Whilst it is a concern, if it goes through and gets made law, the politicians who vote in favour of it should be much more concerned about their own safety, or that of their families, than the safety of the plebs (us) and the 'bad stuff' we can access on the internet.

Especially in this day and age, with people showing increasing signs of paranoia, distrust and hostility towards their governments.

Blocking websites deemed inappropriate is not going to remove undetected psychos, or even better, freedom loving patriots, from the streets.

Quote:

If you are though, Jim Profit thinks you're cool. And isn't that really the only reason to live?

But seriously. I believe nothing on the internet has any tangible meaning in reality. As the internet is a highway of information, ideas, and communication medium. Thus it should not be restricted, because in some ways, it's like policing the mind..

Granted, I won't hesitate to abuse it and incriminate my enemies.

Like Moot and 4chan.

Hell, instead of blocking websites and making it illegal to view, why not go after the guys who compell your government to want to block them?

Like 4chan.

I'm not just throwing 4chan out there for personal reasons, 4chan is well known for doing poo they shouldn't be. Massive pirating, internet bullying, child pornography, even "raids". Which domestic terrorism but cooler basically.


There's even some speculation that the next raid will involve sending emails to anyone who lives in Australlia "Simpsons porn" based on the whole scandal of that guy getting arrested for Simpsons porn because it constituted as child pornography. So they're going to send child porn to everyone they can find that lives in Australlia and stirup a bunch of poo.

And why?

"For the lulz". IE: Just for the sake of doing it and being an ass.


No surprise, most of the people that go 4chan are either American or English.

I'm not sure how the people responsible for Internet Censorship would stand in terms of liability. The people actually conducting illegal activities would probably not use such media as web sites. They would probably use encrypted transmissions and peer to peer networks, so they would miss the people that it's intended for. Then how on earth could they cope with transmissions such as streaming video, audio and even VOIP transmissions, which could easily be used to transfer embedded files of any description. The trouble is that they would use more and more sophisticated techniques which would make them much more difficult to detect.

Then there is the fact that no matter what they do, it will not be 100% effective. So if educational establishments etc relied on such a system and it failed, surely they could sue?

I will not be allowing myself to become subject to this filtering.

I'm very concerned about the Internet censorship plan. Does the government really think an Internet filter will stop child pornography? Child porn is not hosted on the Internet. That would be stupid. To avoid getting caught, pedophiles trade child pornography over P2P networks. So any sort of filter that blocks websites containing references to "child porn" or any similar string of letters will be ineffective in preventing child pornography. Once again our liberties are being curbed in an effort to stop something that cannot be prevented. You want to stop porn and terrorism by filtering out websites that contain references to "boobs" or "bombs"? Don't be ridiculous. And to do so with no regard at all for the freedoms and liberties of Australians is preposterous. I think Rudd has been hanging out with his Mandarin-speaking Chinese Communist buddies too much.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2009 at 10:02pm:

thank you