponent has the whole backing of the government.
Yes, you con win a round but you cannot win a war against a determined government.
The battle should be done using the correct ways, legal and clear ways.
It should be clear to all population that "filtering" can and is usually used to shut down political opponents and such risk leads to a type of government that put all effort in preserving itself instead of creating better wea