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:
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:
Easier said than done. mozzaok wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:27pm:
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:
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 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:
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:
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 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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Who? What? :o ::) Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
It is not a bad idea, but it is actually unachievable from a technical viewpoint. Gaybriel wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 5:44pm:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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 |
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:
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:
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 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:
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:
|
Title: Re: No opt-out of filtered Internet Post by Calanen on Mar 23rd, 2009 at 1:04pm Quote:
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:
:) :) :) |
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:
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:
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. |