Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Technically Speaking >> No opt-out of filtered Internet
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224127253

Message started by Kytro on Oct 16th, 2008 at 1:20pm

Title: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 16th, 2008 at 1:20pm
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1399635276

Quote:
Australians will be unable to opt-out of the government's pending Internet content filtering scheme, and will instead be placed on a watered-down blacklist, experts say.

Under the government's $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety, users can switch between two blacklists which block content inappropriate for children, and a separate list which blocks illegal material.


This concerns me greatly.  I was already annoyed enough of having to opt out of the government fiddling with internet connection, but this too much.  Filtering technology is poor, has too many false positives, and will slow down my connection all to protect me from myself.  No thanks.


Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by easel on Oct 16th, 2008 at 1:34pm
Hooray for government protecting us from ourselves! Government interference is lovely!

Whichever politician it was who thought of this should be shot.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by freediver on Oct 16th, 2008 at 1:45pm
Why don't they just go ahead and block illegal material by whatever means they can? Or just monitor it's use? Anyone who actually wants illegal material is going to be ahead of the government on this anyway. It's a matter for the police, not the bureaucrats.

There are plenty of free internet shields for children. They are probably much better than the government's. There is no need for the government to play babysitter.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by locutius on Oct 16th, 2008 at 1:59pm
Sort of like gun control. Preemptively punish the law abiding majority. Isn't nice to be part of the stomped on citizenry. >:(

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by freediver on Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:02pm
I guess it is 'sort of' like gun control, in the same way it's 'sort of' like speed limits on the roads.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:17pm
how very lame  :D

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by mozzaok on Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:27pm
Well I certainly do not want to see the internet censored, and I would certainly prefer that they go after illegal sites, and shut them down individually.

I cannot help but wonder how much that this has to do with internet "piracy", rather than terrorism or pornography.

The government wants high speed broadband, the ISP's want it fast enough for media streaming, online media delivery is the next big market, and I cannot help but wonder if this is not the real agenda here.

Look forward to Fibre to the node, then VDSL2 , delivered via Cat5E, (good copper) to the home.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:33pm
My big problems are that:

* We can get around censorship anyway, if we wanted too.
* This will slow the internet down
* This will cost ISPs to implement and maintain, and prices will go up.

The blacklist/s will also hidden from ISPs, so they will not know what is in them, which means the Government could censor things that are not illegal, such is criticism of the Government.

Do you trust them to be honest?

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:34pm

mozzaok wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:27pm:
Well I certainly do not want to see the internet censored, and I would certainly prefer that they go after illegal sites, and shut them down individually.


Easier said than done.


mozzaok wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:27pm:
I cannot help but wonder how much that this has to do with internet "piracy", rather than terrorism or pornography.


I believe the filtering will be primarily HTTP and HTTPS.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Oct 16th, 2008 at 3:02pm
Back to 1981

Interpol und Deutsche Bank, FBI und Scotland Yard
Interpol und Deutsche Bank, FBI und Scotland Yard
Flensburg und das BKA, Haben unsere Daten da
Flensburg und das BKA, Haben unsere Daten da

Nummern, Zahlen, Handel, Leute
Nummern, Zahlen, Handel, Leute

Computer Welt
Computer Welt
Denn Zeit ist Geld
Denn Zeit ist Geld

Interpol und Deutsche Bank, FBI und Scotland Yard
Interpol und Deutsche Bank, FBI und Scotland Yard
Finanzamt und das BKA, Haben unsere Daten da
Finanzamt und das BKA, Haben unsere Daten da

Automat und Telespiel
Leiten heute die Zukunft ein
Computer fuer den Kleinbetrieb
Computer fuer das eigene Heim

Reisen, Zeit, Medizin, Unterhaltung
Reisen, Zeit, Medizin, Unterhaltung

Computer Welt
Computer Welt
Denn Zeit ist Geld
Denn Zeit ist Geld

english translation

Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scotland Yard
Business, Numbers, Money, People
Computer World
Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scotland Yard
Business, Numbers, Money, People

Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scotland Yard
Computer World
Business, Numbers, Money, People
Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scotland Yard
Business, Numbers, Money, People
Computer World

Computer World
Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scotland Yard
Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scotland Yard
Crime, Travel, Communication, Entertainment
Computer World
Crime, Travel, Communication, Entertainment
Computer World



Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 16th, 2008 at 11:45pm

Whilst I agree it's not the best way to implement such a thing... something has really gotta be done. The fact that young kids can so easily be exposed to some of the filth on the internet is a real problem that has to be dealt with.

Or we risk the next generation of kids being really warped by the some of the stuff out there.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 17th, 2008 at 7:28am

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 11:45pm:
Whilst I agree it's not the best way to implement such a thing... something has really gotta be done. The fact that young kids can so easily be exposed to some of the filth on the internet is a real problem that has to be dealt with.


Yeah, something does have to be done.  Parents need to be parents.  If you want to filter the internet, it should be your responsibility, not that of the government.  

The problems with this solution are:


  • It is easy to bypass
  • It only affects web content
  • It will degrade web content speeds
  • It will block sites it should, and not block all that it should
  • Still will not protect children from the larger dangers on the net
  • Increase the cost of internet access
  • Means you must trust the government not to abuse it's power


It is a feel-good move designed to make people think the government is doing something, even if it is ineffectual.  It goes further than protecting children and targets adult too.  If there was just one list, and it was opt-out, I'd have no issue other than the money wasted, but to enforce filtering on everyone is unacceptable.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 17th, 2008 at 9:32am

Agreed, the side effdects of it are probably going to outweigh any actual benefit. Also I remember a story at the time they began trialling it that it only took a teenager about half an hour to bypass it.

But I still think something has to be done. Obviously the old methods of merely screening the text content of a page, or accessing databases of registered inappropriate sites is just not sufficient.

I don't see why they can't develop something akin to OCR, but which can recognise an image as having sexual content, rather than words from images of text. Perhaps you're right though for now client-side filtering software is the best thing we have.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 17th, 2008 at 9:47am

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 9:32am:
I don't see why they can't develop something akin to OCR, but which can recognise an image as having sexual content, rather than words from images of text. Perhaps you're right though for now client-side filtering software is the best thing we have.


It may possible to develop but right now computers are not good enough at pattern recognition to do this accurately, and get them good enough is a little way off yet.  Even if they were to process the number of requests in a timely fashion would present a difficult challenge.

The internet is just a reflection of generally affluent society around the world, and attempts to censor parts of it are doomed to fail, as they have in the past.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by freediver on Oct 17th, 2008 at 11:32am
It is not possible for a computer to distinguish a pornographic image from a medical one, or child porn from the photo of a proud parent. Even people have trouble telling the difference sometimes.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Oct 17th, 2008 at 4:14pm

freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 11:32am:
It is not possible for a computer to distinguish a pornographic image from a medical one, or child porn from the photo of a proud parent. Even people have trouble telling the difference sometimes.


Neither it is possible for a user to quickly find a pornographic image without any sort of descriptive text because they use computers to do it.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by locutius on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 2:05pm

freediver wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:02pm:
I guess it is 'sort of' like gun control, in the same way it's 'sort of' like speed limits on the roads.


I would have said that if cars had a mandatory limiter that stopped the car going over 110 kph, that would have been ' sort of ' like gun control.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 2:49pm

tallowood wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 4:14pm:
Neither it is possible for a user to quickly find a pornographic image without any sort of descriptive text because they use computers to do it.


I have found that it sometimes appears without looking for it.  In any case a filter is extremely easy to bypass and wouldn't address newsgroups or P2P.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:56am

Quote:
Under the scheme there will be two blacklists: one which blocks illegal material like child pornography; and another blacklist, referred to in a department press release, which blocks a list of material deemed unsuitable for children.

Users can opt out of the latter blacklist, but there is no opt-out for “illegal content”.


http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;879301684;fp;4194304;fpid;1

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 25th, 2008 at 10:02am

tallowood wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:56am:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;879301684;fp;4194304;fpid;1


Wow, the government already does not like criticism of solution.  Scary

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:13pm

Kytro wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 10:02am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:56am:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;879301684;fp;4194304;fpid;1

Wow, the government already does not like criticism of solution.  Scary


Do you really think that that a policy advisor is the government and that bureaucrats have no right to express their opinions?





Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Amadd on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:40pm
If this measure takes out with it legal materials, that come under the banner of freedom of information, freedom of speech, etc., then it should be deemed unconstitutional.
We deserve a referendum on this. But since when has that ever mattered?



Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:47pm

Amadd wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:40pm:
If this measure takes out with it legal materials, that come under the banner of freedom of information, freedom of speech, etc., then it should be deemed unconstitutional.
We deserve a referendum on this. But since when has that ever mattered?


Present Australian constitution does not guarantee The Freedom of Speech. In the past it was left to description of court I think.

May be should ask Aussie about that he says that he used to be a lawyer.



Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Amadd on Oct 25th, 2008 at 9:41pm
That might be an idea, but unfortunately our constitutional laws go into too many grey areas which even high court judges can't agree on.
It'd be a shame for us all if this goes through and takes out legitimate web sites.
Just another step closer to a dictatorship.



Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 26th, 2008 at 7:15am

tallowood wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:13pm:
Do you really think that that a policy advisor is the government and that bureaucrats have no right to express their opinions?


Conroy is a representative of the government, especially in this matter.   He has every right to his opinion, of course - it is just the fact he believes that criticism of the government is irresponsible.

People and organisations should have every right to be critical of the government particularly when they are doing so on the basis of legitimate concern.  The government should be addressing that concern, not trying to silence to criticism.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Oct 26th, 2008 at 8:38pm

Kytro wrote on Oct 26th, 2008 at 7:15am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:13pm:
Do you really think that that a policy advisor is the government and that bureaucrats have no right to express their opinions?


Conroy is a representative of the government, especially in this matter.   He has every right to his opinion, of course - it is just the fact he believes that criticism of the government is irresponsible.

People and organisations should have every right to be critical of the government particularly when they are doing so on the basis of legitimate concern.  The government should be addressing that concern, not trying to silence to criticism.


Who? What? :o ::)


Quote:
a policy advisor at Senator Conroy’s office had sent an e-mail to the Internet Industry Association (IIA) expressing concern that Internode’s Mark Newton, as an IIA member, was behaving “irresponsibly” with


Did a policy advisor threatened Mark Newton? With what?





Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 28th, 2008 at 12:17pm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/27/1224955916155.html


Quote:
Family First Senator Steve Fielding wants hardcore pornography and fetish material blocked under the Government's plans to filter the internet, sparking renewed fears the censorship could be expanded well beyond "illegal material".



Quote:
A spokesman for Senator Xenophon said, should the filtering plan go ahead, he would look to use it to block Australians from accessing overseas online casino sites, which are illegal to run in Australia.



Quote:
The online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia expressed fears that the internet filters could be used as a bargaining chip every time the Government needed to pass a piece of important legislation.


This is exactly why this legislation shouldn't become law.


Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by mozzaok on Oct 28th, 2008 at 7:17pm
Well fancy that , a bible bashing bastard trying to impose his religious standards onto the whole community.
Who would have thought it possible. ::)

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Oct 28th, 2008 at 9:05pm

Kytro wrote on Oct 28th, 2008 at 12:17pm:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/27/1224955916155.html

Quote:
Family First Senator Steve Fielding wants hardcore pornography and fetish material blocked under the Government's plans to filter the internet, sparking renewed fears the censorship could be expanded well beyond "illegal material".

[quote]A spokesman for Senator Xenophon said, should the filtering plan go ahead, he would look to use it to block Australians from accessing overseas online casino sites, which are illegal to run in Australia.


Quote:
The online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia expressed fears that the internet filters could be used as a bargaining chip every time the Government needed to pass a piece of important legislation.

This is exactly why this legislation shouldn't become law.[/quote]

Similar consideration applies for any legislation that require support of minor parties or independents.  

Anyway what religious atheists wankers want child pornography for?





Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 29th, 2008 at 3:42pm

tallowood wrote on Oct 28th, 2008 at 9:05pm:
Similar consideration applies for any legislation that require support of minor parties or independents.  

Anyway what religious atheists wankers want child pornography for?


I do not disagree, however it shows how easily the filter can and would be abused.

Also, who wants child porn now?

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Gaybriel on Oct 29th, 2008 at 5:44pm

Kytro wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 7:28am:
Yeah, something does have to be done.  Parents need to be parents.  If you want to filter the internet, it should be your responsibility, not that of the government.  


I agree - this is what I said initially- but then it was pointed out to me that the fact is that many parents don't do this. many couldn't give a rats.

I think the filtering of adult material that individuals can opt out of is good for those kids who don't have caring parents

but I don't agree with the censoring of illegal material- esp as you can't opt out of that

it's a slippery slope

P.S. this is why we need a bill of rights!

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Oct 29th, 2008 at 6:02pm

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 5:44pm:
I agree - this is what I said initially- but then it was pointed out to me that the fact is that many parents don't do this. many couldn't give a rats.

I think the filtering of adult material that individuals can opt out of is good for those kids who don't have caring parents


It is not a bad idea, but it is actually unachievable from a technical viewpoint.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 5:44pm:
but I don't agree with the censoring of illegal material- esp as you can't opt out of that

it's a slippery slope

P.S. this is why we need a bill of rights!


The problem I have is the government deciding what is suitable and not.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by freediver on Oct 30th, 2008 at 4:14pm
It should be opt-in, not opt-out. You shouldn't have to register with the government to get something that is perfectly legal and none of their business.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Calanen on Dec 31st, 2008 at 9:34am

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 11:45pm:
Whilst I agree it's not the best way to implement such a thing... something has really gotta be done. The fact that young kids can so easily be exposed to some of the filth on the internet is a real problem that has to be dealt with.

Or we risk the next generation of kids being really warped by the some of the stuff out there.


I agree to some extent. But you only need to install a filter on your own computer, not the whole internet! Net Nanny works fine to stop children looking at inappropriate content. The govt trying to filter the whole internet pipeline is like them pouring Bondi Beach through a sieve while everyone waits for their bag of sand. And wait they will....

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by mozzaok on Feb 27th, 2009 at 4:35am
It is a brave new world.

Only an idiot would want the government to censor the internet.

http://giveupinternet.com/2009/01/13/internet-censorship-a-good-explanation-of-internet-censorship-video/

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Calanen on Feb 27th, 2009 at 3:43pm
The good news is that Xenophon stopped it. So no internetz filter for you K Rudd.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Amadd on Feb 27th, 2009 at 11:29pm
That presentation that Mozz posted looked and sounded very "Zeitgeist-like". The narrator sounded the same, but his name is Andy Bouve'. Could be the same guy I suppose.

The government knows that what they're trying to do is a bit too unlawful to get away with atm. It's only a matter of time before they assume full control.
Who would've ever thought or accepted 50 years ago that cameras etc. would be watching and dictating to us every step of the way? That was just a science fiction novel by George Orwell called "1984".
Clever (western) worldwide marketing of BB has made him accepted as one of us, but he's the same evil fiend that he always was IMO. Off with his head!






Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Calanen on Feb 28th, 2009 at 5:43am

Quote:
Who would've ever thought or accepted 50 years ago that cameras etc. would be watching and dictating to us every step of the way? That was just a science fiction novel by George Orwell called "1984".


I actually agree with cameras in the streets. Too dangerous now without them. There are cameras in Hyde Park, and if you are assaulted the cops are there within a hot minute. If they werent there, they'd just find your corpse with a blade bent off in it.

Nobody has any reasonable expectation of privacy in a public street, and whether the police are watching with their own eyes, or a camera, no big deal.

Cameras in private homes, or back yards I am of course dead against.  But nobody has a right to privacy in a public street.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by mozzaok on Feb 28th, 2009 at 7:38am
Yes Calanen, I agree, we accept surveillance cameras as a necessity for security, and I have no problem with them in public places, it is not like they are in your bedroom trying to impose morality laws, they are just for public safety.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Amadd on Feb 28th, 2009 at 11:47am

Quote:
There are cameras in Hyde Park, and if you are assaulted the cops are there within a hot minute. If they werent there, they'd just find your corpse with a blade bent off in it.


Are you sure about that?
I think the case would be more like, they find your corpse with a blade bent off in it and then they review the video. They don't actually monitor every one of the 500,000+ surveillance cameras in the city of London all of the time.
There was a case the other day where a group of Somali thugs were filmed laying into person in a Melbourne subway. The cameras "apparently" helped to catch the purpetrators. They also gave a glimse of our immigration policies at work, but they didn't stop the attack from occurring. Nobody knew the attack had occurred until the next day.
Cameras don't change the nature of people - or do they? And if they do, do they change our nature for the better?
Personally, I don't really feel much love for this country anymore. I just want to take what I can get from it and take off, much the same as I'd feel about working at a job that I don't like. Is that wrong? Can I be fined for feeling that way?i









Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Calanen on Feb 28th, 2009 at 12:20pm

Quote:
I think the case would be more like, they find your corpse with a blade bent off in it and then they review the video. They don't actually monitor every one of the 500,000+ surveillance cameras in the city of London all of the time.


My office is not far from Hyde Park, and whenever there is trouble - the cops are there in a heartbeat because of the cameras. Sure if someone rushes over and stabs u, they cant get there in time. But normally there is a lead up to things as trouble starts.

They've even grabbed people who graffittieed there, that's how quick off the draw they are.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Amadd on Feb 28th, 2009 at 1:50pm
Hyde park in Sydney?
Well I suppose they must sit there monitoring the park constantly. May as well have a copper at the scene patrolling, in the better interests of public safety.
The street cameras don't bother me too much, not as much as it'd bother somebody 50 years ago I suppose, but they're pretty much useless as regards preventing crimes. Cameras may deter some criminals from acting in a surveillance area, but they'll just commit their crime elsewhere or carry along a hood.



Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Mar 18th, 2009 at 7:51am
a prohibited anti-abortion web page was removed from Whirlpool

Who'd be pissed off about that?


Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Mar 18th, 2009 at 12:44pm
Sprint or anyone else who wants to look at the prohibited web page to make own judgement just let me know and I sent you the link via PM so FD doesn't have to pay $11K fine.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Mar 18th, 2009 at 6:14pm

tallowood wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 12:44pm:
Sprint or anyone else who wants to look at the prohibited web page to make own judgement just let me know and I sent you the link via PM so FD doesn't have to pay $11K fine.


1. The 11k fine is only if you refuse to remove the the link I believe.

2. The reason that site was banned was because some one complained about it as a social experiment to show easily thing would be added to the blacklist.

3. A list of banned sites in Denmark (via wikileaks) is now also on the blacklist.

4. If the law gets passed the blacklist will be reversed engineered and put on wikileaks and other places.  

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Mar 18th, 2009 at 7:10pm

Kytro wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 6:14pm:

tallowood wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 12:44pm:
Sprint or anyone else who wants to look at the prohibited web page to make own judgement just let me know and I sent you the link via PM so FD doesn't have to pay $11K fine.


1. The 11k fine is only if you refuse to remove the the link I believe.

2. The reason that site was banned was because some one complained about it as a social experiment to show easily thing would be added to the blacklist.

3. A list of banned sites in Denmark (via wikileaks) is now also on the blacklist.

4. If the law gets passed the blacklist will be reversed engineered and put on wikileaks and other places.  


I can post it here if it is ok by FD.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Mar 18th, 2009 at 10:29pm
It isn't a problem, I have seen the link - the point is really that it is easy to abuse the system.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Mar 19th, 2009 at 6:29am

Kytro wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 10:29pm:
It isn't a problem, I have seen the link - the point is really that it is easy to abuse the system.


It also can be fun  :)

Look here before ACMA become suicidal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACMA


Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Kytro on Mar 19th, 2009 at 2:22pm
In case anyone missed the news, the ACMA blacklist has been leaked to the wikileaks website and includes gambling sites, normal porn, some wikipedia links, a tourism company, some religious sites etc.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Calanen on Mar 22nd, 2009 at 6:50pm

Kytro wrote on Mar 19th, 2009 at 2:22pm:
In case anyone missed the news, the ACMA blacklist has been leaked to the wikileaks website and includes gambling sites, normal porn, some wikipedia links, a tourism company, some religious sites etc.


Anything 'inconvenient'.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Mar 22nd, 2009 at 8:46pm
Wikileaks threatens Conroy with criminal prosecution


Quote:
Senator Conroy yesterday issued a statement in response to the release of the Australian Internet censorship list by Wikileaks, saying that his department, "is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution."

Describing Senator Conroy as the person "responsible for Australian Internet censorship", Jay Lim, the legal adviser of Wikileaks publisher Sunshine Press stated:

"Under the Swedish Constitution's Press Freedom Act, the right of a confidential press source to anonymity is protected, and criminal penalties apply to anyone acting to breach that right.

"Source documents are received in Sweden and published from Sweden so as to derive maximum benefit from this legal protection.

"Should the Senator or anyone else attempt to discover our source we will refer the matter to the Constitutional Police for prosecution, and if necessary, ask that the Senator and anyone else involved be extradited to face justice for breaching fundamental rights."



Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Calanen on Mar 23rd, 2009 at 1:04pm

Quote:
"Should the Senator or anyone else attempt to discover our source we will refer the matter to the Constitutional Police for prosecution, and if necessary, ask that the Senator and anyone else involved be extradited to face justice for breaching fundamental rights."


Gold. I'd give them free legal here if they wanted it. I should shoot them an email.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Apr 3rd, 2009 at 10:40am
Conroy 'auctioned' on eBay


Quote:
A PRANK auction has been taken offline after someone tried to sell Communications Minister Stephen Conroy  on eBay.

Bidding had passed $700 by the time it was taken offline, almost 24 hours after it was posted.

A cheeky eBay user, screen name "krudd53", said the asking price for the politician was "around $8000 or best offer... No reasonable offer refused."

The bids escalated from $30 to $765 within hours. Prospective buyers even submitted their own joking questions about the mock auction.

"I am interested in a new communications minister, but I am worried that the one you have for sale is not fit for this purpose. What is your return policy?," asked one bidder.

The answer: "Hello fellow Australian, Stephen is better suited to a communist country. K Rudd."


:) :) :)

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Apr 11th, 2010 at 1:50pm
So how does it go?

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by tallowood on Apr 11th, 2010 at 3:13pm

Quote:
Pro-euthanasia group Exit International is holding national hacking crash-courses in how to bypass the Federal Government's planned ISP-level Internet content filter with help from the Australian Pirate Party....
About 100 people have signed on to the Perth hacking class to be held 7 April. Each workshop takes five-and-a-half hours and will also be held in Melbourne (12 April), Hobart (15 April), Adelaide (21 April), Brisbane (24 April), Canberra (30 April) and Sydney (7 May).


http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/342180/pirate_party_philip_nitschke_teach_seniors_hack_filter/


Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by mozzaok on Apr 11th, 2010 at 3:16pm
Filtering the internet is akin to sailing a sieve around the world, you will spend so much time plugging holes you will never get anywhere.
Basically it is a dumb idea which politicians are trying to implement to placate religious wowsers and politically correct twits who are afraid that people are not capable of deciding what they should and should not see.
Any grossly inappropriate stuff should just be handled like it is now, omn a case by case basis, where it can be reported and removed, if doing so is justified.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by Amadd on Apr 13th, 2010 at 10:15am
"Filtering" AKA thought controlling.

The internet only ever took off because of it's nature of being a medium for the exchange of free thought.

It might be an exciting revolation of freedom at first to watch some pig dog fisting porn, but the appeal is soon lost when you get past the necessity for personal freedom and settle on what is really of personal interest.

If there are peadophiles out there, then limiting content on the internet will not make them any less a peadophile. They have always had access to their terrible desires and they always will have.
Terrorists and all of the other slime will always be there regardless of whether we are permitted to see them or not.
I'd much rather be able to see the reality than to be "protected" from it.

The reality that our government wants to control our thinking in this way puts them in the same basket as all of the other fiends of the world. They should be treated as the criminals that they are.








Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by freediver on Apr 13th, 2010 at 8:40pm

tallowood wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 7:10pm:

Kytro wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 6:14pm:

tallowood wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 12:44pm:
Sprint or anyone else who wants to look at the prohibited web page to make own judgement just let me know and I sent you the link via PM so FD doesn't have to pay $11K fine.


1. The 11k fine is only if you refuse to remove the the link I believe.

2. The reason that site was banned was because some one complained about it as a social experiment to show easily thing would be added to the blacklist.

3. A list of banned sites in Denmark (via wikileaks) is now also on the blacklist.

4. If the law gets passed the blacklist will be reversed engineered and put on wikileaks and other places.  


I can post it here if it is ok by FD.


Go ahead and post it. We'll see what happens.

Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet
Post by mozzaok on Apr 13th, 2010 at 9:36pm
People can say what they like about you FD, but your honest committment to real free speech does you credit, and speaks volumes about your core integrity.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.