# Internet Filtering: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism



## stockGURU (18 October 2008)

> *No opt-out of filtered Internet*
> 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.
> 
> By Darren Pauli, Computerworld Australia
> ...




Continued here: http://www.infoworld.com/news/feeds/08/10/13/No-opt-out-of-filtered-Internet.html?source=gs

Once again, Australians are treated like children by our elected representatives.

We will have no control over what internet sites are filtered out for us by the government. 

Once surrendered, freedoms are very hard to regain. 

Is anyone actually in favour of this kind of nanny state censorship I wonder?


----------



## LM (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*

This is censorship. An illegal ACT has to be committed before it is an offence punishable by law. Thin end of the wedge. “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore”: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08


----------



## MattB (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*

I think it's atrocious... we're in the stone age as it is with the internet here _(overseas friends that visit can't believe this thing we call "being capped")_

But although most of us on here may be opposed _(by virtue of using an internet forum to say so!)_...  I feel the vast majority of Australians are still extremely ignorant to what the 'interwebs' is and how to safely navigate through it.

Most of my family are still on dialup (or simply don't have a connection  ) and look confused if I start talking about net specific stuff...   so, with a general population still this ignorant about the internet, you're probably going to get a lot of supporters to the government saying "We'll guide you through this dark, scary abyss"....   

They should an option here for people to opt out...  that's terrible.


----------



## CoffeeKing (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



stockGURU said:


> Continued here: http://www.infoworld.com/news/feeds/08/10/13/No-opt-out-of-filtered-Internet.html?source=gs
> 
> Once again, Australians are treated like children by our elected representatives.
> 
> ...




_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._

Another 125 mil wasted - should be an individuals choice as to how and what you view, set your own levels in your browser!
We get a voting choice, will that be taken away aswell in the future?


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*

I`m all for it.I can still view information that I am looking for so nothing has changed.

What is totalitarian about the decision?


----------



## stockGURU (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



Wysiwyg said:


> I`m all for it.I can still view information that I am looking for so nothing has changed.
> 
> What is totalitarian about the decision?




What is wrong with an unfiltered internet? Why not leave it the way it is now?

As adults why shouldn't we be able to determine what we view on the internet? What business is it of the government's to decide what is appropriate and what isn't?

They are spending $125 million dollars to censor our access to information. Does anyone really think this is a wise use of taxpayers funds? This censored information could simply be unpopular speech (ala David Irving), information on euthanasia, anything that the government concludes is inappropriate for us to be viewing.

I'll take an unfiltered internet and decide for myself what is appropriate for me to be viewing. I don't need the government deciding for me. We condemn China for censoring the internet and then turn around and do it ourselves. Ridiculous!


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*

Right, so Labor and Liberal have both completely screwed the economy and sold us out to the bankers. And now we're seeing censorhip as well.

Oh how we need a viable alternative at the global level. They're far from perfect but now that Labor / Liberal and their international equivalents have wrecked the economy, there aren't too many arguments left against the Greens. Never thought I'd say that given history...


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



stockGURU said:


> What is wrong with an unfiltered internet? Why not leave it the way it is now?
> 
> As adults why shouldn't we be able to determine what we view on the internet? What business is it of the government's to decide what is appropriate and what isn't?
> 
> ...




I understand your rights completely BUT the move is to clean up the internet.



> "Illegal is illegal and if there is infrastructure in place to block it, then it will be required to be blocked -- end of story."




Obviously hunting down and prosecuting criminals is labor intensive and costly.


----------



## xoa (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*

Sadly, we'll see more of these crazy laws, as people become more complacent and ignorant. 

The government is so brazen, they doesn't even need to use the "terrorism" ruse any more.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



Wysiwyg said:


> I`m all for it.I can still view information that I am looking for so nothing has changed.
> 
> What is totalitarian about the decision?



The government will have direct control over all practical sources of information for most Australians. TV and Radio don't provide serious news apart from the government-owned stations. Newspapers generally get most of their news from the internet. 

So government ends up censoring practically all information available to Australians, having the ability to hide literally anything it doesn't want you and me knowing about. Total control.

Before the internet we had a far more independent media which wasn't afraid to ask the hard questions. That's gone now and that's what makes this such a problem.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



Wysiwyg said:


> I understand your rights completely BUT the move is to clean up the internet.



I can live with it if it's limited to police investigations leading to the blocking of child pr0n sites etc. 

But there's no need to "clean up" anything else - if I don't want to look at it then I don't. If the kids are using the computer unattended at a young age then that's just rotten parenting. 

But you'll never stop kids looking at pr0n and working out how to make bombs anyway. I was in grade 3 when someone brought pr0n magazines to school and it didn't do us any lasting harm. That sort of thing has always gone on and always will in one form or another. 

It's like smoking - still massively attractive to teenagers simply because it's illegal and "wrong" for them to do it. Once they turn 18 and it's legal, that's when the quitting attempts start. Same as binge drinking is so "adult" and an absolute "must" when you're under 18.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*

Yay. Fascism here we come. There's lots of stuff on the internet that is destructive or unhelpful but why, in an alleged democracy, should the arbitrary values of some self-appointed guardians of thought be determinative of what people can and can't access? Information control. This can't end well.


----------



## marklar (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*

Letsee...

Cost goes up (user has to pay for this somehow)
Latency goes up (gotta inspect traffic to see if it's naughty or nice)
Risk of false positives goes up (www.coleSEXpress.com.au is a good example)
The internet is more than WWW

There are a heap of ways of avoiding this 'mandatory filtering' including:

Encryption
Tunneling
Anonymous proxies
Changing protocols
Peer-to-Peer
and combinations of the above.  Where there's a will, there's is a way.  

It's just like the war on drugs, or the war on terror, or reds under the bed; might have sounded plausible at the time but history shows just how naieve we really were at the time.

m.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



Smurf1976 said:


> So government ends up censoring practically all information available to Australians, having the ability to hide literally anything it doesn't want you and me knowing about. Total control.




That is highly unlikely.Four years of fixed term employment is all they have.


----------



## chops_a_must (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*

Will I still be able to watch my pr0n?


----------



## deadset (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*

It's alarming in that by having this ability, you also have the *ability *to form and shape public opinion in a controlled way and eliminate alternative viewpoints or thoughts whereas previously this was a distinguishing absent feature of the internet and the freedom of information and expression it allowed.  I'm not saying that the government will be using this information for reasons other than what it was first intended.

What would concern me, is if software is now placed on all Australian internet users computers unbeknowest to them.  I didn't hear that this was the case.  Presumably it is actual content scanned, not just known bad domains, URLs and IPs, so that'd take up bandwidth at every ISP, sounds like the equipment is housed and stored at each ISP reading between the lines on that article.  I'd be curious from a technical perspective on how it all worked.
------------

These internet caps frustrate me too, because you know the equipment is there and its probably under utilised, so its like "how much money can we screw you for" rather than, "here's your high speed internet that you've paid good money for".  I suppose if the cost was too low at some point it'd become overutilised.

They said they are still ironing out the policy and techniques.


----------



## kitehigh (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism - Internet filtering*

What a bloody joke, its quite frightening actually to see the Government go down this path.  We should immediately stop harassing China as we don't have a leg to stand on.  Maybe Rudd has been taking tips off the Chinese..

It reminds me when I was living in Dubai and they have a filter system as well,  I couldn't even access LJHOOKER.COM because of the word hooker.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (18 October 2008)

Well, this is one way to build stronger ties with China. Information sharing, anyone?


----------



## steve999 (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



chops_a_must said:


> Will I still be able to watch my pr0n?




I don't believe so ... (Assuming they do what they claim.)

From what I can tell given the complete lack of information about this, they are planning on banning all illegal/prohibited content.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90102

Acma reckons that all pr0n is prohibited online...

I tried to search for actual laws relating to pr0n online but nearly every reference has something to do about child pr0n. 

Look at the above link, it says

"actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, "

I would have thought child pr0n and bestiality would be covered under sexual activity


----------



## Julia (18 October 2008)

I personally would probably never want to access any of the stuff that is apparently going to be banned, but I object vehemently to this.

It's up to parents to place on their home computers some filter to eliminate what they don't want their children to see.  Though I'd hope that rather than doing that they'd have a discussion with said kids about what is appropriate and why.  

If the rationale for this infringement of our rights is to prevent paedophiles accessing online sexual activity, I doubt it will work.  They will simply find other ways to secure their prey.


----------



## chops_a_must (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



steve999 said:


> I don't believe so ... (Assuming they do what they claim.)



I for one am outraged! 

That's what this is all about...

Watch sexual assault cases go through the roof...


----------



## white_crane (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



steve999 said:


> I don't believe so ... (Assuming they do what they claim.)
> 
> From what I can tell given the complete lack of information about this, they are planning on banning all illegal/prohibited content.
> 
> ...




This only applies to content that is hosted in or provided from Australia.


----------



## DJZ (18 October 2008)

Wysiwyg you really are Ignorant to the extent to which this could be used arent you?

We live in a supposedly free country, free countries do not censor the media, and right now nothing really truthful comes from the mainstream media, its always slanted and biased. The internet is the only place you can find other view points, the Government already monitors anyone who visits muslim based website, even al jazeera, so will those be banned? Why shouldn't we be able to access information from anywhere freely anyway? Its our right isn't it?

This bill is abhorrent, and goes against everything this country stands for!

Why do people trust our government so much?


----------



## steve999 (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



white_crane said:


> This only applies to content that is hosted in or provided from Australia.




I could be wrong but my understanding is that this applies to all sites, it's just that the acma can't currently do much about overseas sites. 

Note that for R18+ the content only has to contain "intense adult themes", not necessarily naked people.


----------



## white_crane (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



steve999 said:


> I could be wrong but my understanding is that this applies to all sites, it's just that the acma can't currently do much about overseas sites.
> 
> Note that for R18+ the content only has to contain "intense adult themes", not necessarily naked people.




Check this link
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310147

If you read the section 'What will ACMA do?', it basically states that if the prohibited material is hosted elsewhere, it will only be put on pr0n filters.  Illegal content, on the other hand, will be pursued under the law.

*Back to the original topic:*
However, this is the current policy and not part of the new cyber-safety policy.  Incidentally, I can't find the actual cyber-safety policy.  Obviously the government doesn't want people to know about it.  It's possible that they have not fully developed the policy yet, but it would seem that they are being deliberately vague about it.


----------



## steve999 (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



white_crane said:


> Check this link
> http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310147
> 
> If you read the section 'What will ACMA do?', it basically states that if the prohibited material is hosted elsewhere, it will only be put on pr0n filters.  Illegal content, on the other hand, will be pursued under the law.
> ...




It is hard to tell what they actually intend to do...

I'm a bit confused about the prohibited vs illegal stuff... But back on topic , my point was that if they do go ahead with this filter that they will probably filter out all R18+ etc from overseas. So although ACMA currently only adds those sites to the pr0n filters... They would apply the pr0n filters to everybodies connection.

http://www.efa.org.au/censorship/mandatory-isp-blocking/#SS_4b



> There are clear indications, including from the Senator’s vague but frequent reference to “inappropriate” material, that the clean feed might mandate the filtering of R18+ rated material. For instance, the Labor Herald carried a Q&A stating that “Labor will require ISPs to filter out R, RC and X rated material as part of a clean feed for home internet connections.”[9b]
> 
> In response to an earlier enquiry by EFA, a relevant Labor Party policy adviser stated that Labor’s system would block R18+ content hosted on overseas sites that had been the subject of a complaint and had been classified by ACMA and that the existing legislation, which does not apply to R18+ content hosted overseas, would be changed accordingly.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 October 2008)

DJZ said:


> We live in a supposedly free country, free countries do not censor the media, and right now nothing really truthful comes from the mainstream media, its always slanted and biased. The internet is the only place you can find other view points, the Government already monitors anyone who visits muslim based website, even al jazeera, so will those be banned? Why shouldn't we be able to access information from anywhere freely anyway? Its our right isn't it?
> 
> This bill is abhorrent, and goes against everything this country stands for!



Precisely. What this ends up with is total government control of ALL news you hear about anything with the exception of those few events you personally see happening.

I wouldn't be surprised to see ASF blocked given that there's plenty on this site to falsely trigger a filter. Yes I'm being serious. 

Likewise it isn't stretching the mind too far to consider that government would love to block any site explaining how the banking system works. I think it was Henry Ford who noted what would happen if the general public worked that one out. And if not for the internet, most who know the answer to that one would never have discovered it. 

I've seen plenty of protests on everything from dams to education to factories to nightclubs. And there has always been one fudamental point there and that is freedom of speech. It's 20 years last month since the mass arrests in Salamanca Place (Hobart) over gay law reform, something the Council has long since accepted as the wrong thing to have done. But now we're proposing outright censorship of practically everything. Not what I'd call progress in a so-called free society.


----------



## theasxgorilla (18 October 2008)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



marklar said:


> Letsee...
> 
> Cost goes up (user has to pay for this somehow)
> Latency goes up (gotta inspect traffic to see if it's naughty or nice)
> ...




Exactly.  People will find ways around it.  Its a waste of money.  Of course the Internet has been like a great big fat maturity test for governments and corporate interests all over the world...could they actually resist the temptation to get their hands on it and take control of it in some way.

Well done Australia, you scored an F...FAIL.


----------



## steve999 (19 October 2008)

Some further information I found, which could imply that even MA15+ content might be blocked for all users. 

Read the following and see what you think:
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_internet_content_filtering_trial-report.pdf

Under Chapter 2 - Compilation of Test Data, they refer to the 3 categories of URLs used in the test: illegal, inappropriate & innocuous. Category 1 is the illegal set that will be blocked for all users.



> The Category 1 index of URLs was created from the ACMA prohibited content list. In accordance with Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, this list contains URLS that link to internet content hosted outside Australia for ACMA is satisfied is prohibited or potentially prohibited. Prohibited and potentially prohibited content is defined in clauses 20 and 21 of Schedule 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and may include content in the range MA15+ to RC.




(Also note the quality of the grammar in the above quote 

Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act is here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch7.html

Clauses 20 & 21 refer to what is prohibited and Clause 19 says that this also applies to content outside of Australia.



> 19    Extra‑territorial application
> 
> (1)  Unless the contrary intention appears, this Schedule extends to acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 October 2008)

Is it not disturbing that websites/ISP know your location and surfing visits via an IP address.Jeez the cookie implants are bad enough .


----------



## mayk (20 October 2008)

Will I be in minority to support this bill. Seeing by the outrage on this forum, it seems so, but ASF is hardly a proper sample of population. A skewed one at best.

I, for one, will support this law and will probably like it to be implemented in other countries as well. 

1984, Anyone! The theory of control is as old as the first formal government. People are too dangerous to be left on their own (in theory...). Control by Religion/Law/Morality has been the norm.

Having said that, I do not like the tracking and secret spying of individuals over the Internet. It should only be made possible via court order, which is not the case right now (in US at least). Our lovely Google also keeps a record of whatever you search and share this information with USA authorities. 

And anyone interested will find out that a major Internet usage policy law is been in the works in the USA, which will probably shape the Internet into a controlled form of media. Enjoy the liberty while it lasts.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 October 2008)

I find it verrrry interestink that Minister Big Brother PURPOSELY demanded that the bustling city of Launceston in Tasmania be the location for the filtering trial. Smurf, why did you not know this? Did you protest in the streets? 

Anyway, the executive summary shows that trial users reported between 2%-78% network performance degradation, averaging around 30% degradation. In LAUNCESTON, for chrissakes. 

One wonders what sort of network performance degradation figures they _might_ have seen if the trial had been done in a more representative BUSY network - like, _doh_, SYDNEY, or MELBOURNE or BRISBANE or PERTH or ADELAIDE or CANBERRA or DARWIN.... but, LAUNCESTON??? Gimme a break, Minister!!! Obviously, the Guvmint don't want trial figures that might alarm unsuspecting Joe Public (including Joe The Plumber). No. Instead they can claim "Degradation was as low as 2%". Total garbage.



aj

PS: I fully expect to be blacklisted after my BB rant.... oh, they're coming to take me awaaaay.....


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 October 2008)

steve999 said:


> Some further information I found, which could imply that even MA15+ content might be blocked for all users.
> 
> Read the following and see what you think:
> http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_internet_content_filtering_trial-report.pdf
> ...




Interesting that Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act includes this legislation:

------------------------

_112    Protection from criminal proceedings--ACMA, Classification Board and Classification Review Board_

*(1)  For the purposes of this clause, each of the following is a protected person :*

(a)  the ACMA;
(b)  a member or associate member of the ACMA;
(c)  a member of the staff of the ACMA;
(d)  a consultant engaged to assist in the performance of the ACMA's broadcasting, content and datacasting functions (as defined in the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 );
(e)  an officer whose services are made available to the ACMA under paragraph 55(1)(a) of the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 ;
(f)  a member or temporary member of the Classification Board;
(g)  a member of staff assisting the Classification Board or Classification Review Board as mentioned in section 88A of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 ;
(h)  a consultant engaged to assist in the performance of the functions of the Classification Board or the functions of the Classification Review Board;
(i)  an officer whose services are made available to the Classification Board under subsection 54(3) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 ;
(j)  a member of the Classification Review Board.

*(2)  Criminal proceedings do not lie against a protected person for or in relation to:*

(a)  the collection of content or material; or
(b)  the possession of content or material; or
(c)  the distribution of content or material; or
(d)  the delivery of content or material; or
(e)  the copying of content or material; or
(f)  the doing of any other thing in relation to content or material;

in connection with the exercise of a power, or the performance of a function, conferred on the ACMA, the Classification Board or the Classification Review Board by this Schedule or Schedule 5 to this Act.

-------------------

So, there you have it from the horse's ars.. errr... mouth.

If you want to collect, possess, distibute, deliver, view or copy illegal or prohibited material in Oz with total impunity, just join or work for the ACMA!!

Hilarious, since even the Police are subject to criminal proceedings for "illegal or prohibited" activities (eg: numerous cops being charged with child pr0n offences).

Actually, I was very lucky to spot that section - by the time I had scrolled through to that point in the Act I was starting to fall into a deep coma from trying to read the unbeleievable legalese gobbledy-gook. This Act affects us all and should be taught in schools. Failure to pass exams on this Act should result in expulsion from society.





aj


----------



## johenmo (20 October 2008)

Julia said:


> It's up to parents to place on their home computers some filter to eliminate what they don't want their children to see.  Though I'd hope that rather than doing that they'd have a discussion with said kids about what is appropriate and why.




Some parents don't care/watch their kids and this is what's used as the reason/excuse for this action.  And what about games for Xbox/PS3/etc and videos like Hostel/Saw?  When will it spread to this re violence etc?  



Julia said:


> If the rationale for this infringement of our rights is to prevent paedophiles accessing online sexual activity, I doubt it will work.  They will simply find other ways to secure their prey.




Too true - including the clever young PC gurus who are in para 1.  They are already using a variety of methods, as provided earlier.


----------



## fimmwolf (20 October 2008)

That's it!!

I'm gonna subscribe the milky bar kid to all the gay pr0n in the world.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 October 2008)

Forget internet filtering.... instead, digest this gem from today's news media - 


*"SENATOR Barnaby Joyce has tabled a collection of hardcore pornography to illustrate how easy it is to pick it up from petrol stations and corner shops".*

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24524859-5005961,00.html

Presumably an Act will now be introduced to "filter" all service stations, newsagents, corner shops etc, etc, etc for "bad" content.

Next stop - _**Knock, knock**_ on your front door. "We have Guvmint authority to enter your home and browse all printed and electronic media contained within this dwelling. We will advise you if you will be charged for possession of any content we deem to be *bad*. Our decision will be final and indefensible".


----------



## derty (20 October 2008)

Libraries will soon be issued with a list of books to be burnt.


----------



## DJZ (20 October 2008)

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 October 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> I find it verrrry interestink that Minister Big Brother PURPOSELY demanded that the bustling city of Launceston in Tasmania be the location for the filtering trial. Smurf, why did you not know this? Did you protest in the streets?
> 
> Anyway, the executive summary shows that trial users reported between 2%-78% network performance degradation, averaging around 30% degradation. In LAUNCESTON, for chrissakes.
> 
> One wonders what sort of network performance degradation figures they _might_ have seen if the trial had been done in a more representative BUSY network - like, _doh_, SYDNEY, or MELBOURNE or BRISBANE or PERTH or ADELAIDE or CANBERRA or DARWIN.... but, LAUNCESTON??? Gimme a break, Minister!!!



For the exact same reason that Tasmania has been used for practically every social, political and economic experiment for the past 30 years. An island with a relatively small population nowhere near big enough to change the outcome of a Federal election or harm the national economy but still big enough to make the results valid.

It's probably not widely known outside Tasmania that the recession of the "early 1990's" lasted most of the decade in this state. As late as 1998 the public meetings on the economic crisis were still in full swing whilst the rest of the country boomed. The inevitable consequence of successive Federal governments effectively blocking just about every major investment proposed in the state, an experiment they couldn't possibly try anywhere else.

It's probably even less known that Tasmania is the only Australian state where the Australian government has used the military (thankfully only in a surveillance role) against a democratically elected state government.

Looking at most indicators, Tasmania is either outright first or outright last amongst the Australian states. It's not often that Tassie sits in the middle of anything, and if it does it tends not to be for long. Either years ahead or years behind depending on what it is.

As for the lack of protests, well let's just say the usual protesters are busily trying to revive an old issue from four decades ago so they probably didn't notice the attempt to silence us all. And of course if they succeeded in their efforts then we'd be in the dark so the internet wouldn't be something we need to worry about anyway. 

(Off topic but please, get over it people! The scheme was built and it's not going to be pulled down now. You may not have noticed, but we're short on power as it is and the rest of the world has decided that renewable energy is a good thing so just live with what the people decided and leave it be. Go and protest about censorship or something instead while you still can.)

Agreed about Sydney, Melbourne etc being more significant locations although they probably do have better infrastructure so it may not necessarily produce a worse technical outcome. As for Darwin, Launceston isn't much smaller so it's a similar situation there.


----------



## wallyt99 (20 October 2008)

I too am bloody outraged.... I can just imagine signing up for a new internet connection....


"Great sir...thats $49.95....and would you like to watch pr0n on the internet?"

"Why yes....I think I will take the pr0n option."

"Certainly sir.  That option is $79.95, and your tendency to enjoy internet pr0n has been duly noted by the government, and anyone else we choose to sell your information to.  Thankyou, and have a nice day."


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 October 2008)

wallyt99 said:


> I too am bloody outraged.... I can just imagine signing up for a new internet connection....
> 
> 
> "Great sir...thats $49.95....and would you like to watch pr0n on the internet?"
> ...




Little do you realise that Big Brother failed to inform you that included in the *$79.95 pr0n Option* is an innocuous looking radio-dongle that will illuminate a flashing warning light in your local Police Station every time you access your *ahem* "P" Option.

I can imagine the Wallopers commenting ... _"Hey guys.... look - Weird Wally is 'avin' another perve ... let's go raid the poor sod for a larf..."_  LOL

aj


----------



## cruise61 (21 October 2008)

stockGURU said:


> Continued here: http://www.infoworld.com/news/feeds/08/10/13/No-opt-out-of-filtered-Internet.html?source=gs
> 
> Once again, Australians are treated like children by our elected representatives.
> 
> ...




The more they do to stop the sickoes out there from getting to our kids the better.
Im actually shocked a person would diagree with measures taken to protect children .
If you want ur pr0n get a video lets get rid of the crap from the net our children and our lives .
Who cares if you cant access everything you want , our kids are way more important than you just being able to google whatever you like .


----------



## stockGURU (21 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> The more they do to stop the sickoes out there from getting to our kids the better.
> Im actually shocked a person would diagree with measures taken to protect children .
> If you want ur pr0n get a video lets get rid of the crap from the net our children and our lives .
> Who cares if you cant access everything you want , our kids are way more important than you just being able to google whatever you like .




If you are a parent and you're not supervising your children's internet usage or installing filters on the PC they use then you are being negligent as a parent.

How exactly are these laws going to 'protect children'? How are these laws going to 'stop the sickos getting to our kids'?

These laws are not designed to protect children, they are designed to control what information adult Australians are able to access on the internet. IMO this is an unacceptable intrusion upon the freedoms of ordinary Australians. Sadly, cradle to grave socialism has made the Australian populace extraordinarily compliant and the majority will not resist the slow, relentless slide towards complete government control of our lives that this sort of legislation signals the beginning of.

It won't happen suddenly but as the result of incrementalism. Our civil liberties will be chipped away at slowly, piece by piece until one day big brother will control almost every aspect of our lives.

You may relish the idea of living in a society like that, but I don't.


----------



## cruise61 (21 October 2008)

stockGURU said:


> If you are a parent and you're not supervising your children's internet usage or installing filters on the PC they use then you are being negligent as a parent.
> 
> How exactly are these laws going to 'protect children'? How are these laws going to 'stop the sickos getting to our kids'?
> 
> ...




Obviosly you havent travelled much??
You should bend over and kiss the ground you live on because there are alot out there that dont even have electricity nevermind the internet.

Your comments are typical of an obnoxius person blind to reality and cant see past his front door.
As parents we protect our children to the best of our ability ,but to say its our responsibility solely is typical of your mind set.

If you saw a child getting bashed or raped would you just walk on by and say im not doing anything its his parents responsibility?

We protect them to the fullest but still the sickoes or sickoee still get to them and your saying thats the parents responsibility?? What world are you living in??

As i said previously the more we can do ALL OFF US to protect our families is way more inportant than any internet


----------



## Julia (21 October 2008)

stockGURU said:


> It won't happen suddenly but as the result of incrementalism. Our civil liberties will be chipped away at slowly, piece by piece until one day big brother will control almost every aspect of our lives.
> 
> You may relish the idea of living in a society like that, but I don't.



I agree entirely.   This first move at censorship, under the guise of protecting our children, will inculcate in the population more acceptance of the power of government over our lives.   It doesn't take too many steps of imagination to see a stage where the government will decide what political and sociological information we are allowed to access.

It's utterly unacceptable.


----------



## prawn_86 (21 October 2008)

Julia said:


> It's utterly unacceptable.




Agree.

However it has already happened. Just look at anti-terror laws and the like. People can be detained indefinitely, phone taps etc etc. Specifically related to the Internet is Echelon and the scanning of ALL emails for specific keywords.

Cruise, dont you see that they are now just using children as a guise to take away more civil liberties, just as they did with 'terrorism' (which everyone is over now). 

I have travelled extensively, and yes we are lucky, but there will come a time when we are no more free than a lot of other countries out there. It may not be in your life or mine but it is happening slowly as we speak.


----------



## cruise61 (21 October 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Agree.
> 
> However it has already happened. Just look at anti-terror laws and the like. People can be detained indefinitely, phone taps etc etc. Specifically related to the Internet is Echelon and the scanning of ALL emails for specific keywords.
> 
> ...





Well said but i guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Sorry to busy with market ,its been a good day


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> Well said but i guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Sorry to busy with market ,its been a good day




Well done. You better hope that one day the guvmint doesn't "censor" the shares you can buy or sell.

Oh, sorry.

Shorting was "censored".


----------



## white_crane (21 October 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Agree.
> 
> However it has already happened. Just look at anti-terror laws and the like. People can be detained indefinitely, phone taps etc etc. Specifically related to the Internet is Echelon and the scanning of ALL emails for specific keywords.




I deliberately like to add random terrorist-associated words to the bottom of my emails or during phone conversations, just to give someone in ASIO a hard time.



PS - bomb, fertiliser, timer, aeroplane, sim-card, chewbacca, yoda, lightsaber...


----------



## cruise61 (22 October 2008)

white_crane said:


> I deliberately like to add random terrorist-associated words to the bottom of my emails or during phone conversations, just to give someone in ASIO a hard time.
> 
> 
> 
> PS - bomb, fertiliser, timer, aeroplane, sim-card, chewbacca, yoda, lightsaber...




haha funny  nice


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2008)

white_crane said:


> I deliberately like to add random terrorist-associated words to the bottom of my emails or during phone conversations, just to give someone in ASIO a hard time.
> 
> 
> 
> PS - bomb, fertiliser, timer, aeroplane, sim-card, chewbacca, yoda, lightsaber...





Even in jest there are heavy penalties imposed by people who take blowing up people VERY seriously.




> Two popular party venues in Western Australia came within hours of being on terrorist alert on New Year's Eve after a hoax caller told the National Security Hotline of a plot to blow up the party hotspots.
> 
> Police records showed an xxxxx xxxxxx lived in Maddington, a Perth suburb, and they started tracking him from house to house. It is understood they raided up to seven homes before finding xxxxxx late on Tuesday afternoon.
> 
> ...


----------



## white_crane (22 October 2008)

Ahh, but he made a hoax call you see...


I take my privacy very seriously and the guvmint can butt out.


----------



## DJZ (22 October 2008)

stockGURU said:


> If you are a parent and you're not supervising your children's internet usage or installing filters on the PC they use then you are being negligent as a parent.
> 
> How exactly are these laws going to 'protect children'? How are these laws going to 'stop the sickos getting to our kids'?
> 
> ...




I Agree 100%, this is how every government takes more control, "Its for your own good" they say, Really? I cant look after myself and family, the Government knows better?  And the Stupid lemmings like Cruise just don't get it, they don't understand the concept of being free, they want to control everything everyone does, "Just in case", you never know, something bad might happen.




cruise61 said:


> Obviosly you havent travelled much??
> You should bend over and kiss the ground you live on because there are alot out there that dont even have electricity nevermind the internet.
> 
> Your comments are typical of an obnoxius person blind to reality and cant see past his front door.
> ...




Your the Ignorant one who's blind to the reality of the situation, What StockGuru is saying is that this measure will do NOTHING to protect children, absolutely nothing! All it will do is once again limit the freedoms of every single person in Australia, because of some Do-Gooder fanciful scheme that ,while maybe good in theory, never actually accomplishes anything. Unfortunately it sounds like we do live in a country of blind, ignorant, cradle to grave Socialistic, "Im not ready to take responsibility for my own actions" losers.

Im sorry Cruise, but if you aren't a good enough parent to limit what your kids are exposed to then that is no one but your fault.

Im sick of people saying we have to live in a cotton wool society because a small, very small, minority of people don't do the right thing.


----------



## cruise61 (22 October 2008)

DJZ said:


> I Agree 100%, this is how every government takes more control, "Its for your own good" they say, Really? I cant look after myself and family, the Government knows better?  And the Stupid lemmings like Cruise just don't get it, they don't understand the concept of being free, they want to control everything everyone does, "Just in case", you never know, something bad might happen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Dont be sorry discussion is a very important part of a forum to talk about  the issues and its good to hear the negative and posative sides whether you agree or disagree.
If ever i have children i will let you know how i go looking after them but until then i will stick to making money 
Guess its just like the jurdiciary system some of the crimes people get  away with i would be quite happy to be the executioner and pull the switch but because we live in your so called cotton wool society we allow these dip****s to walk the streets and prey on our kids, and its because of people like you yelling dont take away a persons liberty that they are able to freely walk the streets.
Governments need to get tough on these morons and if it means taking away your internet  who cares we survived without it 15 years ago and mind you our lives were more active then too .
Sometimes youve gotta give to gain ,just like the stock market


----------



## Who Dares Wins (22 October 2008)

[Unfortunately it sounds like we do live in a country of blind, ignorant, cradle to grave Socialistic, "Im not ready to take responsibility for my own actions" losers.]

Ha!

You think you've got it bad, try living in New Zealand!

The Government here has just announced they will be placing water regulators on all of our shower heads to "limit" households water use.


----------



## Aussiejeff (22 October 2008)

Who Dares Wins said:


> [Unfortunately it sounds like we do live in a country of blind, ignorant, cradle to grave Socialistic, "Im not ready to take responsibility for my own actions" losers.]
> 
> Ha!
> 
> ...




Sounds like a dare too far....


----------



## cruise61 (22 October 2008)

Who Dares Wins said:


> [Unfortunately it sounds like we do live in a country of blind, ignorant, cradle to grave Socialistic, "Im not ready to take responsibility for my own actions" losers.]
> 
> Ha!
> 
> ...




What you mean theve actually started to shower over there 
Pity they dont have a filtering system at the airport to regulate who comes to australia


----------



## steve999 (22 October 2008)

If you check out Malcolm Turnbull's twitter page
https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm

He has this message:


> thanks for all the queries about the government's clean feed internet proposal. Will post something on this soon.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (22 October 2008)

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist. 

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

------

Is anyone genuinely naive enough to think that totalitarianism can't happen here? It's one freedom at a time. Selective information *monitoring* with good reasons in individual cases to find criminals is one thing. Blanket information *control* of an entire nation is an entirely different kettle of fish.


----------



## stockGURU (22 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> Dont be sorry discussion is a very important part of a forum to talk about  the issues and its good to hear the negative and posative sides whether you agree or disagree.
> If ever i have children i will let you know how i go looking after them but until then i will stick to making money
> Guess its just like the jurdiciary system some of the crimes people get  away with i would be quite happy to be the executioner and pull the switch but because we live in your so called cotton wool society we allow these dip****s to walk the streets and prey on our kids, and its because of people like you yelling dont take away a persons liberty that they are able to freely walk the streets.
> Governments need to get tough on these morons and if it means taking away your internet  who cares we survived without it 15 years ago and mind you our lives were more active then too .
> Sometimes youve gotta give to gain ,just like the stock market




You still haven't explained how this proposed legislation is going to 'protect children' or 'stop the sickos getting to our kids'.

If parents allow the internet into their homes then it is their responsibility to filter it using software, or alternatively, to monitor their children's internet usage. Parents need to take responsibility for what their children are exposed to in their own homes!

This legislation isn't going to do *anything* to protect children that can't already be done by the parents themselves. It is a gross infringement upon the civil liberties of ordinary Australians and I hope that other concerned Australians will actively resist this heavy handed government interference in their lives.


----------



## Julia (22 October 2008)

Who Dares Wins said:


> [Unfortunately it sounds like we do live in a country of blind, ignorant, cradle to grave Socialistic, "Im not ready to take responsibility for my own actions" losers.]
> 
> Ha!
> 
> ...



Good Heavens!   Is this a national edict?   My relatives in Christchurch tell me it has rained all year.   In all the years I lived there water shortage was the last thing likely to be a problem.


----------



## [t..o..m] (22 October 2008)

stockGURU said:


> You still haven't explained how this proposed legislation is going to 'protect children' or 'stop the sickos getting to our kids'.
> 
> If parents allow the internet into their homes then it is their responsibility to filter it using software, or alternatively, to monitor their children's internet usage. Parents need to take responsibility for what their children are exposed to in their own homes!
> 
> This legislation isn't going to do *anything* to protect children that can't already be done by the parents themselves. It is a gross infringement upon the civil liberties of ordinary Australians and I hope that other concerned Australians will actively resist this heavy handed government interference in their lives.




Totally agree. The government is slowly taking away the freedoms that we currently hold to have total control over what we see, hear, and think. Media has already been censored in certain way's to stop important news and information being broadcast to the public. Instead they populate the airways with big brother and aussie idol to keep the general public numbingly oblivious to world events.

The Internet is the only thing we have left where people can display and comment on any information they like. With this freedom taken away it would be a sad day for the whole human race.


----------



## MattB (22 October 2008)

My mate has just visited from Israel and has said Australia feels very slow and stiff regarding information...  he said information just 'flows' in Israel (and in most euro countries they do busniess with) and his business finds it hard to deal with Australia due to the lack of regular connectivity we have.

This censorship could be attributed to securing votes to the grossly ignorant Australian population when it comes to the internet... painting this horrible picture about pediphiles and pr0n sites...  it makes sense like this, because there's still many Aussies on DIALUP or that don't even have the internet! 

When I was a kid, we all used to play in parks...   guess what, sometimes someone would drive past in a car and beckon us to come over...  and guess what, we didn't and ran away.  Oh what else...  yeh, walking down to the corner shops as kids to buy sweets...  plenty of dangers along the way, crossing roads, not talking to strangers... etc etc....

There are almost identical parallels with the internet...   the park is now a chat room where you get your scary person who might come on to lure someone away...   it's just a different playing field.    ....and guess what, if someone asked for our details on the net, we wouldn't hand them over.

Strange, we didn't have our parks and corner shops censored, even though pedo's have molested kids in our very own towns! *gasp*...    

I can only attribute this to ignorant paranoia amongst those who don't know how to deal with something "new" - c'mon my grandma surfs the net now, surely you parents,with a vested interest in your children, can catch up if your honestly that afraid - just like my Mum would watch us playing sport in the park rather than getting the government to "filter" people who are allowed to goto parks _(or something similarly whacky)_.  I get the feeling this censoring is done out of fear and ignorance...  not practicality.


----------



## Julia (22 October 2008)

Who Dares Wins said:


> You think you've got it bad, try living in New Zealand!
> 
> The Government here has just announced they will be placing water regulators on all of our shower heads to "limit" households water use.



With apologies to others for being so off topic in this thread, as I suspected, this comment is rubbish.   Apparently the Greens in NZ have simply made this suggestion.  That's a very far cry from suggesting some little person from the big brother NZ government is going to go from house to house in NZ placing regulators on shower heads.

Not sure about the rest of the country, but in Christchurch they don't even pay anything for water, it's so plentiful.


----------



## DJZ (22 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> Dont be sorry discussion is a very important part of a forum to talk about  the issues and its good to hear the negative and posative sides whether you agree or disagree.
> If ever i have children i will let you know how i go looking after them but until then i will stick to making money
> Guess its just like the jurdiciary system some of the crimes people get  away with i would be quite happy to be the executioner and pull the switch but because we live in your so called cotton wool society we allow these dip****s to walk the streets and prey on our kids, and its because of people like you yelling dont take away a persons liberty that they are able to freely walk the streets.
> Governments need to get tough on these morons and if it means taking away your internet  who cares we survived without it 15 years ago and mind you our lives were more active then too .
> Sometimes youve gotta give to gain ,just like the stock market




What?

My cotton wool society? Your the one pushing for a cotton wool society, in which PC reigns supreme, people cant do the things they enjoy, Government has total control, and criminals are let back on the street, as we cant protest because the government has us nicely hamstrung.

You just don't get it do you?

The less government control, and the more Societal control the better!

How is internet filtering going to protect anyone to begin with, its not like people become pedophiles by watching pr0n? You still haven't explained that, and you cant, because it wont!

And no I dont yell about protecting criminals liberties, you just have no understanding of the concept of freedom do you? I believe in Human rights, The right to your Life, Liberty and the fruits of your labour. If somebody infringes upon these rights than the full weight of the law should be brought down upon them. The laws within society should be based upon those rights, and enforced heavily . . But . .Why should I be punished, and MY freedoms be limited because a small minority of people use something in a way, to infringe upon other peoples freedoms? Why not catch the people who are actually committing the crime?

Should all cars be banned because they can Kill, or because pedophiles can use them to kidnap children, How about all knives, or maybe computers should just be banned, thats a pretty foolproof method? Should kids be banned from walking in the streets unaccompanied, should they be restricted in everything they do, just to keep them safe? Is it the Governments responsibility to take these matters in their hands in the first place? I think not.

If you understand history and the totalitarian regimes through out it, you would understand that freedoms are always restricted in the guise of protecting you from yourself!

I'm guessing you like living in a nanny state, and not taking responsibility for your own actions, either that, or you simply do not understand the principle behind what I'm saying.

And no, you do not have to relinquish your hard fought for freedoms to gain security, that is a joke, Benjimin Franklin even knew that hundreds of years ago

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjimin Franklin

Its about Freedom, Its about not being punished for something someone else did, and its about Government being to lazy to actually do the hard work to catch these people, and instead they implement a populist scheme to keep the lemmings happy.


----------



## kitehigh (22 October 2008)

Well said DJZ, you articulated exactly what I was thinking of the situation as well. 

People do get complacent with their freedoms and than they wake up one day an realize they have no freedoms whatsoever.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free". Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


----------



## DJZ (22 October 2008)

kitehigh said:


> Well said DJZ, you articulated exactly what I was thinking of the situation as well.
> 
> People do get complacent with their freedoms and than they wake up one day an realize they have no freedoms whatsoever.
> 
> "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free". Johann Wolfgang von Goethe




Exactly, that is what I fear, people too willingly give up their freedoms when they are scared of something.

I really like your Quote too its so apt in this day and age, the more I think about thinks though the more I understand the saying, "The more things change, the more things stay the same"

and another good one "The only thing to Fear is Fear itself" - FDR


----------



## awg (22 October 2008)

Re this filtering.

So what is classified as "illegal pr0n"?...stats I have read indicate a significant % of Internet traffic is linked to sexually explicit websites.

If it includes consensual sex acts between adults as depicted on x-rated videos etc, that would probably cause a lot of filtering!

As for protecting kids, if you expect you could stop pedophiles grooming them via ordinary internet contact, then it would'nt work at all.

my understanding of how pedos work is to ingratiate with the kiddie by at first pretending to be something they are not, then offering them things they want. this is done on non-sex sites

and if u think u can monitor your childs internet use, you can only really do that till they are about 13.

after that they either know of ways to circumvent your monitoring, or object so strenuously to any perceived invasion of their privacy, that the trouble caused significantly outweighs the risk, in my opinion


----------



## mantronic (22 October 2008)

Freedom has been diminishing since sept 11


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> Governments need to get tough on these morons and if it means taking away your internet  who cares we survived without it 15 years ago and mind you our lives were more active then too .



I don't believe we've ever been in the situation of having no proper investigative media or uncensored internet. We had one, now we have the other but take that away and we've got nothing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2008)

Julia said:


> With apologies to others for being so off topic in this thread, as I suspected, this comment is rubbish.   Apparently the Greens in NZ have simply made this suggestion.  That's a very far cry from suggesting some little person from the big brother NZ government is going to go from house to house in NZ placing regulators on shower heads.



It's not as off topic as you might think. The recent water problems in much of Australia are an outstanding example of how the population can easily be brainwashed with propaganda.

Just look at how many people think this is some sort of "new" crisis due to climate change that can best be solved with a water tank in every house. 

Those who know the reality of the water industry know that shortage was the inevitable consequence of ending the construction of major water infrastructure but allowing underlying demand to continue to rise. Government made the crisis then did an outstanding job of shifting the blame. 

Inflation is another one. Governments and central banks have create it on a day to day basis. But they've done a brilliant job of blaming workers and unions who by their very nature are incapable of actually causing inflation. Heck, government propaganda has even confused most as to what inflation actually is!


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2008)

awg said:


> and if u think u can monitor your childs internet use, you can only really do that till they are about 13.
> 
> after that they either know of ways to circumvent your monitoring, or object so strenuously to any perceived invasion of their privacy, that the trouble caused significantly outweighs the risk, in my opinion



It's a real worry if you still need to be "protecting" 13+ anyway. It's not as if they're not starting to experiment with sex and drugs at age anyway, they are, so I don't see how a computer is going to do much harm.


----------



## cruise61 (22 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a real worry if you still need to be "protecting" 13+ anyway. It's not as if they're not starting to experiment with sex and drugs at age anyway, they are, so I don't see how a computer is going to do much harm.




And this comment just goes to show how far from reality you all are .

Guess its good they havnt censored my ability to see what the net has created .

If censoring gets rid of pathetic comments like this im definately all for it .


----------



## lakemac (22 October 2008)

Someone once said that knowledge is power.
Remove knowledge and you remove power.
Most if not all totalitarian governments and religions brutally enforce this.
By restricting knowlede you create fear.
When you have fear then it becomes easy to get people to prefer security over freedom.
Security of the state. Enforcement of thinking by the state. For the state.

Ask anyone who lived thru Hitler, Mousolini (sp?), Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Howard (ok maybe going a bit too far  but just consider the growth in the tax act under howard...). All those and more control their population by controlling information.

For those who have studied war and the like, the control of information in war is paramount.

The maintenance of and/or the re-aquistion of true personal freedom often requires bloodshed and bloodshed often against their own government. Anyone who has ever studied history understands this.

People who run for government in my opinion have a fatal flaw - they are control freaks. They can only operate if they maintain control over the population. And they do that by keeping them scared and keeping them in the dark.

The dark ages were called that for a reason.

Anyone that thinks Australia is free is kidding themselves. Just try getting divorced. Just try leaving the country. Just try opening a bank account. Australia has become a socialist country. Politicians control your every move. Welcome comrades to your fearful new world...


----------



## awg (22 October 2008)

insofar as "protecting 13 yr olds"

no moral judgement or criticism, or offence to any other poster

just an example

13 yr old boy downloads title similar to "big blackie rapes 13 yr old pre-teen"

a fairly reasonable title for many young lads to be interested in, as i am sure some posters will understand.

responsible adult scans computer and notices title.

patiently explains that sex education is fine and dandy, but downloading such titles may draw to the attention Federal Police , as such a title may well contain child pornography.

Could neccesitate responsible adult having to make extremely difficult explanation to unbelieving authority.

sometime later, reponsible adult fully scans computer again.
notices other possibly illegal titles..explanation recieved that slightly older (15 yr friend) probably did this, while they were all having their fun.

somewhat concerned and annoyed, but understanding liberal minded adult, does the following: Subjects said 13 yr old to extremely detailed and embarrassing (mainly to him) explanation of exactly what type of pr0n he is allowed to download.

tells him if titles containing material of bestiality or under 16 pr0n is ever detected on PC again, very serious consequences will entail, especially as I dont really want to go to jail.

I know for an absolute  fact this problem has affected some other people I know.

In the good old days, you got your sex education from Ribald.

I think anyone can see from this lovely little tale that Monitoring of content could have some dire consequences.

and yes, i know i could install net-nanny etc, ( easily overridden), and no, you cant be looking over your kids shoulders all the time


----------



## lakemac (22 October 2008)

awg (any relation to the wire industry btw???) taking your thoughts further I have often noticed that legislation trying to control one thing inevitably leads to yet more legislation to control further things that were created by the first lot (I come back to the tax laws, family law, petrol price controls, you name it the government can fix er f... it up. If we don't get it right the first time we can always paper over it with more later on.

I am so over government control... Got to go now, have to check my BAS returns...


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> And this comment just goes to show how far from reality you all are .
> 
> Guess its good they havnt censored my ability to see what the net has created .
> 
> If censoring gets rid of pathetic comments like this im definately all for it .



WHAT is wrong with my comment? It is NOT normal, in Australia in 2008, to find anyone turning 18 who isn't already been there, done that as far as anything that might cause them harm is concerned. And to a very large extent the same could be said of those aged 16.

What, exactly, are we protecting teenagers from? Knowledge? 

Filtering the internet isn't going to change a damn thing. Teens got up to plenty of trouble with smoking, drinking, the opposite sex and then driving before most had even heard of the internet. 

And the abuse of children has been going on for years everywhere from the home to the church, again before anyone had heard of the internet. Tough policing with proper sentencing can do a bit of good but a bit of software isn't going to stop a determined criminal any more than a primative lock will keep out a determined thief.

The biggest risk of all though is if the software is imperfect, something that's near certain as most will realise. It's one thing to know something is dangerous and act accordingly. It's far more dangerous to think it's been made safe not realising it hasn't. If it fails, and the risk of that is very real, then that will be happening in an environment where the other controls (eg parents) have already been inactivated because it was supposedly safe. That's the worst possible outcome if you're worried about children and it's not a far fetched scenario.


----------



## awg (23 October 2008)

hi folks,

i dont like govt interference, the less the better.

but it seems to me things are going in the opposite direction

was a good doco on TV a while back, which detailed how in the "land of the free" good ole USA, that phone and Internet traffic was hugely monitored, on the pretext of detecting terrorism. Much of it "secret" and unknown to public or legislators

on the balance of probabilities, I think we will have more monitoring and govt interference, due to technological advances, and the ability of govt to exert more control..power corrupts!!!

I am not uptodate with the security laws in Oz, but i would be fairly certain they would give more power for secret monitoring than ever before.

If i had to vote for or against Internet filtering, I would vote against. haha

I gave an example as a salutory experience of what can and does happen.

I used pr0n as an example, peer-to-peer such as Limewire is full of it.

I do not state a moral judgement on kids or adults accessing material that the majority probably would not approve, such as info on how to use drugs, make explosives, view extreme pr0n, or even exchange radical views..these are now facts of life.

I have discussed this with many parents and (non-parents as well)
It is by no means restricted to teenage boys or "devos"

the responses are so incredibly varied..many people "dont want to know"
,or have time, or care, some are very strict etc.

ps I posted my BAS yesterday


----------



## Spaghetti (23 October 2008)

If you compare search engine results from today to 10 years ago there is already dramtic improvement in accessible content. You would really need an url address to visit sites that are inappropiate. So for a child to just happen across a pr0n site for example would be quite remote. Seems the internet is self regulating so no need for government intervention.


----------



## derty (23 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> And this comment just goes to show how far from reality you all are .
> 
> Guess its good they havnt censored my ability to see what the net has created .
> 
> If censoring gets rid of pathetic comments like this im definately all for it .



cruise - you seem to have quite a blinkered view on life, I might go as far as to say that you have already imposed a self-censorship on what you class as reality.

reality is that children as young as 10 and 11 are having sex nowdays, many kids have had sex by 13 and much more experiment with oral sex etc. 

The world is changing, media and advertising sexualises our children at a young age these days. Would you like to censor that too? I'm not a big fan of it, I think that their methods are insidious. But that's progress, and sometimes there are a few steps backwards. Look at every main phase in popular youth culture and you will see the adults of that time saying that they youth has no respect, society is doomed and the world is becoming full of criminals. Then those youth grow up to say the same of their youth. 

To stop this you will need much more than internet censorship. You will need a whole raft of draconian laws. You could give police wide ranging powers and place incentives for people to inform on their debaucherous neighbours.   A widespread campaign of fear might help and lets enlist the support of right-wing Christianity to show the populace the way forward. 

Well that doesn't sound much like progress to me.

And cruise, paedophiles aren't created by the internet. Most paedophiles are a result of being the victims of paedophilia as a child. So the people who created the current crop of paedophiles did not have the internet. 

so stop going lalalallalalallaaaa and take you fingers out of your ears and have a good look around.


----------



## cruise61 (23 October 2008)

derty said:


> cruise - you seem to have quite a blinkered view on life, I might go as far as to say that you have already imposed a self-censorship on what you class as reality.
> 
> reality is that children as young as 10 and 11 are having sex nowdays, many kids have had sex by 13 and much more experiment with oral sex etc.
> 
> ...




HAHAHA funny ,wouldnt really be a forum discussion without a negative view now would it 
Funny thing is i bet your all pr0n addicts and you just dont wanna lose your addictions 

lalalalalalalalalalaalaalaalalalala


----------



## Buddy (23 October 2008)

awg said:


> hi folks,
> 
> i dont like govt interference, the less the better.
> 
> ...




I guess this begs a question...
There must be a lot of snoopers and perverts in the security organisations?
If all they do all day is listen to phone conversations and read emails, etc, to look out for the "terrorist stuff", they must be also receiving a lot of "naughty stuff".  Seems to me that they would "be under the influence".  I dont think I would invite any of these security type people to my house for dinner.  Unsavoury lot, IMO.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (23 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> Funny thing is i bet your all pr0n addicts and you just dont wanna lose your addictions




That comment is a state of complete denial.

Is anyone genuinely naive enough to think that totalitarianism can't happen here? It's one freedom at a time. Selective information *monitoring* with good reasons in individual cases to find criminals is one thing. Blanket information *control* of an entire nation is an entirely different kettle of fish.

---------------

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist. 

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


----------



## DJZ (23 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> HAHAHA funny ,wouldnt really be a forum discussion without a negative view now would it
> Funny thing is i bet your all pr0n addicts and you just dont wanna lose your addictions
> 
> lalalalalalalalalalaalaalaalalalala




Mate your lost!

You must be one of the most ignorant people I have come across.

Your mentality is the exact thing that is ruining this world and making it a worse place to live! 

Most people on this forum understand freedom and how it improves society by allowing people to be themselves instead of having to be ashamed of what they believe society will attack them for, (and no I am not talking about pedophilia, as stated in my previous post if you infringe upon the rights of others then society should deal with you) I'm talking about harmless things that hurt no-one. When the moral police come along and make society attack people for doing things that harm nobody, you create a breeding ground for criminals, as these people who are attacked become societal outcasts and then turn there back on society and some decide to take revenge, its what creates criminals in nearly every situation! Thats why most criminals come from poor socio-economic environments, they begin life as outcasts and never truly feel accepted, so its always them vs society. It is your mentality that lays the foundations to create the breeding ground for this. You obviously cant grasp this concept of freedom.

Btw I'd still like to hear your reasoning behind how this filtering will protect children from anything?


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2008)

I am not normally one to boast of my achievements but I'll mention a couple related to this thread.

As some may already know, I have a background of involvement in some fairly major public policy issues, particularly in relation to the environment. What you didn't know until now is that on two occasions I've been responsible for effectively destroying the other side's position on an issue  through a single statement. The "other side" being one Australian Government and and also the leader of another party.

How? It's easy. I had information they were desperate to keep quiet. Information that had the ability to sink their side of the argument and in one case with broader consequences. And so phone calls were made, letters were written and a TV interview set up. And that was it - blew the whole thing to pieces there and then.

Information that is tightly controlled is more powerful than most realise. A lot more powerful. And I don't for a moment think that the situations I've described are isolated incidents - there are probably thousands of similar cases of someone with knowledge finding themselves in a very powerful position because of it. Control knowledge and you control society.

How many people would understand how fiat currency and the banking system is set up if not for the internet? Not many. Indeed that particular issue is quite likely to be one thing that gets censored at some point. Those who understand it will know why governments don't want that sort of information out there, and it's certainly a lot more common knowledge now than it was a few years ago.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> HAHAHA funny ,wouldnt really be a forum discussion without a negative view now would it
> Funny thing is i bet your all pr0n addicts and you just dont wanna lose your addictions
> 
> lalalalalalalalalalaalaalaalalalala



I don't suppose you are a politician by any chance? Or someone else who does debating professionally? 

Let's just say that you wouldn't be having to do what you are doing with that statement if you had the ability to control information in this discussion we're having here.

I think you've illustrated the argument of me and others quite well - the availability of information has made it very difficult to win an argument that would have been a very easy one if the relevant information wasn't widely available.


----------



## mayk (23 October 2008)

I still think this filtering is not equivalent to suppression of freedom asyet. 

I guess when governments try to legislate then people get all grumpy, but when they do it without any public knowledge then it is alright. 

Do you guys seriously think the Internet is completely free?  Not controlled? The politicians have realized the power of the internet and will soon legislate it to the extreme. 

Already, if you can control three giants (Google, Yahoo and MS), you can pretty much control the whole internet. It is surprising how information can be controlled via Google.


----------



## Julia (23 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't suppose you are a politician by any chance? Or someone else who does debating professionally?



I doubt that, Smurf.   Most politicians have some level of skill at debate.  A capacity to present their point of view in such a way as to allow it to sound reasonable.
Cruise lacks this entirely.

L


----------



## wabbit (24 October 2008)

*ISP level filtering*

There seems to be very little awareness in the general community about what the Government is planning on doing with regard to filtering internet content at the ISP level.  There has been a lot of discussion at Whirlpool, but it seems only the tech-savvy have been keeping an interest on developments; when so many more rely on the internet for their business so many more people should be engaged in this process.

As traders we are extremely reliant on getting the market picture with as little lag possible - - the new Government policies are going to cripple internet speeds and may even completely break the internet.

"Only one of the filters tested resulted in an acceptable speed reduction of 2 per cent or less. The others caused drops in speed between 21 per cent and 86 per cent."

See http://www.watoday.com.au/technology/government-tried-to-gag-web-censor-critics-20081024-57pt.html for more.

I generally try to avoid politics, but it might be time to start writing letters to Senator Conroy?


wabbit


----------



## rub92me (24 October 2008)

This is one of the most idiotic proposals/plans I've ever seen. As stated in the article, they won't be able to effectively filter or even monitor peer to peer traffic, which is where the most illegal content resides and is exchanged. If anything it will just drive more of that through that channel. Do these clowns have any clue what they are trying to control.


----------



## kitehigh (25 October 2008)

*And it gets Worse!!*

Now the Govt is trying to squash any dissent on this topic.

*http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolo...1224351430987.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1*

"The Federal Government is attempting to silence critics of its controversial plan to censor the internet, which experts say will break the internet while doing little to stop people from accessing illegal material such as child pornography.

Documents obtained by us show the office of the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, tried to bully ISP staff into suppressing their criticisms of the plan.

Senator Conroy has since last year's election victory remained tight-lipped on the specifics of his $44.2 million policy but, grilled by a Senate Estimates committee this week, he said the Government was looking at forcing ISPs to implement a two-tiered filtering system.

The first tier, which internet users would not be able to opt out of, would block all "illegal material". Senator Conroy has previously said Australians would be able to opt out of any filters to obtain "uncensored access to the internet".

The second tier, which is optional, would filter out content deemed inappropriate for children, such as pornography.

But neither filter tier will be capable of censoring content obtained over peer-to-peer file sharing networks, which account for an estimated 60 per cent of internet traffic.

Colin Jacobs, chair of the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said: "I'm not exaggerating when I say that this model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world."

I think its time to start bombarding Senator Conroy with please explain letters, and demanding this ridiculous plan of his is immediately scrapped.

http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/contact

We are not quite Iran (but heading in that direction) yet Mr Conroy.


----------



## xyzedarteerf (26 October 2008)

NOW YOUTUBE IS DECIDING WHAT YOU CAN AND CANT WATCH!!


----------



## Pronto (27 October 2008)

*Re: Internet Filtering; Where are the Lefties?*

Where are all of our resident cut and paste Lefties on this thread? 20/20, Green, Doris et. al. 

Elsewhere we can find reams on the Archangel Obama and the Adoration of the Blessed Kev, while Sarah Palin (the current anti-Christ) is the subject of a wild-eyed, slavering, cut and paste frenzy. 

Hey guys, what's your opinion on control of the Internet by the nanny-state gummint?


----------



## kitehigh (27 October 2008)

*Net filters may block pr0n and gambling sites*

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolo...0n-casino-sites/2008/10/27/1224955916155.html

"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". 

You can guarantee the Govt will move to block other material if this bill is passed.

"The Opposition said it would most likely block any attempts to introduce the controversial mandatory ISP filtering policy, so the Government would need the support of Senator Fielding as well as the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon to pass the legislation.

Industry sources said Senator Fielding's sentiments validated ISPs' concerns that the categories of blocked content could be broadened significantly at the whim of the Government, which is under pressure to appease vocal minorities."

Here we go again,, the Govt panding to the vocal minorities. Makes me bloody sick

"In a Senate Estimates hearing last week, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, confirmed that his proposal would force ISPs to implement a two-tiered filtering system.

The proposed censorship is more advanced than that in any liberal democracy and would put Australia on a par with oppressive regimes such as Iran, the internet industry says."

"The Government's own laboratory trials have found that presently available filters are not capable of distinguishing adequately between legal and illegal content and can degrade internet speeds by up to 86 per cent.

Despite this, and significant opposition from ISPs, the Government will soon seek expressions of interest from telcos seeking to be part of a live trial of the filters."

The telcos should show some moral courage and refuse to participate is such a ill founded plan.  Although telstra will probably have no choice with the Govt being a majority share holder..


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 October 2008)

Don't forget that the government did censor a national radio program (forced it off air) and also imposed a form of phone censorship in order to get Brian Harradine's support for the Telstra sell off. 

The precedent for blocking things that aren't illegal in order to gain the support of minority groups is certainly there.


----------



## Julia (28 October 2008)

Which programme was that, Smurf?   They're currently suggesting The Religion Report (and others) will be removed.   Could be Senator Fielding doesn't approve of some of the content in that one.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 October 2008)

Julia said:


> Which programme was that, Smurf?   They're currently suggesting The Religion Report (and others) will be removed.   Could be Senator Fielding doesn't approve of some of the content in that one.



I don't recall the exact name but it was a talk-back program on commercial radio dealing with the subject of sex. It went to air in most (all?) states late at night.  

Also as part of that was the banning of 0055 adult phone services. That was worked around by simply changing the phone numbers to 1900 etc however.

All that just to please one senator. It's hard to believe we'll never see anything like that again - there's always a minority somewhere that would like to keep some sort of information under wraps. All sorts of similar deals are quite possible under the right circumstances.


----------



## stockGURU (28 October 2008)

*Re: Internet Filtering; Where are the Lefties?*



Pronto said:


> Where are all of our resident cut and paste Lefties on this thread? 20/20, Green, Doris et. al.
> 
> Elsewhere we can find reams on the Archangel Obama and the Adoration of the Blessed Kev, while Sarah Palin (the current anti-Christ) is the subject of a wild-eyed, slavering, cut and paste frenzy.
> 
> Hey guys, what's your opinion on control of the Internet by the nanny-state gummint?




I would also be very interested in the views of ASF's vocal Labor party supporters on this issue as well. 

Anyone?


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 October 2008)

*Re: Internet Filtering; Where are the Lefties?*



stockGURU said:


> I would also be very interested in the views of ASF's vocal Labor party supporters on this issue as well.
> 
> Anyone?



Well I ain't no strong Liberal supporter. All they do at the state level is run up debt and spread general doom and gloom and for that reason alone I've long hated the party and the mess they're so good at creating. 

But you won't find me backing Labor over their censorship plans. Just like I didn't like the Liberals for doing the same with radio. So it's a case of trying to pick the best of a rather rotten bunch on this one. Greens?


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 October 2008)

cruise61 said:


> HAHAHA funny ,wouldnt really be a forum discussion without a negative view now would it
> Funny thing is i bet your all pr0n addicts and you just dont wanna lose your addictions
> 
> lalalalalalalalalalaalaalaalalalala



Some non-internet censorship related coverage of the issue. It seems the young need a lot more access to information, not less. 
http://northerntasmania.yourguide.c...rk-on-how-sexual-diseases-spread/1344681.aspx

Meanwhile, it seems that McDonalds has worked out how to provide it's own "clean" internet in its restaurants. So the technology to do it locally rather than for everyone would seem to be workable, thus making it perfectly viable to just give parents etc who want it the required software. http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24566301-15306,00.html


----------



## Julia (28 October 2008)

*Re: Internet Filtering; Where are the Lefties?*



Smurf1976 said:


> ....... the best of a rather rotten bunch on this one. Greens?



Oh, please no, not the Greens.  If you think we have financial problems now, it's just nothing compared to what the financially illiterate Greens would produce.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 October 2008)

*Re: Internet Filtering; Where are the Lefties?*



Julia said:


> Oh, please no, not the Greens.  If you think we have financial problems now, it's just nothing compared to what the financially illiterate Greens would produce.



You're preaching to the converted on that one... 

I'm not sure what their internet censorship policy is but if it's better than Labor then I'll give credit where it's due. Much as they've given me plenty of sleepless nights (literally), I do think the Greens have a positive side and historically at least freedom of speech has been one of them.


----------



## roland (28 October 2008)

I don't believe in censorship but I do believe in age restricted access to anything that could adversely affect young under-developed minds.

In my mind, no one has the right to restrict my access to anything that is available. I should have the right to filter my own content and decide what I want and don't want to experience.

Content, and/or products (things) that have materialised from the mis treatment of others shouldn't be allowed to have happened in the first place and should be policed well before censorship even becomes an issue.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 October 2008)

It's not even in yet but already it's being scaled up to include censorship of basically anything the government doesn't want us to see. The worst fears of me and anyone in favour of free speech confirmed.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24569656-5014239,00.html

Now it's euthanasia and anorexia being censored but how long before it's economic statistics, peak oil, 911 conspiracy theories and anything else the government finds inconvenient at the time? This isn't just about child pornography etc, it's now clearly about outright censorship.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always considered the freedom to say what you think to be a right beyond challenge. Even in packed halls with everyone supposedly there to support one side of a political debate, I and many others have always supported the right of the one or two lone individuals who turned up from the other side to have their say. And they got their say in a polite and respectful manner despite being very much "outsiders". 

The way things are going, even having such a meeting will be illegal before much longer. Or at least promoting it via the internet will become impossible.  

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend forever your right to say it". I'm not sure where that quote comes from, but it's a principle we ought to be following in my opinion.


----------



## prawn_86 (29 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend forever your right to say it". I'm not sure where that quote comes from, but it's a principle we ought to be following in my opinion.




Totally agree, and this may even prompt me to write my first ever letter to a politician (not that it will acheive anything).

IMO, Aus can no longer critisice China or any other country for censorship or human rights abuses as it would be totally hypocritical


----------



## Julia (29 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I
> Now it's euthanasia and anorexia being censored but how long before it's economic statistics, peak oil, 911 conspiracy theories and anything else the government finds inconvenient at the time? This isn't just about child pornography etc, it's now clearly about outright censorship.



I'm speechless at this!   We need to have the debate about euthanasia.
Who is the Minister to write to?  Is it Conroy?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (29 October 2008)

:swear: :swear: :swear: :swear: :swear:

Fascists.


----------



## fimmwolf (29 October 2008)

The phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was attributed to Voltaire, but apparently he didn't ever write it.

It appeared in "The Friends of Voltaire" (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre.


----------



## derty (29 October 2008)

A comment on the situation from a news.com article.


> This country has had "clean feeds" on offer by several ISPs for worried parents yet there is barely any take up. The Governments NetAlert software was downloaded 300,000 times in the first week, less the 3 weeks later only 6000 people were still using it, and that cost $84m.



The govt's drive on this appears to be irrational - so what or who is driving them? What is their real agenda? It is obvious that the kiddie pron angle is a 'Hussein has WMD's' reason. So what is their real reason, it is solely to stop the BAD things from coming down the Internet's pipes or is it more?


----------



## rub92me (29 October 2008)

Looking at the amount of (justifiable) outrage the internet filtering proposal has generated recently in the online media, I think these plans will either be radically altered or scrapped. It would be ironic indeed if Mr Conroy's plans would be defeated through raw unfiltered power of the internet.


----------



## roland (30 October 2008)

> In Conroy’s muddy waters you'll never know what’s being filtered
> Critics of Conroy's Internet filtering say Australians will not be able to find out what the government censors online, and ask: who watches the watchmen?
> Andrew Hendry (Computerworld) 28/10/2008 09:30:00




from PC World: http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;355409327;pp;1;fp;4;fpid;762456

goes on to say:

“Every organisation with an axe to grind and any kind of political clout will be lobbying the government to extend the blacklist to block access to whatever it is that pisses them off. They don’t even tell the operators of a site that it has been blacklisted, which as a practical matter means there is no appeal for these decisions. In the case of a false positive it is really dependent on somebody discovering it by chance,” he said.


----------



## deadset (30 October 2008)

Did anyone else have trouble accessing news.com.au and yahoo finance this morning ?

I already notice things disappearing off the net.  
You find clues of people talking about a <thing>, but the actual <thing> has disappeared from the net.

It's like ancient history books which refer to works which have since being lost.

-----------
I seem to recall some deal being done with Family First Party not long after the election or was that an independant.


----------



## mayk (30 October 2008)

deadset said:


> Did anyone else have trouble accessing news.com.au and yahoo finance this morning ?
> 
> I already notice things disappearing off the net.
> You find clues of people talking about a <thing>, but the actual <thing> has disappeared from the net.
> ...




I don't think Internet filtering is operational right now. It must be your internet connection or yahoo service problem.


----------



## prawn_86 (13 November 2008)

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24645557-5005962,00.html

Certain sites already approved to be blocked.

Julia, did you ever receive a response from Conroy? I certainly didnt


----------



## Julia (13 November 2008)

I was just about to post the link on that story from the Courier Mail.
Some damn democracy we live in.  The Courier Mail are running a poll on whether people agree with the filter.  So far 91% disagree.  The 9% apparently agreeing probably use the internet so seldom they won't worry if speeds are slowed by up to 80% as suggested in the C. Mail story.

No, Prawn, I have not been honoured with any reply from Senator Conroy.
Didn't expect it and doubt you did either.  Just hoped if his office was flooded with objections it might make them reconsider this totalitarian move.

Clearly not.   Ah, so reassuring to have a government who knows what's best for us.   

The only thing I can think of at this stage is for us to contact our ISP's and suggest that if they take part in this, we will remove our subscriptions.


----------



## prawn_86 (13 November 2008)

Julia said:


> The only thing I can think of at this stage is for us to contact our ISP's and suggest that if they take part in this, we will remove our subscriptions.




I even went so far as to say in my email to Conroy that if the government goes ahead with this I will be moving overseas so they wont have my taxes.

So much for a democracy....

As I have said 1000 times, as soon as a party is voted in they do what they want. They dont actually care about anyone but themselves. Even the independents are supporting this.


----------



## prawn_86 (13 November 2008)

I forwarded my email to Conroy and my local member again. Not much else that can be done unfortunately. I have always maintained Aus is not a true democracy...


----------



## Julia (13 November 2008)

They cannot be unaware of how public opinion is against this.
  They monitor the media all the time.

I can only think that they've done some sort of deal with Senator Fielding of Family First that he will vote for their legislation only if they put this ridiculous filter on the net.


----------



## theasxgorilla (14 November 2008)

I was in Berlin on the weekend...amazing history...awesome tour and tour guide.  Saw the memorial to the Nazi book burning:

"Dort, wo man BÃ¼cher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." ("Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people.") 

Of course you don't need to burn books (information) to affect culture, you just need to stop people reading them.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 November 2008)

Yes this move can only result in less masturbation and hence more crime, anger, rage, frustration, lonliness, disappointment, sadness and psychosis..


----------



## theasxgorilla (14 November 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes this move can only result in less masturbation and hence more crime, anger, rage, frustration, lonliness, disappointment, sadness and psychosis..




Actually the pr0n filter can be opted out of from what I have read.


----------



## BradK (14 November 2008)

theasxgorilla said:


> I was in Berlin on the weekend...amazing history...awesome tour and tour guide.  Saw the memorial to the Nazi book burning:
> 
> "Dort, wo man BÃ¼cher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." ("Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people.")
> 
> Of course you don't need to burn books (information) to affect culture, you just need to stop people reading them.




Hey Gorilla, 

I LOVE Berlin. Its my fav city and have been there three times. Isnt the book burning hole in the ground in bibelplatz just beautiful? If you blink you miss it. 
You didnt happen to have Brian of Berlin Walks tour, did you? 

Brad


----------



## bluelabel (14 November 2008)

theasxgorilla said:


> Actually the pr0n filter can be opted out of from what I have read.




I thought it was the ISP's that could opt out of it not the individuals.  This is because the filter is ISP based. So as we all know Telstra will have the filter (and probably charge you for doing so, without telling you) so if you want to access one of the banned sites then go to a different provider that doesn’t have the filter.  Although I can’t see the point in accessing the banned sites, they are banned for a reason yeah?

Please feel free to correct me if my information is wrong...

:bier:

blue


----------



## prawn_86 (14 November 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes this move can only result in less masturbation and hence more crime, anger, rage, frustration, lonliness, disappointment, sadness and psychosis..




Its not what they are trying to bloxk that angers me, it is simply the fact they are trying to block it. Communism here we come. Comrade Kevin must know best and we must all follow his lead



theasxgorilla said:


> I was in Berlin on the weekend...amazing history...awesome tour and tour guide.  Saw the memorial to the Nazi book burning:
> 
> "Dort, wo man BÃ¼cher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." ("Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people.")
> 
> Of course you don't need to burn books (information) to affect culture, you just need to stop people reading them.





Good story for the new forum there G. Check my sig


----------



## theasxgorilla (14 November 2008)

bluelabel said:


> I thought it was the ISP's that could opt out of it not the individuals.  This is because the filter is ISP based. So as we all know Telstra will have the filter (and probably charge you for doing so, without telling you) so if you want to access one of the banned sites then go to a different provider that doesn’t have the filter.  *Although I can’t see the point in accessing the banned sites, they are banned for a reason yeah?*
> 
> Please feel free to correct me if my information is wrong...
> 
> ...




This is what I read:

"In October, however, it came to light that those claims were only partially true. It turns out that there were actually two blacklists””one that filters what the Australian government deems illegal, and one that acts as an "additional material" blacklist that targets content inappropriate for children. Users in the tests could only opt out of the "additional material" blacklist; the original blacklist for vaguely-defined "illegal" content would be required for all users. When this news came out, a spokesperson for the Australian Communications Minister confirmed that the filters would be required for all Australian citizens."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081111-isps-talk-back-about-australias-non-optional-filtering-planaustralian-isps-pan-government-mandated-net-filtering-plan.html


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 November 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Its not what they are trying to bloxk that angers me, it is simply the fact they are trying to block it. Communism here we come. Comrade Kevin must know best and we must all follow his lead




I guess all the pawn sites will simply change their spelling a tad. Lemme see,

Hott Secs Moofies
Hawt Secks Moovees
Hawnee Baybs
Horknee Baibz
Spunnkee Hunnx
Sparnkey Huncks

U gett th piksha?
Yoo git tha pixsher?

Wonder how the GuvMint nerds will filter THAT in the search terms!


----------



## Julia (14 November 2008)

I heard an IT expert being interviewed about this on the radio yesterday.
He said the technology simply doesn't exist to filter out just pr0n and other stuff the government deems undesirable.

He gave the example that a site on breast cancer could become unavailable because of the filter.   

I don't know whether this is right but he seemed very sure of what he was saying.  He also said that anyone even slightly tech savvy would have no trouble getting around any filter the govt might apply.

It may be that when they carry out the trial which is supposed to start pre-Christmas, they will find so many problems and such a slowing of internet speeds that they will abandon it.  They might consider this a way of saving face, e.g. "we will continue working on developing a side-effect free filter" etc, rather than saying they are bowing to public pressure.  That would give them an out if what is going on is a deal with Fielding.


----------



## prawn_86 (14 November 2008)

In the email i sent yesterday i also include the opposition IT minister, Nick Minchin.

I actually got a response today from the libs so thats in under 24hrs! Probably a generic template, but at least they responded. Im impressed 

Response as follows:



> SENATOR THE HON NICK MINCHIN
> Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications
> and the Digital Economy
> Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 November 2008)

Ray Prawn sounds a bit fishy to me.


----------



## prawn_86 (14 November 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Ray Prawn sounds a bit fishy to me.




I dont believe a word they say; they're politicians.

Im just impressed that they actually responded.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2008)

Prawn, I'd say ten out of ten to the Libs for responding, and so quickly.
Actually, the fact that it's fairly clearly a multi-sent reply is an indication of the volume of complaints they have received.

I would believe what Minchin's office says.  The Libs are much more for individual freedoms and don't philosophically go for the Nanny State crap that Labor seems to feel is their role in life.

What I don't know and would really like to know is this:
Can Labor just introduce this filter, or does it have to be legislated and are they therefore dependent  on either the Libs or all the minor parties to play ball in the senate to support it?

I sent my copy of my email to Conroy to my local Coalition member who happens to be Warren Truss, Nationals leader.   No reply.   Unsurprising I guess.  Nick Minchin is one of the Libs brighter assets.
Goodonya Prawn.

Mr Prawn does sound a bit funny though!


----------



## kitehigh (15 November 2008)

Julia said:


> What I don't know and would really like to know is this:
> Can Labor just introduce this filter, or does it have to be legislated and are they therefore dependent  on either the Libs or all the minor parties to play ball in the senate to support it?




From what I understand Julia it will have to legislated and therefore will have to pass the Senate.  Hopefully the Senate will reject it outright and we can all sleep a little better knowing our political system has checks and balances.  God help us if it does pass though, there will be some angst on the streets than.  I for I can't see the liberals passing this.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2008)

kitehigh said:


> From what I understand Julia it will have to legislated and therefore will have to pass the Senate.  Hopefully the Senate will reject it outright and we can all sleep a little better knowing our political system has checks and balances.  God help us if it does pass though, there will be some angst on the streets than.  I for I can't see the liberals passing this.




Thanks, kitehigh.  In that case maybe worthwhile to send lots of emails to the Libs, Nationals and the Greens.  Probably can leave the good Senator Fielding off the list.  He is turning out to be like that bloke in Tasman who finally retired, I think his name was Harradine.


----------



## jeflin (15 November 2008)

The online world is simply too huge for selective banning. It is difficult to justify banning one site over another. 

Also banning a site inadvertently increases its appeal as people are naturally curious and will be even more determined to seek out the content. Very soon, there will be mirror sites set up to cater to this group of audience.

Ultimately, people are the best judge of what is suitable or not suitable viewing.


----------



## Julia (17 November 2008)

Received the same response from Nick Minchin that you did, Prawn.
Less than 24 hours for the reply to come.
Good to see at least one politician is well organised.


----------



## prawn_86 (17 November 2008)

Julia said:


> Received the same response from Nick Minchin that you did, Prawn.
> Less than 24 hours for the reply to come.
> Good to see at least one politician is well organised.




Yeh i think you are right in saying they have probably had a lot of complaints so have done up a standard response.

Better than what the ruling party has done (IE ignore any complaint from everyone)


----------



## Julia (17 November 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Better than what the ruling party has done (IE ignore any complaint from everyone)



Apologies for being off topic, but I did get a reply from Wayne Swan's office today for an email I sent last week suggesting he learn how to pronounce 'deteriorate' ,i.e. he consistently says 'deteriate'.

A secretary thanked me for my message and assured me it will be passed on to Mr Swan for his consideration.
Wouldn't it be funny if he actually started to pronounce the word correctly!

One of the best things about GWB leaving the world stage is that we will no longer have to listen to him mispronounce 'nuclear'.


----------



## Aussiejeff (18 November 2008)

Julia said:


> Apologies for being off topic, but I did get a reply from Wayne Swan's office today for an email I sent last week suggesting he learn how to pronounce 'deteriorate' ,i.e. he consistently says 'deteriate'.
> 
> A secretary thanked me for my message and assured me it will be passed on to Mr Swan for his consideration.
> Wouldn't it be funny if he actually started to pronounce the word correctly!
> ...




H-eye Jooleeah,

Wel wiv th prawn filtaz inn plaice, u beta gett yoost 2 th nu wey ov spelinng iff u wonna "resirch" lotz ov derti stuf lyk "BREST feedinng orr cansa , SPURM cownts an TESSTEES, CHYLD ZEX edyoocayshun, PEANYLE tranzplanz, TEENE PREGNANCEES, mail EREKSHUN problemz, etcc.

Itz obveeusly bean brawt 2 hour leedas attenshun thatt th intanett iz ar derti-derti plaice  an wee reely kneed thiss 2 protekt awl hour mindz.

Chizz.

ayjay


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2008)

Well I never thought I'd be saying this, but well done Bob Brown and the Greens. I can't say I agree with too many of his previous ideas, but this time he's very much the voice of reason IMO.

Greens could block plans for internet filter

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24703499-5014239,00.html


----------



## Ageo (25 November 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Well I never thought I'd be saying this, but well done Bob Brown and the Greens. I can't say I agree with too many of his previous ideas, but this time he's very much the voice of reason IMO.
> 
> Greens could block plans for internet filter
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24703499-5014239,00.html




Hehe i agree also Smurf, perhaps the 1st decent decision Mr Brown has made


----------



## fimmwolf (25 November 2008)

How many pr0n stars have sent a nation to war?


----------



## Julia (25 November 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Well I never thought I'd be saying this, but well done Bob Brown and the Greens. I can't say I agree with too many of his previous ideas, but this time he's very much the voice of reason IMO.
> 
> Greens could block plans for internet filter
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24703499-5014239,00.html



If the Libs were to vote with the government, would there still be the need for the Greens' vote to get the legislation through?
So far the Libs are uncommitted but seem to be veering towards voting against.


----------



## white_crane (25 November 2008)

There are 76 senate seats.  Labor holds 32, Coalition 37, Greens 5, Family First 1 and Independent 1.

Therefore Labor needs the cooperation of all non-Coalition senators to have a majority.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2008)

Yes, I get that, White Crane, but my question was if the Coalition supported the legislation, then wouldn't the votes of the minor parties be unnecessary?


----------



## mythos (26 November 2008)

Julia said:


> Yes, I get that, White Crane, but my question was if the Coalition supported the legislation, then wouldn't the votes of the minor parties be unnecessary?




Correct. I wrote to my federal coalition member to find out what the coalition's policy is in regards to the Internet filtering as I have heard nothing from them in the media on this topic. 

He was very non committal about the whole thing. Reading between the lines it seems the Coalition is hoping the filtering scheme dies due to cost and lack of industry support. Hence they won't have to take a stand on the topic. I'm guessing that while they don't like the idea of govt big brother censorship, they also are keen to keep the right wing religious groups on their side, hence don't want to come out against the filter too early.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2008)

mythos said:


> Correct. I wrote to my federal coalition member to find out what the coalition's policy is in regards to the Internet filtering as I have heard nothing from them in the media on this topic.
> 
> He was very non committal about the whole thing. Reading between the lines it seems the Coalition is hoping the filtering scheme dies due to cost and lack of industry support. Hence they won't have to take a stand on the topic. I'm guessing that while they don't like the idea of govt big brother censorship, they also are keen to keep the right wing religious groups on their side, hence don't want to come out against the filter too early.



Thanks, mythos.  I had the same impression from a presumably similar response from  the Coalition.   I suspect the whole thing may well die a quiet death, if necessary justified on the basis of reduced internet speeds, so as to keep the religious right quiet.  Thus the government will have been seen to be attempting to protect children, whilst actually not incurring the ire of the general population.


----------



## AzzaB80 (3 December 2008)

So who is attending the rally saturday week. I will be there, first time I've protested against anything so should be interesting.

Found this Hitler quote that fits in nicely

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 December 2008)

AzzaB80 said:


> So who is attending the rally saturday week. I will be there, first time I've protested against anything so should be interesting.
> 
> Found this Hitler quote that fits in nicely
> 
> [size=+1]*"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler*[/size]




Obviously this Hitler dude was a prophet and seer?


----------



## LM (4 December 2008)

I received the following today, in response to an email sent to the Minister. 

Internet filtering
Thank you for your correspondence concerning internet service provider (ISP) filtering.
I appreciate your interest in this important issue.
I am aware that the issue of ISP filtering has attracted criticism from people who are concerned that it will lead to censorship of the internet.
Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society. For many years however, most Australians have accepted that there is some material which is not acceptable, particularly for children.
The genesis of this is in civil society where social conflict is governed by the imposition of rules that restrain citizens from harming one another and society as a whole accepts that the public interest requires that those rules are enforced.
This is why we have the National Classification Scheme (the Scheme) for classifying films, computer games, and publications. Under the Scheme, it is illegal to distribute, sell or make available for hire material that is classified Refused Classification (RC).
The internet is already subject to regulation which prevents ISPs or other internet content providers from hosting prohibited content as defined under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 within Australia. Prohibited content is determined by reference to the Scheme.
We also have strong criminal laws aimed at preventing people from possessing or distributing material relating to child sexual abuse, including over the internet.
The Australian Government recognises that the internet is an essential tool for all Australian children through which they can exchange information, be entertained, socialise and do school work and research. The ability to use online tools effectively provides both a skill for life and the means to acquire new skills.
Cyber-safety commitment
The Government has committed $125.8 million over the next four years to a comprehensive range of cyber-safety measures, including law enforcement, filtering and education. Measures include:
• Expansion of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Child Protection Operations Team - funding to detect and investigate online child sex exploitation;
• Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - funding to help deal with the increased activity resulting from the work of the AFP to ensure that prosecutions are handled quickly;
2
• ISP-level filtering - funding to develop and implement ISP filtering, including undertaking a real world ‘live’ pilot;
• Education activities - funding to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to implement a comprehensive range of education activities;
• Websites / Online helpline - funding to ACMA to improve current government cyber-safety website resources and to make them easier for parents to use, and to provide up-to-date information. ACMA will also develop a children’s cyber-safety website to provide information specifically for children, and improve the online helpline to provide a quick and easy way for children to report online incidents that cause them concern;
• Consultative Working Group - funding for an expanded Consultative Working Group. This group will consider the broad range of cyber-safety issues and advise the Government, to ensure properly developed and targeted policy initiatives;
• Youth Advisory Group - funding for a Youth Advisory Group which will provide advice to the Consultative Working Group on cyber-safety issues from a young person’s perspective; and
• Research - funding for ongoing research into the changing digital environment to identify issues and target future policy and funding.
International cooperation in regard to online safety is crucial. The Government is pursuing an international agenda for collaborative action on cyber-safety. Progress on this was made through my recent engagement at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) forum in Seoul in June 2008. The Seoul Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy states that participating economies agree to ‘Ensure a trusted Internet-based environment which offers protection to individuals, especially minors and other vulnerable groups’.
Education
The above initiatives will tackle the issue of cyber-safety from a number of directions. More importantly, this approach is based on the key role parents and carers have in the online safety of children, and provides them with the necessary information to assist with this task.
In particular, ACMA’s Outreach program has been expanded to provide additional general cyber-safety awareness presentations to teachers, parents and students which highlight the key issues and strategies to minimise potential online risks. The program will also include professional development on online safety issues for existing and trainee school teachers.
ISP filtering
A part of the Government’s plan is to examine the introduction of ISP-level filtering.
The Government’s policy will be developed through an informed and considered approach, including industry consultation and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia.
Filtering technologies have been adopted by ISPs in a number of countries including the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway and Finland, predominantly to filter child pornography. In these countries ISP filtering has not affected internet performance to a noticeable level.
3
Laboratory trial and live pilot
ACMA has completed a laboratory trial of a sample of the available ISP filtering technologies. The trial looked specifically at the effect of a range of filter products on network performance, effectiveness in identifying and blocking illegal content, scope to filter non-web traffic and the ability to customise the filter to the requirements of different end-users.
The laboratory trial indicated that ISP filtering products have developed in their performance and effectiveness since they were last assessed in 2005. The Government is now proceeding with a ‘live’ pilot which will provide valuable information on the effectiveness and efficiency of filters installed in a ‘real world’ ISP network. The live pilot is proceeding in close consultation with the internet industry.
The Government is committed to working closely with the internet industry to address the concerns of network degradation, over and under blocking, circumvention and costs.
These concerns will be carefully considered during the pilot and will further inform the Government’s cyber-safety policy.
The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (the Department) has prepared material on a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding ISP filtering. This list is available on the Department’s website at www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan.
These FAQs will be updated regularly to provide you with the most up to date information on ISP filtering issues.
ACMA Blacklist
The existing ACMA blacklist is a list of internet web pages which are defined as ‘prohibited’ under Australian legislation. The list has been in place since 2000 and currently contains around 1300 URLs.
ACMA has also negotiated agreement with the UK Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) facilitating access to the IWF’s list of child abuse image URLs.
ACMA is also working with the Australian Federal Police to arrange access to the USA National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children list of child abuse image websites.
In consultations with ISPs, concerns have been raised that filtering a blacklist beyond
10 000 URLs may raise network performance issues, depending on the configuration of the filter. The pilot will therefore seek to also test network performance against a test list of
10 000 URLs.
This will be a closed network test and will not involve actual customers. The list of 10 000 sites will be developed by the technical organisation assisting the Department on the pilot, which has access to lists of this size. As this test is only being performed to test the impact on network performance against a list of this size, and actual customers are not involved, the make-up of the list is not an issue.
4
The ACMA blacklist is developed by complaints by the public about online content to the ACMA hotline. ACMA does not arbitrarily assess and classify content. Online content is assessed in accordance with the National Classification Scheme. The Scheme was established by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Content which is the subject of a complaint is assessed by ACMA and in some instances referred to the National Classification Board for classification.
The ACMA complaints process has been established by the Australian Parliament through the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. If content is found to be prohibited and is hosted in Australia (i.e. located on a computer or server in Australia), ACMA will direct the content provider to remove or prevent access to the content. If content is found to be prohibited and is hosted overseas, ACMA must add the material to its blacklist.
ACMA officers and Classification Board members applying the Scheme are highly trained and apply criteria set out in the Scheme’s legislative framework. Further, decisions made by the Classification Board can be reviewed by the Classification Review Board.
The scope of the definition of prohibited content in legislation cannot be expanded without changes to legislation being passed by Parliament.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. I hope this information will be of use.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband,
Communications and the Digital Economy


----------



## roland (4 December 2008)

*Anti Internet filtering rebels hit the streets*
Protests planned across the country
_Darren Pauli (Computerworld) 03/12/2008 17:19:00_

Opponents to the government's Internet content filtering scheme will take to the streets in a series of protests planned in Australia's capital cities.

The protests, organised by members from activist groups including the Electronic Freedom Project and Digital Liberty Coalition, will be held at Sydney's Town Hall, Brisbane Square, Melbourne's State Library, Adelaide Parliament House, Perth's Stirling Gardens and at Tasmania's Parliament Lawns.

Participants have created Facebook groups and a YouTube video to rally support and direct activists to the events. Opposition and Greens senators have expressed interest in attending the protests.

The government initiative, funded as part of the government's $125.8 million cyber safety plan, will impose mandatory ISP-level Internet content filtering nation-wide, and will block Web pages detailed in two blacklists operated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

Prescribed filtering technology, short-listed following a July trial, will be tested again by ISPs during the Christmas period.

A spokesperson from one of the country's largest ISPs, who requested anonymity, told Computerworld he expects the filters to fail because the prescribed filtering technology is unsuitable for most networks.

Sources privy to the pilot's EOI documents say the trial will be restricted to 12Mbps ”” a small fraction of ISP network connections ”” which they say will undermine the final test results.

Critics made similar comments after the filtering technology was tested last July against a simulated load of 30 users. They said even the most accurate filter, which returned a 94 percent accuracy rating, would incorrectly block up to 10,000 Web pages out of 1 million.

The trial is expected to use a blacklist of 10,000 banned Web pages, using the rumoured 1300-page blacklist held by the ACMA mixed with dummy data.
More about Facebook


----------



## white_crane (4 December 2008)

LM said:


> I received the following today, in response to an email sent to the Minister.
> etc. etc.




Blah blah blah, pass the buck over to the ACMA, blah blah blah, blame the last government, blah blah blah, we can't change the classification scheme...

No actual details or definitive answers, just the same prepared drivel that they've been saying since they started.

Notice how they skip over/deflect away from certain things?  eg. what will actually be on the blacklist?

Morons.


----------



## Julia (4 December 2008)

white_crane said:


> Blah blah blah, pass the buck over to the ACMA, blah blah blah, blame the last government, blah blah blah, we can't change the classification scheme...
> 
> No actual details or definitive answers, just the same prepared drivel that they've been saying since they started.
> 
> ...



Indeed.  But isn't it sad that we are so used to their prevarications and falseness that we expect nothing more from them.


----------



## white_crane (4 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Indeed.  But isn't it sad that we are so used to their prevarications and falseness that we expect nothing more from them.




yes.


----------



## roland (5 December 2008)

*Save the Internet!*

Despite provoking a wrath of criticism from industry and privacy groups, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has pushed ahead with the controversial national Internet content filtering scheme.

If you oppose this, then make sure you login or register an account and sign the petition, to show your opposition to this new scheme.

Legal experts warn that under the government’s proposed mandatory Internet content filtering plan Australians will have no way of finding out what “illegal” content has been censored and blocked online. Concern is widespread over Conroy’s ambiguity regarding exactly what content will or won’t be blocked ”” and who will be able to opt-out of the filtering.

*Only last week the mandatory Internet filtering proposal caused a stir when it was revealed a member of his department tried to censor severely critical comments made on the Whirlpool broadband forum by an Internode network engineer regarding the merits of ISP level filtering.*

We're going for the loud-and-clear option. Join us, and tell the government that you’re sticking up for the rights of freedom of communication.

And make sure you ask your friends and colleagues to join in, too. Just point them to
http://www.computerworld.com.au/hands_off_the_internet


----------



## prawn_86 (9 December 2008)

Conroy has launched a blog and in less than 12 hrs already has 102 comments. (if only my site could get that sort of traffic  )

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communicati.../minister_tanners_welcome?90046_result_page=1


----------



## Julia (9 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Conroy has launched a blog and in less than 12 hrs already has 102 comments. (if only my site could get that sort of traffic  )
> 
> http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communicati.../minister_tanners_welcome?90046_result_page=1




What window dressing!   He won't take any notice of anything that goes against his own view.


----------



## prawn_86 (10 December 2008)

Julia said:


> What window dressing!   He won't take any notice of anything that goes against his own view.




Agreed.

His secretary might give him a couple of the least negative views and he will think along the lines of; "bah, who cares what these plebs thinks, i can do what i want..."


----------



## xoa (11 December 2008)

On the topic of totalitarianism, my local police are adopting Soviet-style ID checks. If you've got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from the authorities, right? From my local paper:


> "SANDGATE Police Officer-In-Charge Senior Sergeant Helen Barnett said police would continue random street checks to identify crime, or those involved in crime. "You can expect at anytime, anywhere, we could ask you who you are, where you are going, and what you are doing."


----------



## prawn_86 (11 December 2008)

There was a news story yesterday argueing that its time for Aus to get a bill of rights, and i totally agree.

Its things like that last post that make me massively uncomfortable, as we dont actually have any legal rights to say no to that sort of thing.


----------



## Julia (11 December 2008)

Prawn, I imagine the government would be very careful to ensure that any so called Bill of Rights did not mess up their capacity to interfere with your life if they felt the faintest interest in so doing.

Perhaps I'm just sadly lacking in trust.


----------



## kitehigh (23 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Prawn, I imagine the government would be very careful to ensure that any so called Bill of Rights did not mess up their capacity to interfere with your life if they felt the faintest interest in so doing.
> 
> Perhaps I'm just sadly lacking in trust.




You have every right not to trust the Government Julia.  Just look at this latest example.

*"Fatal flaws in website censorship plan, says report*

TRIALS of mandatory internet censorship will begin within days despite a secret high-level report to the Rudd Government that found the technology simply does not work, will significantly slow internet speeds and will block access to legitimate websites.

The report, commissioned by the Howard government and prepared by the Internet Industry Association, concluded that schemes to block inappropriate content such as child pornography are fundamentally flawed."

"The report, based on comprehensive interviews with many parties with a stake in the internet, was written by several independent technical experts including a University of Sydney associate professor, Bjorn Landfeldt. It was handed to the Government in February but has been kept secret."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolo...lan-says-report/2008/12/22/1229794328860.html

So they have been sitting on this report since February and in the mean time are pushing ahead with trials.  It makes me angry that they know its not workable yet the govt insist on pushing ahead with trials and wasting millions of dollars.  Just what we don't need to be doing, wasting money when there are thousands of other worthwhile projects.  Why doesn't the govt listen to their own reports and the wishes of the people instead of panding to the vocal interest groups.


----------



## Julia (23 December 2008)

kitehigh said:


> So they have been sitting on this report since February and in the mean time are pushing ahead with trials.  It makes me angry that they know its not workable yet the govt insist on pushing ahead with trials and wasting millions of dollars.  Just what we don't need to be doing, wasting money when there are thousands of other worthwhile projects.  Why doesn't the govt listen to their own reports and the wishes of the people instead of panding to the vocal interest groups.




I'm not at all surprised.   I wonder if they are pushing on because of some sort of deal with Senator Fielding?  They need his vote in the Senate for most of their legislation.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 December 2008)

I finally got a response from Conroy, it was in the post and 4 of the same multiple paged letters came. Im guessing it was for the 2 emails and 2 blog posts i made.

Talk about inefficiences, i thought the gov was trying to cut back on spending and carbon footprint...


----------



## Julia (23 December 2008)

Prawn, it seems to have been a standard response sent out to everyone who had contacted his office.  I received it about a week ago.
As you suggest, that's a helluva lot of paper and postage, not to mention work time for his staff.  Good to see our tax dollars at work, huh!


----------



## prawn_86 (23 December 2008)

I started to read it and by the 2nd paragraph it was virtually saying "think of the children" so i lost all faith in the rest of the letter.

Any totalitarian regime that uses children as their excuse to implement things isn't worth my time. Once i finish my degree i can move overseas...


----------



## kitehigh (23 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> I started to read it and by the 2nd paragraph it was virtually saying "think of the children" so i lost all faith in the rest of the letter.
> 
> Any totalitarian regime that uses children as their excuse to implement things isn't worth my time. Once i finish my degree i can move overseas...




Wasn't it Goebbels  from the Nazies that said if you use the protection of children as an excuse to implement tough new laws you won't get any resistance from the population.  

His responses are typical, pretending to address your concerns when if fact he doesn't give a toss what you or I think.  I hope he gets punished in the next election and gets thrown out of office.  He will probably than just return to his safe Union/labor party job.


----------



## kitehigh (23 December 2008)

Julia said:


> I'm not at all surprised.   I wonder if they are pushing on because of some sort of deal with Senator Fielding?  They need his vote in the Senate for most of their legislation.




You probably hit the nail on the head there Julia, typical government back handing going on.


----------



## Aussiejeff (24 December 2008)

kitehigh said:


> Wasn't it Goebbels  from the Nazies that said if you use the protection of children as an excuse to implement tough new laws you won't get any resistance from the population.
> 
> His responses are typical, pretending to address your concerns when if fact he doesn't give a toss what you or I think.  I hope he gets punished in the next election and gets thrown out of office.  He will probably than just return to his safe Union/labor party job.




This filtering thingy will almost certainly be forced upon us all. Because the Gummint knows best. So there.

Remember Ruddock? Reith? :dunno: Conroy will be the same a few years down the track - another "faceless" party hack that will retire in luxury on a mountain of moolah after stuffing some part of our lives up. These men in black all have one thing in common  - NO REAL ACCOUNTABILITY (I'm sure we can all think of a few who should really be doing time after being stripped of their taxpayer sponsored wealth). 

Accountability? Most politicians hide like cowards behind the fake altruism _"but voters hold us accountable"_. Total BS! Nothing they ever do ever ends in anything worse than a massive, taxpayer funded golden "retirement" handshake after a virtual guaranteed 4 years minimum "full time" employment. Gee, that must REALLY, REALLY hurt! 

Their laugh is on us.


----------



## Julia (24 December 2008)

Well, perhaps we will in fact have the last laugh.

Senator Conroy has announced that the filtering trial which was to have started by now has been delayed, at least until mid January.  



> Senator Conroy has responded to an article published on the front page of The Sydney Morning Herald which revealed that the Government has sat on a report that labeled mandatory ISP filtering as being fundamentally flawed since February. Senator Conroy also has announced the live trial has been delayed until mid-January.
> 
> Here is the entirety of his press release:
> 
> ...




Maybe the article by the SMH, on top of the flood of objections Mr Conroy has received, might eventually make this stupid idea go away.


----------



## mayk (24 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Well, perhaps we will in fact have the last laugh.
> 
> Senator Conroy has announced that the filtering trial which was to have started by now has been delayed, at least until mid January.
> 
> ...




Technically it is feasible, with negligible impact on the speed. We don't have high speed to begin with. Secondly this has been implemented on a large scale in China, you do the math. 

The problem is not technical as some people seem to think. One solution as proposed by the said senator is to block all the P2P or peering traffic. You blcok peer-to-peer like Kaza or bittorrent, you reduce the piracy and illegal p*rn issue. Then you block the website which is also a trivial matter. 

Internet is not as distributed as it once was. Most of it is now centralized, with controlled management. The next evolution of internet will be more controlled, and marketing wise. It is good for business and that is what ISPs care about.

Don't underestimate the technology, if you want it to fail use political power.


----------



## Aussiejeff (28 December 2008)

Sun Herald article today - 



> THE ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Britain's minister for culture has said. Andy Burnham told Britain's The Daily Telegraph newspaper the government was planning to negotiate with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to draw up new international rules for English language websites.
> 
> "The more we seek international solutions to this stuff - the UK and the U.S. working together - the more that an international norm will set an industry norm," the newspaper reports the Culture Secretary as saying.



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24848641-5005961,00.html

LOL.

I wonder what rating ASF might attract? "AO" due to the adult nature of the content? :arsch:

Or "PG" for the sometimes childish humour? :bananasmi


aj


----------



## Aussiejeff (28 December 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Sun Herald article today -
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24848641-5005961,00.html
> 
> ...




Further musings on this Big Brother weirdness....

What happens to the official "rating" of a PG rated site if it gets hacked with pr0n?

Does it then get banned?

Imagine if Commsec got pr0n-hacked and was auto kicked from the Gummint's  "acceptable websites" list?  

*sigh*

This must be the silly season. I bet Conroy takes this idea up anyway.

:arsch:


----------



## skint (28 December 2008)

Julia said:


> I'm not at all surprised.   I wonder if they are pushing on because of some sort of deal with Senator Fielding?  They need his vote in the Senate for most of their legislation.






prawn_86 said:


> I started to read it and by the 2nd paragraph it was virtually saying "think of the children" so i lost all faith in the rest of the letter.
> 
> Any totalitarian regime that uses children as their excuse to implement things isn't worth my time. Once i finish my degree i can move overseas...




Hi Julia, you took the words out of my 'cybermouth'. Could well be shades of Harridine, when they used to throw him similar bones for support in other areas. 
Prawn, it's certainly predictable. I expect more rhetoric along the lines of "if you disapprove of internet filtering, you must approve of child pornography" and similar tripe. It won't effectively block the nasties, it will block kosher sites (someone mentioned LJHooker being blocked, lol) and will slow internet speeds. 
Adult pr0n and goodness knows what else will no doubt be next on the "inapprpriate" list . Really and truly, if the highlight of some poor b*ggar's day is watching wiggly bits and the bumping of uglies, good luck to them. I doubt it would spell the end of civilisation, but the internet malfunctioning in the middle of a trade could well spell the end of someone's hard earned or perhaps interfer with making some more. Daft, really, really, daft!


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 December 2008)

skint said:


> Adult pr0n and goodness knows what else will no doubt be next on the "inapprpriate" list .... *I doubt it would spell the end of civilisation*, but the internet malfunctioning in the middle of a trade could well spell the end of someone's hard earned or perhaps interfer with making some more. Daft, really, really, daft!




Oh, but what about all that awful ancient Greek, Roman & Egyptian pr0n that was painted in murals and on "artistic" objects and even crafted into public statues and displays that *gasp* even children could see? Surely that development led to their inevitable downfalls? *tut, tut*

We must applaud Messrs (Messiah's?) Conroy and Rudd for wanting to save us from our durty, durty selves (yuk).


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 December 2008)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rFhbSolKWP0

The youtube video in the link has some interesting information to watch.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (30 December 2008)

itll slow down data feeds and execution times for our trades.


----------



## mayk (30 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rFhbSolKWP0
> 
> The youtube video in the link has some interesting information to watch.




Alex Jones is a nut case. But developing a centralized Internet which can be easily controlled and managed  is a top priority for technology researchers all around the world. But not necessarily for the reasons outlined in that video, but to earn more profits.


----------



## Aussiejeff (31 December 2008)

Hahaha! We all knew this one was coming.... where will the madness stop?



> *FACEBOOK is under fire after removing pictures of breastfeeding mothers from members' pages*.
> 
> A Facebook group entitled "Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!'' has already attracted nearly 85,000 members and a handful of activists held a rally outside its California headquarters over the weekend.
> 
> ...



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24858770-5005961,00.html

LOL.

So, the US is full of uptight wowsers who gag at the durty, filthy, obscene sight of a breastfeeding mum?

It figures..... :silly:

I wonder what our Messiah's Conroy & Rudd think about this? Supportive of the ban? Maybe all male bared chests should be banned next - all those bare footballer's torsos being flashed around in the media can't be good for the morals of young girls?


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 December 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Maybe all male bared chests should be banned next -




No ban thanks chubs, just grab a couple of band-aids should anyone be offended by the nipsies.


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 January 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> No ban thanks chubs, just grab a couple of band-aids should anyone be offended by the nipsies.




"Ohhh, the nips are getting biggerrrr..." 

LOL


aj


----------



## CoffeeKing (7 January 2009)

Chinese state media has said the country now has more than 50 million bloggers.

Talk about "Bloggered" sheesh

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/710478/china-has-more-than-50-million-bloggers


----------



## sinner (12 February 2009)

Please do not let this issue fall by the way side

http://www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=2929

*Australian government pushes on with 'ridiculous' ISP filter*


> The Australian Federal Government is pushing forward with plans to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to filter all Internet traffic within Australia. This proposal, which the government says is non-negotiable, will be mandatory for all people inside Australia. Making matters significantly worse, communications minister Senator Conroy, refuses to even discuss the issue in parliament or with the press. As such, the only details available are those being leaked by concerned ISPs.
> 
> When the Labour party came to power in 2007, one of their election promises was to do away with the previous government's plan to filter the Internet, however, as they failed to gain a majority in the Senate, they have been forced to partner with the Family First and Christian Democrat parties, both of whom represent the right-wing Christian vote. In so doing, they are now pushing the pet projects of those parties, in return for votes on their big ticket items, such as their environmental policies. So now we see the return of Internet filtering to the agenda.
> 
> ...




Also visit www.getup.org.au


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 February 2009)

Look people, you have had too much freedom for too long and it is time for us to take control of your choices again.Don`t worry about the criminals who exploit the internet, we are going to protect you from them.It is for your own good.
Be quiet, sit still and you will feel no pain. 

Regards, YOUR scheming leader.


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 February 2009)

_"To the working families of Australia, this is your Big Bro and Leader, Kev'09IsFine speaking. I'd like to take this opportunity to announce we have had a great breakthrough regarding the Internet. We are now in a position to save you all from the evils of ... bad stuff... and other such indescribable misery despoiling your minds. 

Firstly, starting Monday next week, we will mail to every household an initial year's supply of "Sweet Dreams" - a small pill recently developed by our new Social Health Department, to be taken by every citizen on a dailly basis, that will markedly reduce day to day stress and guarantee you all feel much, much better. Of course, you all realise that you must trust us in everything we do, as it is for you and only you that we do these things.

Secondly, as your Leader, I know you will love our new NoMoreNastiesNumbNet filter, which Senator Conroy has scientifically proved to be a great success in eliminating ...bad stuff... from everyone's computers. Of course, we knew you would all want this very badly, so no referendum was needed. 

Your trusted Government has also decided to take direct control of all ISP's so that we can broadcast interesting social engineering ideas that we may have from time to time. You will all be happy to know you can expect to see much, much more of me, your humble Leader, in Webcasts and Net advertisements promoting the great work this caring government has in mind for you all.

I thank you all for your total support."_


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 February 2009)

> Australia's largest ISP, Telstra has likewise made several statements that this proposal *will never achieve its goal and will only damage the Internet*. Initial testing by Telstra found that *not only did the filtering massively degrade performance but it also caused the service to completely fail regularly*:
> 
> "...Anything you are going to put in the end-to-end data path that actually does blocking can be invasive. It's invasive meaning it is expensive [to implement], and invasive in the sense that installing it in our network is complicated and may in fact cause outages..."
> 
> ...




So, what happens to our UberTechSavvy economy when - 

(a) Broadband essentially becomes useless?

(b) Business & banking transactions cannot proceed due to frequent system outages? 

Not only that, but an awful lot of people have been and will be ditching their landlines in favour of net-based phone and video chat communications. Hmmm. I think I'll stick with the land line now!!


----------



## Calliope (12 February 2009)

It would be naive to believe that internet censorship is aimed only at pr0n or paedophilia. Already the* Pure Thoughts Police * are very active (even on ASF) sniffing out the heretics who fail the political correctness test and persist in calling a spade a spade.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (12 February 2009)

i plan to use ANTHRAX and DIRTY ATOMIC BOMBS in a TERRORIST ATTACK on PARLIAMENT. my JIHAD will be funded by distributing CHILD PORNOGRAPHY to WHITE SUPREMACISTS.


----------



## Buddy (12 February 2009)

Stormin_Norman said:


> i plan to use ANTHRAX and DIRTY ATOMIC BOMBS in a TERRORIST ATTACK on PARLIAMENT. my JIHAD will be funded by distributing CHILD PORNOGRAPHY to WHITE SUPREMACISTS.




Onya stormin. You tellem. 
Sodium Nitrate, yellowcake, dirty bombs, jihad, rape, murder, pillage.........
boooooooooooom.


----------



## Julia (12 February 2009)

I really doubt that the government are so lacking in political savvy that they would go ahead with this if it indeed does slow the net down by 80%.

Wouldn't the results of the filtering trials have to be clearly documented and the legislation passed by the Senate?  Or can the government just institute such a filter without legislating for it?

The Greens won't co-operate on this, I doubt Nick Xenophon will, and I surely don't think the Libs will be up for it, so that pretty much leaves the good Senator Fielding.  Would be pretty funny, if you think about it.

I don't doubt it's far more about appeasing Fielding than any genuine concern for or belief in filtering the web.


----------



## Calliope (12 February 2009)

Julia said:


> The Greens won't co-operate on this, I doubt Nick Xenophon will, and I surely don't think the Libs will be up for it, so that pretty much leaves the good Senator Fielding.  Would be pretty funny, if you think about it.




It's a question of what these people consider "inappropriate" material. Xenophon wants gambling sites included. Fielding wants pr0n included. Others, including many Liberals (I suspect) want euthanasia sites included. All Conroy and the govt. want to do is censor the net and they are happy to cater to the pet hates of the bigots to achieve this.


----------



## mayk (12 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> It's a question of what these people consider "inappropriate" material. Xenophon wants gambling sites included. Fielding wants pr0n included. Others, including many Liberals (I suspect) want euthanasia sites included. All Conroy and the govt. want to do is censor the net and they are happy to cater to the pet hates of the bigots to achieve this.




This censor policy will be adopted universally soon.  The media companies ( TV, print media, etc.) are losing big time and they want to tame the Internet. They want to control the Internet, so that they can generate better revenues. They want tools in place and child pornography is the excuse that would sway the public opinion. It has already happened in NZ, it is happening in Europe and lastly it would happen in USA. 

The technology is not fit to do that right now. This test will show that. But in the mean time, latest technology is being developed to achieve that purpose, and within a few years it will be available. 

Simple website blocking as adopted by China and many other countries is simple, but keeping an eye on individual session is a huge task. The results from a technological stand point will indeed be interesting. 

I doubt a solution based on current technology can see the encrypted sessions as pointed out by sinner's article. It is simply put impossible, unless a dedicated supercomputer is used for each session, which is highly unlikely.


----------



## Calliope (13 February 2009)

mayk said:


> This censor policy will be adopted universally soon.  The media companies ( TV, print media, etc.) are losing big time and they want to tame the Internet. They want to control the Internet, so that they can generate better revenues. They want tools in place and child pornography is the excuse that would sway the public opinion. It has already happened in NZ, it is happening in Europe and lastly it would happen in USA.
> 
> The technology is not fit to do that right now. This test will show that. But in the mean time, latest technology is being developed to achieve that purpose, and within a few years it will be available.
> 
> ...




It will be interesting to see how the news media reacts to internet censorship.  Thomas Jefferson once said 







> Our liberty depends on the freedom of the Press and that cannot be limited without being lost.




Our liberty now depends on the freedom of the internet.


----------



## Nyden (13 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> It will be interesting to see how the news media reacts to internet censorship.  Thomas Jefferson once said
> 
> Our liberty now depends on the freedom of the internet.




Internet articles against the filtering will be included in the black list, so none of us will be able to read it anyway : I jest.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> *Internet articles against the filtering will be included in the black list, so none of us will be able to read it anyway : [size=+1]I jest.[/size]*




Of course you do. 

That just couldn't happen in a FREE land like - Oztralia.

Could it?? *shudder*


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 February 2009)

> [size=+2]Police move to ban blogs on accused firebug[/size]




http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/02/17/1234632773480.html

Hmmm. One can only imagine what the Internet will be like once the National Thought Police have gained FULL & TOTALITARIAN control over Internet Censorship.

So, you want to vent your spleen online about some psychopath on the loose? Well, be prepared to be jailed by the NTP for the privilege of breaking their Internet Censorship laws!! 

Oh dear. What ramifications will this imminent and severe Internet Censorship have for ASF'ers?

Joe will have to ban any post that is either (a) not sickly sweet or (b) not in total agreement with Government Internet Censorship Policy.... 

Double 

Next, they will want to ban groups of people standing around talking about *stuff*.


----------



## Buddy (17 February 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/02/17/1234632773480.html
> 
> Hmmm. One can only imagine what the Internet will be like once the National Thought Police have gained FULL & TOTALITARIAN control over Internet Censorship.
> 
> ...




I agree with those that think "internet filtering" is a move toward totalitarianism, and that Conroy is a twit.  However, on the point being raised here, remember that the name supression, etc, is from a court order.  The internet is no different to other forms of media in this respect and must obey lawful instructions from the courts (I sound a bit like a lawyer here, dont I?  But I'm not ). I note that some of the entries in facebook (not that I view the thing) are really pressing the boundaries. I would suggect that these people need to be a bit careful otherwise they will find Mr Plod's hand upon their shoulder, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, as there are some real total idiots out there in the great unwashed.


----------



## Trembling Hand (17 February 2009)

Buddy said:


> I agree with those that think "internet filtering" is a move toward totalitarianism, and that Conroy is a twit.  However, on the point being raised here, remember that the name supression, etc, is from a court order.




Only his address is subject to a suppression order not his name.


----------



## electronicmaster (21 February 2009)

*Internet Censorship In Australia*

Hi I found this information out.  I think it is worth everyone's attention.

Sorry if this seems to be old news to you all. 

This is from:-
http://www.youtube.com/user/stellaconcepts


Petition Here:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442

Factsheet Here:
http://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns/internetcensorshipfactsheet.pdf


Dear friends,

Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content.

This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun. The community must now move to stop this plan. Click here to save the net:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see the scheme is open to abuse. 

Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The protection of our children is vitally important - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms.

This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship does neither. Take action to save the net today.

Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The GetUp team 

PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in Australia. Click here to save the net.


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2009)

*Australia Internet Filter*

Flow chart -


----------



## stockGURU (25 March 2009)

When will this madness end? 

The iron fist of federal Labor's totalitarian grip reaches across the world. 

You can keep on trying to censor the internet Senator Conroy but you will not just be going to war with your fellow Australians but believers in liberty across the globe.

You will never win.



> *Police raid Wikileaks.de domain owner Theodor Reppe's home over 'censorship lists*'
> 
> * Police crack down on whistleblowing website
> * Domain owner's homes raided for evidence
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25240192-5014239,00.html


----------



## Temjin (26 March 2009)

*Re: Australia Internet Filter*



MrBurns said:


> Flow chart -




LOL nice one. You can't avoid being a paedophile in that flow chart, even if you were a dentist.


----------



## AbundantIncome (6 June 2009)

*What if the internet no longer offered freedom of speech?*

Interesting stuff I just found out.

What does this mean ???  Please check prisonplanet.com on illegal to link page Australia case and others... do not want to link in case i got a knock on my door for doing so ...

Just a thought, is the national broadband the new way government is controlling Internet media discreetly ??? What don't we know ?

Thanks


----------



## jono1887 (6 June 2009)

*Re: What if Internet no longer offer freedom of speech ?*



AbundantIncome said:


> Interesting stuff I just found out.
> 
> What does this mean ???  Please check prisonplanet.com on illegal to link page Australia case and others... do not want to link in case i got a knock on my door for doing so ...
> 
> ...




the site opens fine, whats the problem??


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 June 2009)

*Re: What if the internet no longer offered freedom of speech?*



AbundantIncome said:


> Interesting stuff I just found out.
> 
> What does this mean ???  Please check prisonplanet.com on illegal to link page Australia case and others... do not want to link in case i got a knock on my door for doing so ...
> 
> Thanks




Prison planet as a site name would surely attract the conspiracy theorists of which there is a large following. New world order, 911 etc. is big business and creates income for the sellers of such (i.m.o.) nonsense.


----------



## Calliope (13 July 2009)

*Conroy Earns Internet Villian of the Year*

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...ternet-villain-of-the-year-20090713-di8q.html



> Adam Turner
> July 13, 2009 - 1:24PM
> Stephen Conroy's mandatory internet filtering plans have earned him the title of Internet Villain of the Year at the 11th annual Internet Industry Awards.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trembling Hand (14 July 2009)

hehe


----------



## Timmy (14 July 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> hehe





Don't want to get all conspiracy here ... enough of that on the forum already ... but I get an error message if I click on the YouTube link:






Will keep trying, in the meantime click on this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THe3FDe-aD4

Good find TH!


----------



## overit (14 July 2009)

The anti censor ad has been censored! - LOL!



> No political interference in GetUp ban: Qantas
> 
> Fran Foo | July 14, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## kitehigh (15 December 2009)

*Internet censorship plan gets the green light*

The Federal Government has announced it will proceed with controversial plans to censor the internet after Government-commissioned trials found filtering a blacklist of banned sites was accurate and would not slow down the internet.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...rship-plan-gets-the-green-light-20091215-ktzc.

Senator Conroy is a stubborn bastard, could well cost him his seat come the next election.


----------



## Buddy (15 December 2009)

kitehigh said:


> *Internet censorship plan gets the green light*
> 
> The Federal Government has announced it will proceed with controversial plans to censor the internet after Government-commissioned trials found filtering a blacklist of banned sites was accurate and would not slow down the internet.
> 
> ...




Nothing on the link. Maybe Conroy has censored it.


----------



## Julia (15 December 2009)

kitehigh said:


> *Internet censorship plan gets the green light*
> 
> The Federal Government has announced it will proceed with controversial plans to censor the internet after Government-commissioned trials found filtering a blacklist of banned sites was accurate and would not slow down the internet.
> 
> ...



Kitehigh, that's in total contradiction to the report on ABC Radio's "PM" programme this evening where examples were given of the inaccuracy of the filter, e.g. a dentist's and a landscaper's websites being filtered out as 'unacceptable content".

In that report, the good Senator Conroy (I'm being sarcastic in case anyone doesn't know) assured Australians the filter process would be corrected before final application.  

Of course Family First are thrilled with it.  But the Coalition are withholding judgement, though now that Abbott is in charge they will probably give their support, given his religious bent.  The Greens are opposed to it.  So the passage through the Senate is not yet assured.

It's not just pr0n that will be shut down if this interfering legislation is passed:
All content from Phillip Nitschke's "Exit" website (voluntary euthanasia) will also be wiped out.

Governments should be there to do the practical stuff, but they should not be interfering in our personal decisions.


----------



## -Bevo- (15 December 2009)

Julia said:


> It's not just pr0n that will be shut down if this interfering legislation is passed:
> All content from Phillip Nitschke's "Exit" website (voluntary euthanasia) will also be wiped out.




The words Climategate might get censored too.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Of course Family First are thrilled with it.  But the Coalition are withholding judgement, though now that Abbott is in charge they will probably give their support, given his religious bent.  The Greens are opposed to it.  So the passage through the Senate is not yet assured.



It troubles me to say it given my long history of being on the other side in various conservation versus development battles, but I just might vote Green in the next election.

Labor - Outright socialists with a few rather disturbing non-democratic tendencies.

Liberal - Religious fundamentalists who no longer grasp the concept of a free market or personal freedom.

Which leaves the Greens as the only party with _any_ worthwhile ideas, even if I disagree with many of the other things they'd likely do.

It reminds me of that 1970's quote regarding a certain industry - better to be poor and healthy than rich and rotten. Or in this case, better to have a lower standard of living and retain some freedom than to lose it all in pursuit of money.

Smurf voting Green? A decade or two ago I'd have said there was more chance of me landing on Mars than voting Green. But with the other two major parties essentially imploding in terms of worthwhile policies, the Greens are becoming the only mob left standing who could foreseeably actually do something (anything) useful without taking our fundamental rights away in the process.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> It troubles me to say it given my long history of being on the other side in various conservation versus development battles, but I just might vote Green in the next election.
> 
> Labor - Outright socialists with a few rather disturbing non-democratic tendencies.
> 
> ...




Here's something to consider Smurf
Orwell vs. Huxley comic

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html


----------



## kitehigh (16 December 2009)

If Abbot has half a brain he will seize on this and go all out to oppose it.

The Coalition could really do well by opposing this and running on anti censorship / ETS ticket.


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Here's something to consider Smurf
> Orwell vs. Huxley comic
> 
> http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html




Very good, Gumby. You have learned well.... 

IMHO the planetary hoi poloi are currently being jerked twixt Orwellianism & Huxleyism.

At home here, KRudd & Co. are cleverly manipulating both theories in a massive media campaign designed to ensconce them as The Most Populist Government Of All Time. 

I predict this dichotomy of extremes (Uber-optimism & glad tidings mixed with Uber-pessimism & fear) will only get more pronounced over time and with the unstoppable explosion of world economic growth & most importantly - _population_ (*gasp* - I said that nasty un-PC word again!  )

Me?

I'm leaning towards Orwell's vision, as I just can't trust those dodgy bastids who run our lives to deliver us Nirvana. Never have trusted 'em. Left, right, centre, Green - who cares. IMO they all start to smell after a short time in power. The stench of corruption gets them all in the end, no matter what colour they start out as. It must be an incurable human condition, methinks!

Oh well, there's two sides to this story as we know, so for all you Uber's out there, keep on enjoying the parties and fun ride!

Everyone have a Merry Xmas & Happy New Year!?



aj


----------



## awg (16 December 2009)

Conroy u jerk-off!

what a hare-brained scheme, 

technically and liberty wise, this censorship is monstrous.

plus I have more bones to pick with this incompetent fool

as a Telstra shareholder, thanks NOT, for the way Telstra has been handled since you had your hands on the lever, worse than Sol.

Oh yeah, since your hardly thought out NBN, means no more network upgrades, so that means no ADSL2 for me till God knows when, even though I live 10km from the 5th lrgest city in Oz..good one Conroy, u turd


----------



## Mofra (16 December 2009)

Julia said:


> In that report, the good Senator Conroy (I'm being sarcastic in case anyone doesn't know) assured Australians the filter process would be corrected before final application.



I know for a fact that this is both impossible & impractical.

This is a perfect example of ministerial bandstanding without an adequate idea of the actual practicalities of policy. 

Welcome to a glimpse of the looming NBN debarcle people. A pie in the sky idea seems more important to this government than workable policy.


----------



## Mofra (16 December 2009)

awg said:


> Oh yeah, since your hardly thought out NBN, means no more network upgrades, so that means no ADSL2 for me till God knows when, even though I live 10km from the 5th lrgest city in Oz..good one Conroy, u turd



NBN wont actually make anyone's internet faster unless they trunk directly into main cable OR the government sorts out how to get the fibre connected into the required power module that is to be installed at the network boundary point in each home. I wont hold my breath.


----------



## marklar (16 December 2009)

Conroy's parliamentary term is up in 2011 

Since I live in the great state of Victoria I just might have to assemble the 50 registered voters and $1000 required to run against him.

m.


----------



## Julia (16 December 2009)

marklar said:


> Conroy's parliamentary term is up in 2011
> 
> Since I live in the great state of Victoria I just might have to assemble the 50 registered voters and $1000 required to run against him.
> 
> m.



If you do, marklar, I will just about move to Victoria in order to support you.
I'd certainly be happy to make a contribution to your running costs.

The ideal position would be for Labor to wipe Conroy out and for the Libs to keep things even by getting rid of Kevin Andrews.  They are two of a kind.


----------



## condog (17 December 2009)

kitehigh said:


> If Abbot has half a brain he will seize on this and go all out to oppose it.
> 
> The Coalition could really do well by opposing this and running on anti censorship / ETS ticket.




Couldn't agree more....

It takes a lot to get my political barometer ticking, but censorship and socialism usually do it.....

The coalition could gain rediculous traction just on this one issue....The very fact the thread in here is so empassioned and popular is testament to the thoughts of a large part of society on the issue.....

Surely someone in here is a liberal party member and can start making rumblings in the Liberal branch meetings about this.

Not that I want Abbot as PM, but if a censoring bunch of economically inept extreme socialists is the option, I will take Abbot thanks...


----------



## Julia (17 December 2009)

Condog, and anyone else who feels similarly, here is Tony Abbott's email address:

Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

Send him an email with your suggestion.  He and his party are probably pretty receptive to hearing from the electorate at present.

I have done this.


----------



## awg (17 December 2009)

its also a mark of totalitarianism, that if you question a position, then you are "branded".

In this case, I clearly detect the broadbrush of "pr0n user" or even child pr0n peadophile, whenever I see that unctous git trying to justify this scheme.

Even though he is fairly careful not to directly say it, I definitely detect that he resorts to this old chestnut on any occasion.

The NBN is a joke..as has been pointed out on the TLS thread, NBN estimated cost $43b..TLS market cap = approx $43b...they could just as well buy part or all of TLS and save us all a lot of time, angst and money


----------



## Atlas79 (17 December 2009)

*Re: What if the internet no longer offered freedom of speech?*



Wysiwyg said:


> Prison planet as a site name would surely attract the conspiracy theorists of which there is a large following. New world order, 911 etc. is big business and creates income for the sellers of such (i.m.o.) nonsense.




What people don't consider is that whack job conspiracy theorists actually provide excellent smokescreen for genuine conspiracies. 

And that genuine conspiracy is the natural state of the world. If I plan a day out with my wife but don't tell my neighbours about it, that is technically a conspiracy.

A meeting behind closed doors among our rulers, when they keep us out of the loop (for the public's own good or not), is also a conspiracy.

If I was planning a real grab at power the first thing I'd do is leak a version of the plot to the whackos who are already screaming shrilly about lizard people coming to take over.


----------



## McCoy Pauley (17 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Condog, and anyone else who feels similarly, here is Tony Abbott's email address:
> 
> Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
> 
> ...




Tony Smith, Sen. Conroy's shadow, put out a press release a day or so ago supporting in principle the Government's philosophy.  He didn't exactly oppose the filter but raised queries about the approach.

Given Tony Abbott's background, there will almost certainly be legislation for an internet filter in the next 12 months.


----------



## Julia (17 December 2009)

McCoy Pauley said:


> Tony Smith, Sen. Conroy's shadow, put out a press release a day or so ago supporting in principle the Government's philosophy.  He didn't exactly oppose the filter but raised queries about the approach.
> 
> Given Tony Abbott's background, there will almost certainly be legislation for an internet filter in the next 12 months.



On the basis of Tony Abbott's personal views, I agree with you.
But - given their response to the thousands of emails against the ETS, without which they'd have gone along with Turnbull's agreement to vote for it - I'm hoping they may well be more attuned to what the electorate at large wants.

They have clearly demonstrated their capacity to form policy on the basis of voter preference, so imo it's well worth sending as many emails as possible to various Coalition members.  There is nothing to lose and there could be a gain.


----------



## schnootle (17 December 2009)

McCoy Pauley said:


> Given Tony Abbott's background, there will almost certainly be legislation for an internet filter in the next 12 months.




Very true. Has Australia gone made, why do we have so many bat-**** crazy catholics running the show


----------



## DocK (17 December 2009)

schnootle said:


> Very true. Has Australia gone made, why do we have so many bat-**** crazy catholics running the show




My first thought when he gained leadership of the Libs was that we'd all be subjected to his personal ideology if he should wind up as PM.  I find the very notion of a person's religious beliefs dictating the entire country's legislation terrifying, but given Mr Abbott attended a seminary I feel it would be inevitable that his views would colour his politics.  I shudder at the thought of Australia becoming a red-neck nation of anti-abortion, teetotalling, wowsers and god-botherers.  Why should matters of personal choice that do no harm to others be legislated against because of our politician's personal beliefs?


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 December 2009)

awg said:


> its also a mark of totalitarianism, that if you question a position, then you are "branded".
> 
> In this case, I clearly detect the broadbrush of "pr0n user" or even child pr0n peadophile, whenever I see that unctous git trying to justify this scheme.



It's exactly the same approach to both internet censorship and climate change. Anyone who questions the official mantra is branded as some sort of sociopath as though freedom of information and a sceptical approach to science were in some way a bad thing.

What's happening now with these two issues is very, very different to old-style activism, politics and general debate. It is nothing short of a fundamental attack on the foundations of democracy, independent thought, and a move towards outright government control of our lives. 

Wait a few years and it won't just be pr0n that's filtered. Add economic statistics and basically anything government doesn't want you to know to the list. That's very, very dangerous in terms of the ultimate consequences...


----------



## schnootle (17 December 2009)

If we had a viable alternative (ie not Abbott) this would be political suicide. This is one of those rare moments in politics were i am embarassed to be an Australian, and i think i am far from alone. I think there are a lot of people willing to change their vote over it, but to who, Abbott? i am voting Greens.

If Abbott wasn't such a god-botherer this would be election GOLD. It would be a fabulous base for an election campaign, nothing like attempted destruction of personal freedoms to get people to vote.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's exactly the same approach to both internet censorship and climate change. Anyone who questions the official mantra is branded as some sort of sociopath as though freedom of information and a sceptical approach to science were in some way a bad thing.
> 
> What's happening now with these two issues is very, very different to old-style activism, politics and general debate. It is nothing short of a fundamental attack on the foundations of democracy, independent thought, and a move towards outright government control of our lives.
> 
> Wait a few years and it won't just be pr0n that's filtered. *Add economic statistics and basically anything government doesn't want you to know to the list. That's very, very dangerous in terms of the ultimate consequences...*




Well put Smurf. It should concern most people, but the lethargy of most to be concerned enough about the future ramifications of this proposal may not register.


----------



## Julia (17 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Wait a few years and it won't just be pr0n that's filtered. Add economic statistics and basically anything government doesn't want you to know to the list. That's very, very dangerous in terms of the ultimate consequences...



I don't even think we will have to wait a few years.  The level of control via an internet filter will be irresistible and addictive to the government.  More and more will simply be denied our access.

This from a government who loudly derided China's restricted access to the internet during the Olympics.

I agree with all that's been said above, but doesn't anyone consider Mr Abbott's desire for political ascension could override his personal views?
He has previously stated that he would not allow his personal morality to affect decisions made in government.  I simply don't believe that, unless he had the attraction of power as a stimulus.

He has already demonstrated that his views are capable of change a bit like the wind.  I think he has had three or four stated stands on climate change e.g.  I don't care about that.  He will never be Prime Minister.

But in the meantime, if his quest for power (and he is very clearly enjoying his currently elevated status) is going to be served by taking the attitude expressed by most Australians, I believe he will do that.

So I'll repeat my hope that as many ASF members as possible will email him and/or other Libs/Nats to suggest they oppose this filter.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 December 2009)

Former High Court judge expresses his concerns

http://www.theage.com.au/technology...he-wedge-kirby-20091217-kyeu.html?autostart=1

Former High Court judge Michael Kirby has criticised the Federal Government's internet censorship agenda, saying it could stop the "Berlin Walls of the future" from being knocked down.


----------



## DocK (18 December 2009)

I watched the 7pm Project on tv earlier tonight - they had a segment on the proposed internet filter.  Apparently a poll on their website has registered more than 90% of respondants are against any filter.  Whoever it was they had on the show (was only paying semi-attention) made the excellent point that if the govt is concerned about child pornography they could put the money a filter would cost to better use by funding more police to trawl through chat rooms etc and actually catch the creeps.

Surely if the results their poll got are indicative of the broader community (and I think they would be) then any opposition would be stark raving mad not to jump all over the issue??


----------



## Atlas79 (18 December 2009)

schnootle said:


> If we had a viable alternative (ie not Abbott) this would be political suicide. This is one of those rare moments in politics were i am embarassed to be an Australian, and i think i am far from alone. I think there are a lot of people willing to change their vote over it, but to who, Abbott? i am voting Greens.
> 
> If Abbott wasn't such a god-botherer this would be election GOLD. It would be a fabulous base for an election campaign, nothing like attempted destruction of personal freedoms to get people to vote.




So to protest the socialist policies of Labor (socialist countries censor the internet in this way, actually in more extreme ways... facebook is banned in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and in North Korea you're just happy if you have a cup of rice)...

...you vote for the more extreme socialist party, the Greens, which will jag the country even further left.  Interesting strategy. All because Abbot goes to church.

A question for those of you who cite Abbot's religion as a reason not to vote for him. Your car breaks down one night out in the middle of nowhere. You would like the next car driving past to be driven by:

(a) a Christian
(b) a communist revolutionary


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 December 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> So to protest the socialist policies of Labor (socialist countries censor the internet in this way, actually in more extreme ways... facebook is banned in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and in North Korea you're just happy if you have a cup of rice)...
> 
> ...you vote for the more extreme socialist party, the Greens, which will jag the country even further left.  Interesting strategy. All because Abbot goes to church.



I was opposed to the Greens on the very issues that lead to the party's formation and still disagree with many of their views over the environment (to extreme to actually be implemented...), so I sure aren't a long term supporter there.

But credit where it's due and I'd have to say that the Greens' social policies in general are a decade or two ahead of the Laborials who are _still_ prattling on with a few policies that are clearly linked to religion.

If we ever did end up with a Green government then I'm confident we'd be a lot poorer economically, possibly to the point of actual collapse. But with the massive debts this country incurred during the Howard years as the basis for its "growth", and the spendthrift ways of Rudd, I really can't see Bob Brown doing much worse. 

At least he'd likely blow the money on hospitals and railways which are of some long term use rather than running up debt to pay more for the _same_ house we already had or spending it on imported consumer junk from China, neither of which has achieved anything other than to saddle the next generation with unrepayable debt in order to fund present lifestyles.

Debt spiral to bid up the prices of the same houses we already have whilst we have national assets sold off while we implemented censorship of mainstream commercial radio during the Howard years?

Debt spiral to buy fancy TV's while we implement censorship of the internet under Rudd?

Or a debt spiral to build a few hospitals, trains and solar panels whilst retaining our basic freedoms and gaining back much of what's been taken over the past decade?

It really does worry me to say it, but the Greens are looking better than either Labor or Liberal to me right now. They'll all blow the money and send us broke, the only question is what else they do in the meantime.


----------



## Atlas79 (18 December 2009)

> At least he'd likely blow the money on hospitals and railways which are of some long term use rather than running up debt to pay more for the same house we already had or spending it on imported consumer junk from China, neither of which has achieved anything other than to saddle the next generation with unrepayable debt in order to fund present lifestyles.




Going to have to disagree with you. Brown is in the comfortable position of knowing he will never be in power to put money where his mouth is, or succeed in actually running anything (besides his mouth.) So he has a magic wish list of policies to please everyone. There's no indication he'd actually do what he says he'd do. With leftists it's a safe bet they won't. The wrapping paper is always pretty, but there's a turd inside. Ask Venezuala or any other socialist sewer. 

You want a look at the greens track record of policies? Look no further than the VIC bushfire disaster. Know why there were so many trees inside the living areas of those Victorian small towns? Guess which party forbade cutting them down.

There are less dangerous ways to spend a protest vote, imo.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 December 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> Going to have to disagree with you. Brown is in the comfortable position of knowing he will never be in power to put money where his mouth is, or succeed in actually running anything (besides his mouth.) So he has a magic wish list of policies to please everyone. There's no indication he'd actually do what he says he'd do. With leftists it's a safe bet they won't. The wrapping paper is always pretty, but there's a turd inside. Ask Venezuala or any other socialist sewer.
> 
> You want a look at the greens track record of policies? Look no further than the VIC bushfire disaster. Know why there were so many trees inside the living areas of those Victorian small towns? Guess which party forbade cutting them down.
> 
> There are less dangerous ways to spend a protest vote, imo.



Can't really argue with your logic there and totally agreed about trees, fires etc - that's a classic example of Green madness.

But Labor under Rudd is so far to the left as to put them in essentially the same category. 99% Left versus 100% left isn't much difference.

And the Liberals no longer seem to support the notion of personal freedom, free enterprise etc as they drift into some sort of fusion of Leftist control and religious influence.

I'd vote for anyone actually supporting freedom in an instant. But with the possible exception of a small number of independents, we don't actually have any politicians supporting freedom these days. The options are essentially confined to what form of control we'll be under and who it is intended to benefit.

What we need is a "liberal" party in Australia. We have a party that uses that term as its name, but its policies don't come anywhere near something that could be described as "liberal". "Conservative" would be a better name for the present Liberal Party since that is what their policies are - conservative.


----------



## Happy (18 December 2009)

Part of the problem is that a lot of current freedom is used by general public for illegal activities that give authorities good excuse for totalitarian approach of fixing it.

Probably 2008 Olympic games in China gave our authorities first hand good ‘understanding’ of benefits that Government totalitarian censorship gives.

(Wander if this thread will be gagged and closed by this Forum Censorship as boat thread was?)


----------



## prawn_86 (18 December 2009)

Happy said:


> (Wander if this thread will be gagged and closed by this Forum Censorship as boat thread was?)




Off topic, but ASF does not condone racist discussions, its in the site rules. Also, this is not a public site, it has a owner who decides rules, so in theory there is no right to free speech on any Internet site, its all at the owners discretion.


----------



## Happy (19 December 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Off topic, but ASF does not condone racist discussions, its in the site rules. Also, this is not a public site, it has a owner who decides rules, *so in theory there is no right to free speech on any Internet site*, its all at the owners discretion.




There you go, so if it is so good for Owner of the Forum it must be good for the Country too


----------



## prawn_86 (19 December 2009)

Happy said:


> There you go, so if it is so good for Owner of the Forum it must be good for the Country too




Indeed, as we have no actual right to free speech set out in a bill of rights or our constitution.


----------



## wayneL (19 December 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Indeed, as we have no actual right to free speech set out in a bill of rights or our constitution.




(Caution: I may be speaking from the hole in my @ss)

The way I understand our system of law, we don't actually want one.

Freedoms are either positive or negative freedoms.

Under English law we have negative freedom; that is to say everything is permitted unless explicitly forbidden. In other words I can do triple back flips on my front lawn, because the law doesn't say I can't. 

Under Napoleonic law they have positive freedoms; that is to say everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed. For me do be able to do triple back flips on my front lawn, the law has to say that I'm allowed to.

A bill of rights is a positive freedom document. Personally speaking, they can shove a bill of rights up their khyber because I prefer negative freedoms. I don't want any gu'mint "allowing" me the right to free speech.

I want free speech because it is an intrinsic right.

Internet forums are a different matter and cannot be compared to society in general. A forum is private property, just like a pub. The publican can through a person out if he doesn't like what they say.

Fortunately, we have an administrator here at ASF that only places restrictions on speech that are likely to cause extreme offence, or breach one or another statute or the common law, and that's fair enough.


----------



## derty (21 December 2009)

A couple of amusing (and one not a little concerning) sidelines. 

Stephen Conroy had failed to register his own name as a domain. Finding it vacant, someone has registered stephenconroy.com.au and set it up as a parody of the man himself. Though the sites registration has been cancelled by the auDa (.au Domain name Administrators). The site has now been temporarily moved to stephen-conroy.com.au. The site owners were given only 3 hours to respond to the complaint about the site when the auDa dispute resolution process allows 20 days for a response. Leaned on by a few Labour heavies I imagine. Who needs a filter to censor the net?

Here is the temporary site: http://stephen-conroy.com/news.php
Here is their note about the takedown: http://stephen-conroy.com/page.php?4
Some information about the alleged contravention: http://www.stopinternetcensorship.org/57-auda-take-down-stephenconroy-com-au.html



On a somewhat lighter note a smh blog has posted a story taking the piss out of Conroy's filter: 


> *Conroy plans speed humps for Australia's freeways
> *
> aturner | December 18, 2009
> 
> ...



http://digihub.smh.com.au/node/1484


----------



## GoodCall (21 December 2009)

When someone makes rules about what is not acceptable speech on *their* property, they are *not * gagging your speech as they are not stopping you from speaking your mind elsewhere or setting up your own website.  Much like a club with dress rules, they are not telling you what to wear, only what is not acceptable on their property, which is their right.  In fact they are granting you freedom to enter and do what you like within certain limits.

When someone tries to impose their view over what people are allowed to say or view on their own property, then that is censorship.  This difference is not always understood, but is important.  

There is no reason why people who want filtering can't impose it on their own property at their own expense and let others choose what they will do with their property.  Public access to the internet such as at libraries is already restricted; I was once unable to access the site delisted.com.au at a public library.  This kind of overkill could easily obstruct the efficient flow of information if filtering was imposed on us all.

I dislike pornography, but I am much more offended by someone who makes it their business to violate someone else's negative property rights.


----------



## DB008 (3 January 2010)

*Australia's Government Internet Filter*

Hi All,
I haven't read too much into this, but a friend of mine touched on the subject last night. Said that it's going to be like China's "great firewall", but worse.
what are your views on this?
Personally, if it blocks pr0n and other x-rated material, l have NO problem with that. 
BUT, if it's going to be used as a political tool to block opposition/free speach, that's just not cricket.
Post your thoughts and lets have a chat about it peoples...


----------



## kitehigh (3 January 2010)

*Re: Australia's Government Internet Filter*

This has been talked about at length here:

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12986

But the main problems are these:

Won't actually achieve what they said they wanted to.
Will cost a lot of money to implement.
Once we go down the slippery road of censorship whats stopping them censoring material that is anti-government. 

Thats a very short reply but if you have a look through the other thread you can read plenty about it there.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 January 2010)

Are there any petitions going around on this topic?


----------



## Aussiejeff (18 January 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> *Are there any petitions* going around on this topic?




They'll be *filtered out* too....


----------



## Logique (18 January 2010)

*Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism*



marklar said:


> Letsee...
> 
> Cost goes up (user has to pay for this somehow)
> Latency goes up (gotta inspect traffic to see if it's naughty or nice)
> ...




Great post. 
Costs (to taxpayers) up, freedoms down. It's censorship and intrusive state control, and should be resisted all the way down the line.

Can we have a poll on this thread please, as with the whale wars thread.


----------



## johnnyg (18 January 2010)

http://stephen-conroy.com/news.php

Doh, Post # 244 has the above link. Definitely worth a read through the site.


----------



## Rakarth (18 January 2010)

I haven't seen this specific address mentioned.  It's the Facebook group for the March 6th Internet Filter Protests. (Sorry, I have less than 5 posts so I can't make them direct URLs).

w w w.facebook.com/event.php?eid=200213317223#

And their external site (which seems to have less info) if you don't have Facebook.
w w w.block-the-filter.org/home.html

And this is an online petition:
petitions.tigweb.org/oznetcensorship


----------



## Julia (18 January 2010)

There has been massive and very vocal opposition to this across all strata of Australians.

The organisation "Get Up" I know organised a substantial protest.

The Minister can be under no illusions as to how unpopular this proposed filter is.  Some of the ISP's refused to participate in the trial, partly because they were against it, but also because of pressure from their customers.

It appears the Minister is unmoved, no doubt well convinced of the potential for hiding all manner of facts from us, especially those politically unfavourable to the government.

If it were really just the protection of children he had in mind, then why would the government not simply continue with making available to parents the sort of individual filter software that has been available for some time.


----------



## Rakarth (18 January 2010)

Especially when child protection groups are also saying it's pointless and a waste of money.



> Children’s welfare groups Save the Children and the National Children’s & Youth Law Centre joined GetUp! in the campaign, issuing a joint statement (PDF):
> 
> We argue that the tens of millions of dollars that such a scheme will cost should instead be diverted to appropriate child protection authorities and police to prevent the abuse of children, and towards effective community-based education strategies that give children and parents the skills to protect themselves.
> Further, PC-level filtering software should be promoted to and provided to parents that wish to protect their children from inappropriate internet content.




URLs from my previous post URLed.

Facebook Group

And their external site (which seems to have less info) if you don't have Facebook.
Non-Facebook Link

And this is an online petition:
Petition


----------



## Go Nuke (18 January 2010)

Yeah Ive been on the Facebook one for ages.

The filter is such a load of B.S which the govenment tries to sell it to the public by saying its best for the children or to stop kiddy pr0n.

NOONE WANTS IT.

These clowns we elected in need to listen to the people that put then in their jobs today.

marklar...peer to peer will not get past a filter. Thats one reason they WANT the filter. pressure from the tv and film industry...but a seed box would by pass a filter i believe. If it ever gets to that, I'd do more research on it...until then...screw AFACT!

Pointless waste of peoples money and absoltely totalitarianism!


----------



## MS+Tradesim (19 January 2010)

There is little chance of getting Conroy and Labour to back off. I think the only way to defeat this is Greens and Opposition against it in the Senate. Since Greens are already against it that leaves the Opposition to be persuaded. I have written to Tony Abbot, Tony Smith (shadow broadband minister) and Barnaby Joyce (who petitioned against the ETS).

http://barnabyjoyce.com.au/ContactSenatorJoyce/tabid/100/Default.aspx
http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/Pages/contact.aspx
http://www.tonysmithmp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&Itemid=68


----------



## Calliope (19 January 2010)

> *The Rudd government believes in unrestricted access to media and information, for China
> 
> The internet must be free, a spokesman for Trade Minister Simon Crean says yesterday amid the Google censorship row:
> *
> AUSTRALIA has consistently urged China to protect freedom of expression and freedom of information and noted that free media is fundamental to the effective functioning of government. Free use of the internet is a key element of this. Australia has raised its concerns with China over restrictions on the internet, including through our bilateral human rights dialogue.



Apparently Crean hasn't spoken to Conroy lately.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/freedom-with-a-few-fetters/story-e6frg6zo-1225821004625


----------



## marklar (20 January 2010)

Go Nuke said:


> marklar...peer to peer will not get past a filter. Thats one reason they WANT the filter.




Of course it will, at the moment the proposed filter is web traffic only, P2P is a completely different beast.  Have a search for "Fast Flux" to see what techniques are being adopted by malware writers, it's really not that difficult to adapt these techniques to P2P applications... where there's a will, there's a way!

m.


----------



## Julia (20 January 2010)

marklar said:


> Of course it will, at the moment the proposed filter is web traffic only, P2P is a completely different beast.  Have a search for "Fast Flux" to see what techniques are being adopted by malware writers, it's really not that difficult to adapt these techniques to P2P applications... where there's a will, there's a way!
> 
> m.



Isn't that rather beside the point?  How many average Australians are going to even think about something along these lines, let alone know how to access it?

What most people do when they want to look for something is simply type it into Google.

They will simply not know what they don't know, to paraphrase Mr Rumsfeld, because the government will not be telling us what the sites are to which they are barring our access.  To me, that's almost the worst aspect of this whole unreasonable legislation.

Has anyone heard if the Coalition have decided to back it yet?


----------



## donkeykong (22 January 2010)

I just got an email about a petition against internet censorship in Australia that the EFA (Electronic Frontiers Australia) are running, and it will be submitted to parliament. You can sign it online at http://www.efa.org.au/epetition/ and you must use your real name and postcode but you can select a checkbox so that your name does not appear on the website.


----------



## Bushman (12 February 2010)

*Re: Internet Censorship In Australia*

I cannot wait for this 'nanny state', bureaucrat led rabble to be voted out. Conroy and his web censorship, while well intentioned, is punishing the many for the inhumanity of the few. Why is this a viable model of governance given the attack on the liberalism that separates us from the rogue states? 

Protect our freedom before it is gone. 

From The Age web-site:

http://www.theage.com.au/technology...oys-call-to-censor-youtube-20100211-ntm0.html


----------



## xyzedarteerf (12 February 2010)

Found this on Wired a couple of days ago.
Anonymous Unfurls ‘Operation Titstorm’


----------



## johnnyg (12 February 2010)

Beautiful.


----------



## GumbyLearner (12 February 2010)

*Re: Internet Censorship In Australia*



Bushman said:


> I cannot wait for this 'nanny state', bureaucrat led rabble to be voted out. Conroy and his web censorship, while well intentioned, is punishing the many for the inhumanity of the few. Why is this a viable model of governance given the attack on the liberalism that separates us from the rogue states?
> 
> Protect our freedom before it is gone.
> 
> ...




Boggo the guy is a scumbag. That is obvious after reading that link. He needs to be shipped back to England where he can inform them to burn Orwell's literature. He needs to get a real job, sweat, get his hands dirty (not in the same context as GG mentioned last night) and pay taxes like the ordinary folk he claims he represents.


----------



## professor_frink (12 February 2010)

So assuming that krudd and his comrades go through with this plan to censor to the intermanet, how would those of us who aren't currently hugely tech savvy go about bypassing these filters

Many thanks in advance

Frink
(a lover of small booby wimin in "adult fillums")


----------



## cornnfedd (12 February 2010)

Have a long hard think about why the government wants to censor the internet, obviously there are some bad people doing some bad stuff, and I agree that something needs to be done to stop it - but I dont think this is the way. 

All this will do is drive the criminals further under ground, therefore they will be less likely to get caught. Everybody knows that any system can be cracked and this system will be no different. 

If i was the government I would spend the money on EDUCATION about the internet - educate PARENTS about the dangers of the internet. EDUCATE the children about the dangers of the internet and what is and isnt appropriate. You would get a far better result doing this than trying to run a Hitler Communist style type regime.

Dont even start me on the freedom of speach bit..


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 February 2010)

professor_frink said:


> So assuming that krudd and his comrades go through with this plan to censor to the intermanet, how would those of us who aren't currently hugely tech savvy go about bypassing these filters
> 
> Many thanks in advance
> 
> ...



 An off shore proxy would be a good start or VPS. Then again most of the bad stuff is not transferred via internet sites but rather P2P so you will just have to find a network of fellow liked minded gents. Act like a criminal in other words.



cornnfedd said:


> Dont even start me on the freedom of speech bit..




I cannot believe the lack of debate about this. The friggin journo's and media have not even made a whipper about it. Sad, sad, sad times!!


----------



## captain black (12 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> An off shore proxy would be a good start or VPS. Then again most of the bad stuff is not transferred via internet sites but rather P2P so you will just have to find a network of fellow liked minded gents. Act like a criminal in other words.




Exactly. 99% of the stuff they're trying to filter won't be caught by the filter. $126 million down the drain.



Trembling Hand said:


> I cannot believe the lack of debate about this. The friggin journo's and media have not even made a whipper about it. Sad, sad, sad times!!




Most of the debate on "popular" media sites gets drowned out by the "who's looking after the children" whackos, blissfully unaware that the filter does nothing to protect the kids.


----------



## cornnfedd (12 February 2010)

Freedome of information / speech is not an issue YET, but if they bring the filter in it could be. For example did anyone notice Labor in SA were going to bring a law in so that is anyone made comment on the current government they had to leave there name and post code BY LAW otherwise they could be prosecuted or fined up to $5k. Well they backed down pretty quickly and was a big embarassement, but what happens when the current government decides to filter out other 'political websites' that THEY deems to be illegal content. Why should the government get to decide what I can and cant see in a political sense?

pr0n is just an excuse for the government to try and take more control on the information people are getting - unfortunatly most people over 50 dont understand the internet and think a filter is a great idea. ...


----------



## professor_frink (12 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> An off shore proxy would be a good start or VPS. Then again most of the bad stuff is not transferred via internet sites but rather P2P so you will just have to find a network of fellow liked minded gents. Act like a criminal in other words.




Cheers. Surely our communist overlords know this will be done though. Basically this will only filter out content to the people that wouldn't go looking for it in the first place



Trembling Hand said:


> I cannot believe the lack of debate about this. The friggin journo's and media have not even made a whipper about it. Sad, sad, sad times!!


----------



## captain black (12 February 2010)

professor_frink said:


> Cheers. Surely our communist overlords know this will be done though. Basically this will only filter out content to the people that wouldn't go looking for it in the first place




It's a perfect way for the Govt. to appear to be doing something, much in the same way that the Grocery watch website and fuel watch "appeared" to be doing something. Mum and Dad voter are petrified of all the nasty stuff on the internet in the same way that they're fearful of rising fuel and grocery prices.... but don't worry, the Govt. will fix it all for us... most people wont understand that it's technically flawed other than a few geeks.

As TH said, Sad,Sad,Sad.....


----------



## derty (12 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> I cannot believe the lack of debate about this. The friggin journo's and media have not even made a whipper about it. Sad, sad, sad times!!



Yes sad, it's almost like they are complicit in the whole thing. There was virtually no coverage of the DDoS attacks on the Aust govt websites by Anonymous as part of their Operation Titstorm. Surely this is newsworthy. Why the silence?


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 February 2010)

Of course there is now the very real chance that ASF will go onto the black list as I have posted info about getting around it.

And of course we will never know why because there is no way to check what is on it and why.

You may have to look at removing my post.


:cuckoo:


----------



## captain black (12 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Of course there is now the very real chance that ASF will go onto the black list as I have posted info about getting around it.




No probs, I hear Joe is currently looking into starting a Pirate ASF beyond the 10 mile limit just like the Goodies did....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Goodies


----------



## awg (12 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> I cannot believe the lack of debate about this. The friggin journo's and media have not even made a whipper about it. Sad, sad, sad times!!




I wanted to email Conroy, but could not get his email addy from his website??.

Apparently his website and email is under sustained hacker attack and the intraweb was bought down. The majority of the spam is pr0n, according to his office staffer.:

I am 100% against this censorship...although as a father of teenage sons, I must admit de-porning the portable hard drive that had been shared around their mates, was a very alarming experience indeed


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 February 2010)

awg said:


> I am 100% against this censorship...although as a father of teenage sons, I must admit de-porning the portable hard drive that had been shared around their mates, was a very alarming experience indeed




Fair enough. But do you think this filter will make that less likely?

My bet is that it will not have a chance at stopping young kids looking at pr0n. Even more seriously someone in my immediate family who I recently spoke to who has young kids (8 - 14) thinks that the internet will be "safer" because of it!

Safer   WTF!!


----------



## Bushman (12 February 2010)

I have three young kids in the house (0 to 8 years) and a government-run internet filter gives me no comfort. It will be bungled by the bureacrats. Read the news today on any number of government run debacles.


----------



## Boggo (12 February 2010)

cornnfedd said:


> Freedome of information / speech is not an issue YET, but if they bring the filter in it could be. For example did anyone notice Labor in SA were going to bring a law in so that is anyone made comment on the current government they had to leave there name and post code BY LAW otherwise they could be prosecuted or fined up to $5k. Well they backed down pretty quickly and was a big embarassement, but what happens when the current government decides to filter out other 'political websites' that THEY deems to be illegal content. Why should the government get to decide what I can and cant see in a political sense?
> 
> pr0n is just an excuse for the government to try and take more control on the information people are getting - unfortunatly most people over 50 dont understand the internet and think a filter is a great idea. ...




Goverment policy is....
*"Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it." ”” Mark Twain*


----------



## moXJO (12 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Fair enough. But do you think this filter will make that less likely?
> 
> My bet is that it will not have a chance at stopping young kids looking at pr0n. Even more seriously someone in my immediate family who I recently spoke to who has young kids (8 - 14) thinks that the internet will be "safer" because of it!
> 
> Safer   WTF!!




A lot of people could care less about their rights and accept any dribble given to them in the media.


----------



## awg (12 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Fair enough. But do you think this filter will make that less likely?
> 
> My bet is that it will not have a chance at stopping young kids looking at pr0n. Even more seriously someone in my immediate family who I recently spoke to who has young kids (8 - 14) thinks that the internet will be "safer" because of it!
> 
> Safer   WTF!!




I dont know whether it will be an impediment to the casual pr0n user.

for the determined viewer, I very seriously doubt it.

I dont understand the technicalities, but I cant believe how it could be tried without huge increase in latency etc.

A serious user such as yourself TH may be forced to move OS?

My view is that the censorship and interference is worse than pr0n.

I can only assume they must believe the majority of voters think the opposite

I got my sex education from a stack of Ribald's retrieved from the local tip, and studied in our bush clubhouse, teenies get theirs of the internet:


----------



## Calliope (12 February 2010)

cornnfedd said:


> unfortunatly most people over 50 dont understand the internet and think a filter is a great idea.




Yeah? What's you source for this sweeping statement?


----------



## schnootle (12 February 2010)

Now he is trying to censor youtube. Will someone get this man un-elected please. The ignorance completely astounds me. Has a goverment ever been more out of touch with the people?.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/no-minister-google-rebuffs-censor-20100211-nv7g.html

The internet is a fast moving target that this blacklist will not be able to keep up with. I also wonder if the government plans on compensating people that have their website accidently banned and destroy their business?

All this is going to do is cost MONEY, cost money through taxes to pay for the damn thing and money to get around to problem. If people are finding that things are being blocked they will simply get an overseas proxy, costing more money.

If it becomes a problem for me I will rent a proxy server in the UK, and get access to BBB iPlayer as a perk!


----------



## cornnfedd (12 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yeah? What's you source for this sweeping statement?




I asked my parents.


----------



## drillinto (12 February 2010)

Must read article: "Google's Gatekeepers" by Jeffrey Rosen from NYTMagazine

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html


----------



## Mr J (13 February 2010)

awg said:


> although as a father of teenage sons, I must admit de-porning the portable hard drive that had been shared around their mates, was a very alarming experience indeed




I'd be worried if they hadn't watched pr0n.



> My view is that the censorship and interference is worse than pr0n.




I completely agree with this (apart from the pr0n bit). It's not that I really care about most of what would be censored, but I care about the choice being taken away from me. Government knows best .


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> It's not that I really care about most of what would be censored, but I care about the choice being taken away from me. Government knows best .





Please remember. The internet is a privilege and not a right.


----------



## Julia (13 February 2010)

Bushman said:


> I cannot wait for this 'nanny state', bureaucrat led rabble to be voted out. Conroy and his web censorship, while well intentioned, is punishing the many for the inhumanity of the few. Why is this a viable model of governance given the attack on the liberalism that separates us from the rogue states?
> 
> Protect our freedom before it is gone.
> 
> ...



This is going to be a law.  The ISP's (and Google) will have no choice but to comply.





Trembling Hand said:


> Of course there is now the very real chance that ASF will go onto the black list as I have posted info about getting around it.
> 
> And of course we will never know why because there is no way to check what is on it and why.



The fact that they will not be publishing what is being blocked is every bit as disgusting and obnoxious as the filter itself.

We have had plenty of discussions on this forum about euthanasia.  We may in future not be able to continue with this.



Wysiwyg said:


> Please remember. The internet is a privilege and not a right.



Oh, phooey!   What nonsense.   It's certainly not a 'privilege' to be conferred benevolently upon us by government.
The god bothering politicians have absolutely no right to dictate what we may or may not look at or discuss.  For god's sake, they are hardly shining examples of all that's morally upright!


----------



## roland (25 February 2010)

*China further tightens rules for domain name owners*
Web sites must register with China's authorities with information including a photo of the owner
Owen Fletcher (IDG News Service) 23/02/2010 23:17:00
Tags: domain names, China



> Web site owners in China will have to start submitting personal photos to register their sites with the government under new trial regulations, China's latest move in an Internet clampdown focused on pr0n.
> 
> The regulations, issued by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, are part of an ongoing effort by the ministry to create records for all Web sites in the country. They come amid a wide-ranging campaign against online pr0n in which China has also shut down thousands of Web sites and suspended registration of new Internet domain names by individuals. The campaign has even had an effect outside of China, where companies that sell domain names have been blocked from offering domains that end with the .cn country code.





Won't be long before Governments take control of the internet.

Above story here: http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/artic...s_domain_name_owners?fp=4&fpid=762456&eid=120


----------



## donkeykong (26 February 2010)

Lol Conroy busted censoring his own website,

 http://www.news.com.au/technology/...rences-to-filter/story-e6frfro0-1225834474153



> THE minister in charge of the Government's web censorship plan has been caught out censoring his own website.
> 
> The front page of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's official website displays a list of topics connected to his portfolio, along with links to more information about each one.
> 
> ...




Why doesn’t the opposition make Conroy responsible for this long list of stuff ups and almost criminal behaviour?


----------



## $20shoes (26 February 2010)

This is absolutely not about censorship in the way that most Aussies think about it. 

They are pushing the legislation through on fear, but the main agenda is to inspect packet flows through ISPs and make ISPs responsible for content.

They ran deep packet inspection during their trials but couldn't get the effectiveness they need to distinguish things like legal torrents versus illegal. 

They are working on improving this ( still some years away) and are working with legislators and ISPs to find a way of immediately cancelling user accounts based on law. 

Essentially they will get to a point where they know what you are sending and receiving and will put the onus on the ISP to make sure you're not doing anything illegal.


----------



## Julia (26 February 2010)

I've just had a look at Senator Conroy's website, and - although internet filtering doesn't appear as a header on the home page as far as I can see, typing the term into the search box quickly brought up several articles about it.

I'm not quite sure what Senator Conroy is being accused of?

(Not that I have any wish to defend the interfering, moralistic *****.)


----------



## Trembling Hand (26 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I'm not quite sure what Senator Conroy is being accused of?



Not much Julia just that clouds are used by website owners/designers to show visitors quickly what other visitors have been looking for or how much of the info on the site relates to certain keywords/topics.

It seem Comrade Conroy has gone out of his way to make sure internet filtering does not show up as a popular topic on his site. Wonder why? 

A bit of the usual controlling the info thats been found out by sloppy work. You know normal stuff for this gov.


----------



## Julia (26 February 2010)

OK, thanks, TH.  Sounds like typical Conroy.


----------



## phantomcamel (26 February 2010)

The beauty about censorship, there will be eventually ways to circumvent it  But serious, take childporn as an example - wouldn't the industry adapt & find other ways to distribute their material. Isn't it better that it is not filtered so Police can actually infiltrate the sick networks & take down the source?


----------



## awg (26 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Please remember. The internet is a privilege and not a right.




I'm sure thats tongue in cheek..its as revolutionary as the olden day printing press.

My feeling is this Internet filtering is a precursor to enabling the technical possibility of ASIO type surveillance, for "anti-terrorism" purposes.

Not just in Australia either, (for all the conspiracy theorists)

There was a stink in the US after 911, they secretly installed interception technology in the ISPs and Telcos

Once its in, it would be hard to get rid of. 

There has got to be more driving this than some anti-pr0n wowsers and record company whingers.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 February 2010)

awg said:


> I'm sure thats tongue in cheek..its as revolutionary as the olden day printing press.
> 
> My feeling is this Internet filtering is a precursor to enabling the technical possibility of ASIO type surveillance, for "anti-terrorism" purposes.
> 
> ...




The Internet Service Provider  knows which sites you the customers are going to. Surveillance of fingered customers would be (is?) easy. Even e-mail sources are known by the ISP. Like a posty. No problems for the goodies and no secrets of where anyone surfs either. 

As a matter of fact I want my ISP to shout to the world my internet surfing habits.


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 March 2010)

> *Media rights group puts Australia on internet watchlist *
> 
> A top media rights watchdog has listed Australia along with Iran and North Korea in a report on countries that pose a threat of internet censorship.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/technology...alia-on-internet-watchlist-20100312-q23p.html




Nice Company to be in.



> "These countries are worrying us because they have measures that could have repercussions for freedom of expression on the internet," RSF secretary general Jean-Francois Julliard said at an internet rights award ceremony on Thursday.


----------



## moXJO (12 March 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Nice Company to be in.




Woot Australia makes the 'Axis of evil'


----------



## Trembling Hand (18 March 2010)

Bit of news around today about a site that will be blocked by Conroys save the kids filter.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com

This is clear censorship. Sure there's some distasteful stuff on there dressed up as satire but Nothing to do with protecting kids and restricting pr0n. Clearly its about setting up infrastructure to manage information and our access to material as free thinking & voting citizen. 

Sad sad times.


----------



## awg (18 March 2010)

Rant  I hate Conroy vehemently, and watching him last night was wishing hurt upon him. 

My wife disclaimed my vengeance, so I settled upon either that rare blood pressure problem that made the Yellow Wiggle retire, or the very rare Intersex condition I had just seen on "Hungry Beast" where a grown man spontaneously undergoes a complete physical reversion to female form.


----------



## stockGURU (18 March 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Bit of news around today about a site that will be blocked by Conroys save the kids filter.
> 
> http://encyclopediadramatica.com
> 
> ...




Indeed they are sad times. 

Here is the blog entry from the owner of Encyclopedia Dramatica about the action against him and his website by the Australian Human Rights Commission: http://www.blog.encyclopediadramatica.com/?p=84

It is unbelievable that Australian citizens can be charged, arrested and possibly imprisoned for what amounts to hurting someone's feelings. It is even more unbelievable that the Australian Human Rights Commission is trying to do this to a citizen of another country!

This isn't just political correctness, it is thought control and the suppression of information and is something that you would expect from a dictatorship not a democratic country like Australia. The fact that this site is on Conroy's blacklist just goes to show that this internet filtering is going to filter out satire and alternate viewpoints. Apparently, our government has decided that Australian adults aren't mature enough to decide what points of view we expose ourselves to and must have those decisions made for us by the nanny state.

Chairman Rudd and the Minister for Propaganda, Senator Goebbels, ooops Conroy need to be kicked out at the next election. They're not fit to govern this country IMO.


----------



## WaveSurfer (18 March 2010)

Censor this :fu:

Absolute waste of time, money and resources. DPI will never work, as they have found. Even the world's biggest super computer couldn't keep up with such a high demand. And encryption bypasses this with ease.

Take a leaf from China's total stuff up. While they still attempt to censor, a vast of majority of computer crime still originates from there, so go figure... 

Good points brought up by many in this thread. Julia back on P1 said it. It is up to the parents to take responsibility for what they want their children to view/not view. If the parents are too computer illiterate to set-up a filter themselves, then they must take responsibility and watch their kids 100% of the time when they use the NET. Like the real world, there are some very dark and nasty places out there.

Adults can (and will) make up their own mind. How friggen hard is it to click that little X on the top right of your screen if you find the content offensive? Actions always speak louder than words.

Someone else also mentioned that there are already countless ways to get around it. You can be assured that there will be countless more in the future. 

For goodness sake, it's not the computer illiterate they should be worried about. It's the literate ones that cause the most harm. And they will have no trouble posting their kiddie pr0n. As Metallica says, it's sad but true. The *only* way to stop them is to take their computer off them. Much the same as the only way to completely secure your computer, is not have it connected to a network.

Sadly, Poly Crackers are going to make new laws based on their own bias. Without considering all the _facts_ (but hey, what's new???).


----------



## WaveSurfer (18 March 2010)

Whooopsie. I'm a little trigger happy today. My rant may appear to some that I would be affected by such a move. In-fact it's the opposite. Much like Julia mentioned, it most likely won't affect my surfing habits (unless I'm looking for property on LJHOOKER.COM - LOL).

My point is that it's yet another a band-aid solution to a surgical wound. I'm not saying that I have all the answers either. I'm not an expert and quite frankly, don't want to be. But I can (and will) make up my own mind and will ensure that my kids activity is censored on my own terms.


----------



## Julia (18 March 2010)

Doesn't this legislation have to first get through the Senate?  The Libs have, as far as I know, not been clear about whether they will support it or not.

Or can Conroy just do it without Senate approval?

He is almost taking over Rudd's position of most hated politician for me.


----------



## marklar (19 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> My point is that it's yet another a band-aid solution to a surgical wound.



But where is the wound? and is it even a wound at all? or is it just a bee in some puritan's bonnet?



> I'm not saying that I have all the answers either. I'm not an expert and quite frankly, don't want to be.



I am an expert in the IT industry and I don't have the answers either... 



Julia said:


> Doesn't this legislation have to first get through the Senate?



Yep, that's the way this country works.  It's a crying shame the Democrats imploded, I would have loved to hear Natasha get involved.



> The Libs have, as far as I know, not been clear about whether they will support it or not.



The Libs were pro-filter in the past, although with Alston having even less clue than Conroy it was never likely to get anywhere.  With Abbott in charge you've got to be thinking they will oppose it for pure political sake (good old fashioned wedge politics) and bring in their own version if they manage to get back in (gotta appease the religious right).

I'm actually heartened by the fact that EFA have baited Conroy enough to respond in the media: http://www.efa.org.au/2010/03/16/media-release-conroy-response/ hopefully this can continue up to the election.

m.


----------



## WaveSurfer (19 March 2010)

marklar said:


> But where is the wound? and is it even a wound at all? or is it just a bee in some puritan's bonnet?




It's just an analogy marklar. My point was there are issues. Paedophilia/kiddie pr0n is one of them. Blocking the content is not the answer. Castration however is.

I'd even put my hand up to do the castrating. No questions asked. I worked in a butcher as a young chap, so I have the stomach for it.

I'll have to pull out my ethical issues in IT book. Plenty of good stuff in that. Bit late now though. It's Friday and I am about to get on the sauce. 

Have a good one!


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> It's just an analogy marklar. My point was there are issues. Paedophilia/kiddie pr0n is one of them. Blocking the content is not the answer. Castration however is.
> 
> I'd even put my hand up to do the castrating. No questions asked. I worked in a butcher as a young chap, so I have the stomach for it.
> 
> ...




Anyone know of a good torrent site?

Average voter knowledge of torrent site: 14%
Average voter oblivious of torrent site: 68%
Average anarchist: 1%
Average voter with a connection with speeds to access dangerous material after waiting more than two weeks to download it: 27%

Should go into the Fugov bin IMHO


----------



## roland (25 March 2010)

Five ways to beat the China Firewall - courtesy of PC World: http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/slide...five_ways_beat_great_firewall_china_/?image=1

In essence, no matter what Governments do, there will always be a way.


----------



## Trembling Hand (30 March 2010)

Times ticking away before Comrade Conroy gets to tell you what info you are allowed to access on the net.

It is not to late to register your protest.

http://www.efa.org.au/petition/

Age poll shows some interesting numbers,
http://www.theage.com.au/technology...e-over-net-censorship-20100330-r9bp.html#poll


----------



## lakemac (30 March 2010)

And how many of you have written emails and/or snail mail to your federal members?

I have - several times.
Unfortunately this is what I got:

My first email:


> Hi <Federal Member's name>
> 
> I believe your party's Fascist legislation to control our internet is about to come into parliament.
> 
> ...




The response to that:


> Dear lakemac
> 
> There has been no legislation in relation to internt filters introduces into parliament
> 
> ...



Notice the subtle distinction in the reply "introduced into parliament". Of course is it not in parliament YET.

My response to that:


> Hi <Federal Member's name>
> 
> I have tried to find the actual part of the Labor party's policy document (on your ALP website) that mentions the filtering. Can you point me in the right direction?
> 
> ...




So I get back:


> Dear lakemac
> 
> There is none and there is no legislation.
> 
> Kind regards



Ok again I agree there is no legislation - YET! But they are working on it.
Notice the denials...


----------



## lakemac (30 March 2010)

My next (long) reply:



> Hi <Federal Member's name>
> 
> I beg to differ.
> 
> ...




The denial yet again:


> Dear lakemac
> 
> There is no legislation - ring the parliament if you do not believe me.
> 
> Kind regards




I obviously haven't put it clearly enought that it is PROPOSED legislation.
My bad, so I tried again:



> Hi <Federal Member's name>
> 
> I realise there is no bill or even a draft for public viewing yet.
> What Senator Conroy is implying is that when the legislation comes into play he intends (at this point) to introduce mandatory filtering.
> ...




Ok that should be plain enough...
The reply and ultimate fob off:


> Dear lakemac
> 
> I will forward you a formal written response.
> 
> Kind regards




I am still waiting...

This is so called democracy in action.
Signing a petition is one thing.
I suggest you will get better traction if you rattle your federal member's cage. They need to be reminded that you could campaign against (or for) them (as the case may be) on the basis of a paranoid governments approach to free speech.

People have put their lives on the line and lost their lives for issues such as this in the past. Stand up and be counted guys. Talk to your federal members.


----------



## lakemac (30 March 2010)

by the way, feel free to use, quote or otherwise mash up anything I have in my emails if you wish to rattle your federal member.


----------



## Trembling Hand (30 March 2010)

And here is the list of federal members,

http://www.aph.gov.au/House/members/mi-elctr.asp


----------



## Julia (30 March 2010)

Lakemac, good to see you posting again. 
I really don't think there's much point in contacting the government over this.  They are clearly determined to do it.  Rather, doesn't it make sense to make as much representation as possible to the Liberal Party?  Unless I'm misunderstanding how the passage of legislation works, it won't get up unless the Libs support it.  So far they have not committed themselves.

  Yesterday's "Australia Talks Back" on Radio National was on this topic.  Senator Conroy displayed all the usual spin.

They had two technical experts to discuss how effective the filter would be (a) in removing the forbidden content, and (b) not removing innocent sites.
These two people had opposing views, so no conclusion there.

Senator Conroy was asked why he is not prepared to make public the list of banned sites.  His answer to this, unbelievably, was that if he were to publish the URL of a banned site, then the general public would immediately access it.

How exactly, Senator?   You are saying these sites will be blocked!!!

For anyone with the fortitude to listen to more of this stuff here is the link:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/


----------



## lakemac (30 March 2010)

Glad someone missed me. Thanks Julia.
By the way I have been reading your posts Trembling Hand. Thanks for your insights (and humour in the Interactive Brokers thread  ).

Like most politics these days the sound bite is the key.
The whole issue distills down to this: Why is it going to be MANDATORY instead of OPTIONAL?

Filtering is not the issue. Freedom of choice is.

Why is the Labor Party/Conroy so geared up to make it MANDATORY?
Making it MANDATORY smacks of paranoia and government control.
As I have said that is FASCISM in its worst form.

Put it to your federal memebers - Why is the filter mandatory and not optional? Why are we being denied our freedom of choice, freedom of speech?

Use the list Trembling Hand posted. Choose Freedom guys.


----------



## Trembling Hand (30 March 2010)

And list of Senators

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/index.asp?sort=state


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Age poll shows some interesting numbers,
> http://www.theage.com.au/technology...e-over-net-censorship-20100330-r9bp.html#poll



With 20 hours to go that poll now has about 20,000 votes with 95% voting no.


----------



## nomore4s (30 March 2010)

lakemac said:


> by the way, feel free to use, quote or otherwise mash up anything I have in my emails if you wish to rattle your federal member.




Won't help, cause I'm sure the ones up here can barely read. Maybe if I send it in as a recording:


----------



## inrodwetrust (30 March 2010)

Also reported on smh...

"Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in terms of how content ends up on the blacklist, but last night he again refused to make the blacklist itself public, saying it would provide people instant access to the banned material."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-goes-to-war-with-google-over-net-censorship-20100330-r9bp.html

What??

So what's he saying ...the filtering doesn't work??

How would people access it ? Oh yeah...apparently by the methods already well known.

Isn't that the proof of concept that by he's own admission, that filtering doesn't work? 

Why not just pass the sites to the AFP & let them monitor the people who access it & punish them like the way law enforcement is meant to work.
They seem to be pretty effective capturing them so far. 


Regards


----------



## sam76 (30 March 2010)

Vote at The Age 

33000 + people say no so far (96%)

gotta be the biggest response I have seen on an online poll

http://www.theage.com.au/polls/tech...s/internet-censorship/20100330-r9ft.html#poll


----------



## Julia (30 March 2010)

inrodwetrust said:


> Why not just pass the sites to the AFP & let them monitor the people who access it & punish them like the way law enforcement is meant to work.
> They seem to be pretty effective capturing them so far.
> Regards



I don't know how effective the AFP is, but that's a sensible suggestion.
If the funds allocated for the filter were to be devoted to policing, I'd be surprised if they were not way more effective.


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2010)

sam76 said:


> Vote at The Age
> 
> 33000 + people say no so far (96%)
> 
> ...



It will be interesting to see how Stephen Conroy attemps to dismiss it.


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (30 March 2010)

Maybe if we had a filter this kind of information would be harder to get to? Seems very political and he also seems like he has no idea about the Internetzzz?


----------



## Trembling Hand (30 March 2010)

drsmith said:


> It will be interesting to see how Stephen Conroy attemps to dismiss it.




It will be more interesting to see how Fairfax deals with the issue from here. And the rest of the media.

The media have been MIA on this. Just astounding that journos would swallow this Sh!te without a whimper. But then again there really isn't journos any more, just spin regurgitators. 

They put up an innocent poll and its gone nutz. If they drop this one then I'm off to the conspiracy thread and join the nutters over there. have a read through the comments they are universally slamming the idea - all 600 of them. Amazingly one sided.


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 March 2010)

Julia said:


> I don't know how effective the AFP is, but that's a sensible suggestion.
> If the funds allocated for the filter were to be devoted to policing, I'd be surprised if they were not way more effective.




Conroy and the other superannuation club road-train lovers think that Glasnost went too far & enlightened too many. Now the current Canberra politburo have to implement this new control policy to make sure such freedom to access information doesn't happen again under their Government or any future one.

After all what have China's politburo and Senator Conroy got in common?


----------



## sam76 (30 March 2010)

He just looks evil..


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 March 2010)




----------



## Wysiwyg (30 March 2010)

Has the filtering begun yet as I am experiencing nothing abnormal while searching for information or pleasure on the internet?


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 March 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Has the filtering begun yet as I am experiencing nothing abnormal while searching for information or pleasure on the internet?




I still found the preview/trailer of *1984 *on youtube with the *'Sex Crime'* soundtrack song by The Eurythmics. How ironic is that???  But when I tried to watch the whole version on youtube the sex scenes were deleted.  WTF??? Wasn't that the whole point of the movie???  Of course not,  the point of the movie was...... 









































*'censorship'*.


----------



## Julia (30 March 2010)

It's unlikely that all our bleating on this forum will make any difference.
What could make the difference, however, is the refusal of the Liberal Party (the Greens definitely won't endorse it) to allow this legislation to get through the Senate.

Let's send those representations to the Shadow Minister for Communications.
In the time it would take to make a post on this thread, you can send a clearly worded objection to the filter to the Shadow Minister.

#

    * FOLLOW ON TWITTER
    * YOUTUBE VIDEOS

Tony Smith

Tony Smith is the Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. From January to December, 2007, Tony was Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in the Howard Government. Tony was first elected to the House of Representatives for Casey, Victoria in 2001.
Contact Details

Office:
    Suite One
    1 East Ridge Drive
    Chirnside Park, VIC 3116
Phone:
    (03) 9727 0799
Email:
tony.smith.mp@aph.gov.au
Web:
http://www.tonysmithmp.com/


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2010)

If the Coalition vote in favour of this in the Senate then they are as bad as the ALP on this issue.


----------



## Julia (30 March 2010)

drsmith said:


> If the Coalition vote in favour of this in the Senate then they are as bad as the ALP on this issue.



Certainly they would be.  So let's give them some prompting to vote appropriately.


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 March 2010)

drsmith said:


> If the Coalition vote in favour of this in the Senate then they are as bad as the ALP on this issue.




Totally.


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2010)

The Coalition and Greens (an unholy alliance I know) have sufficient numbers in the Senate to stop this prior to the next election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate

It would then be interesting to see the extent to which the ALP promotes it as part of their re-election platform.


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 March 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I still found the preview/trailer of *1984 *on youtube with the *'Sex Crime'* soundtrack song by The Eurythmics. How ironic is that???  But when I tried to watch the whole version on youtube the sex scenes were deleted.  WTF??? Wasn't that the whole point of the movie???  Of course not,  the point of the movie was......
> 
> *'censorship'*.




Ahhh Gumby.  The dream police are out in force more and more these days. Not that any one of them are qualified while their talk is cheap and those rumours aint nice.


----------



## lakemac (31 March 2010)

Julia - whilst our bleatings here (baaaa LOL) may not achieve anything, discussion threads such as this and many others CAN galvanise people into doing something that does get heard.

As I have done, first step is get hold of your federal member and tell them you are against oppressive governments taking away your right to choose. The filtering is not the issue - the right to choose, the right to not be forced into MANDATORY action by an oppressive government is.

Other steps you can take - email friends (and foes) on your email list (I did mine last night). Contact the Senators in your state. Those senators are supposed to represent you irrespective of party affiliations (which actually makes a mockery of the original purpose of the Senate - it was designed to protect the rights of individual states - not be a political extension of individual political parties which is the current setup - imho all senators should be banned from having political affiliations but that is another issue).


----------



## lakemac (31 March 2010)

For those of you still sitting on the fence or thinking mandatory is ok, consider this:

Conroy continues to push ahead with his MANDATORY filter (which by the way is NOT in the Labor Parties policy documents).
He does so in spite of major opposition.
This is EXACTLY the find of action that will occur when a website or email system gets put into the filter. You will NEVER be able to get it back again.
His very pig headedness is indicative of the kind of thought control he and his kind invisiages for our future.

That worries me greatly.
Let me repeat that - it worries me greatly.

Here we have a government minister vehmently FORCING a MANDATORY filter into your lives that will block websites, forums, emails about anything that such zealots deem to be something you should not read or think about.

The very fact that he is so determined to push the MANDATORY part of it through should tell you something. He and his type are very very very dangerous. History is full of people like Conroy - paranoid, controlling and want to take away your freedoms.

Remember the issue is not filtering - the issue is the MANDATORY nature of what is being forced onto us.


----------



## sam76 (31 March 2010)

Julia said:


> It's unlikely that all our bleating on this forum will make any difference.
> What could make the difference, however, is the refusal of the Liberal Party (the Greens definitely won't endorse it) to allow this legislation to get through the Senate.
> 
> Let's send those representations to the Shadow Minister for Communications.
> ...




Sent mine in Julia, thanks.


----------



## lakemac (31 March 2010)

And this from the Business Spectator website www.businessspectator.com.au



> COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN
> by Paul Budde
> 
> Posted 30 Mar 2010 6:51 AM
> ...


----------



## Julia (31 March 2010)

The international concern about Australia's proposed censorship of the internet is growing.

We've had the US State Department expressing their concern to Senator Conroy's department (Conroy, astonishingly, denied any knowledge of this in the radio programme I linked to earlier), and now Reporters Without Borders have condemned it.

The following item appeared on both "Asia Pacific" and Radio National's "Breakfast" today:

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/stories/201003/s2860663.htm


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 March 2010)

WOW!! Thats gotta be a record in both participation and one sidedness.


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 March 2010)

Guys & Gals don't forget to sign the petition. Takes 30m seconds.

http://www.efa.org.au/epetition/


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 March 2010)

lakemac said:


> Here we have a government minister vehmently FORCING a MANDATORY filter into your lives that will block websites, forums, emails about anything that such zealots deem to be something you should not read or think about.





If the following statement by Sen. Conroy is true then there is nothing threatening to an individuals internet content access. The only problem I foresee is if keywords are used to block content and everything associated that is morally, legally or naturally correct is also blocked.



> CONROY: And what we have indicated that we will block is "refused classification" content, material that is not currently available in a newsagents, in a bookstore, on a DVD, or at the movies or on your television.


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 March 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> If the following statement by Sen. Conroy is true then there is nothing threatening to an individuals internet content access. The only problem I foresee is if keywords are used to block content and everything associated that is morally, legally or naturally correct is also blocked.




So Wysiwyg you will happily let the minister or some unknown bureaucrat dictate without *any *transparency *all *the information you can access?

We aren't talking kiddie pr0n here, we are talking every bit & byte you request.


----------



## sam76 (31 March 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> WOW!! Thats gotta be a record in both participation and one sidedness.




What bothers me is that there has been over 10,000 more people added to the list but yet the percentages haven't moved...


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 March 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> So Wysiwyg you will happily let the minister or some unknown bureaucrat dictate without *any *transparency *all *the information you can access?




The content Sen. Conroy is looking at is presently blocked from the public of Australia now. Is there any evidence of content not mentioned below which will be blocked?



> CONROY: And what we have indicated that we will block is "refused classification" content, material that is not currently available in a newsagents, in a bookstore, on a DVD, or at the movies or on your television.


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 March 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> The content Sen. Conroy is looking at is presently blocked from the public of Australia now. Is there any evidence of content not mentioned below which will be blocked?




YES

This site for one example of many because its deemed "distasteful". 

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page

But that is one of the main points. You will NEVER know because its anonymous. Are you are happy for the government to make decisions without any scrutiny? Do you really belief that they should be able to make a list of stuff that they deem you shouldn't have access with no way of knowing?


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 March 2010)

Further,



> Already, a significant portion of the 1370-site Australian blacklist - 506 sites - *would be classified R18+ and X18+, which are legal to view but would be blocked for everyone under the proposal*. The Government has said it was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond.




http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/17/1237054787635.html?page=fullpage


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 March 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> But that is one of the main points. You will NEVER know because its anonymous. Are you are happy for the government to make decisions without any scrutiny? Do you really belief that they should be able to make a list of stuff that they deem you shouldn't have access with no way of knowing?




I think it best slip a choker chain around this internet filtering project and pull tight at the next election if the filtering goes beyond what they state.


----------



## lakemac (31 March 2010)

Wysiwyg have you EVER known a government to stop at just what they say they are going to do?

Governments and their legislation creep. Today's black list is tomorrows thought control.

The key as I keep hounding is why is this filter MANDATORY rather than optional?

It is not about "illegal" content (however you define that. We have laws that prosecute the serious criminal offenses. Having a black list that can have anything anyone with enough clout wants put on there is very very dangerous.

Again I point to the way Conroy is so determined to get this implemented - a portent for what is likely to come if it ever gets put in place. If he is this rabid about it imagine what he and his type will be like once they have us in their grasp.

THERE WILL BE NO TURNING BACK.

Sam76 - you may find it is a rounding effect on those numbers. If you have 45,000 votes all voting no, even a small number of yes or undecided will not show up in a percentage that is not shown to more than 1 decimal place.


----------



## overhang (31 March 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> If the following statement by Sen. Conroy is true then there is nothing threatening to an individuals internet content access. The only problem I foresee is if keywords are used to block content and everything associated that is morally, legally or naturally correct is also blocked.



The thing is even before we consider the issue of censorship the question needs to be raised will the filter actually work?
The answer is No, most child pr0n is shared by underground groups via peer to peer,email,newsgroups. And even if it was available on a web page a proxy server would get around this but these kiddie fiddlers wont risk putting content on web pages as this can be traced.  The trouble is the average internet user thinks the net simply consists of the world wide web, believing that once Conroy hits the switch WE HAVE SAVED THE CHILDREN. 
  I really believe if the coalition oppose this proposed legislation it will be a real vote winner.


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 March 2010)

lakemac said:


> Wysiwyg have you EVER known a government to stop at just what they say they are going to do?
> 
> Governments and their legislation creep. Today's black list is tomorrows thought control.




Crime has always been and will always be. Unfortunately for the righteous, certain restrictions of personal freedoms are imposed to combat crime. Why aren't the authorities locating the illegal website owners and prosecuting?

But the concern here goes beyond crime and into the moral arena. Let's uphold good morals and create a better society.


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2010)

An argument based on morals does not validate the concentration of power into the hands of the few or the one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

The church over the centuries is another example.


----------



## lakemac (31 March 2010)

What does morals have to do with the government taking away your freedom?

Do you think the Jews in Auschwitz were immoral? Maybe some of them were, but does that mean that 4 million others had to lose their freedom and ultimately die because some oppressive regime decided they didn't like what they stood for?

Ordinary Germans gave up their basic rights under the "brown shirts" of the Nazi party. The Chinese don't have the right to view "controversial" information because their government is oppressive. North Koreans are denied basic rights such as food because of a government that controls EVERTHING they can and can't do, see, hear and almost think. Most North Koreans are brain washed because of it.

Again I am not against filtering.
I am against an oppressive government putting in place what could become a tool to suppress ideas they deem I should not be able to read and/or see.

The State is about control. Be extremely worried when the State becomes rabid in trying to implement something to stop you thinking. They are trying to control you. They will dress it up using some platitude or concern of the day only to take it much further than you ever imagined it would go.

If you decide to give up your freedom to have the illusion of freedom consider this: prisoners in jail have the best security around them - yet they have no freedom.

Me - I choose freedom and with it, personal responsibility.

Those that are for MANDATORY government filtering must, by definition, wish to control other people. They are as much part of a Fascist thought process as the government. They cannot and will not think for themselves. They have already given up their freedom and refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions, preferring the nanny state to look after them.

To those who want or are uncertain about mandatory filtering, I say commit a crime and go to jail - the nanny state will look after you there and you will certainly have security and you will get your internet really well filtered ,along with your mail, personal belongings, meals etc etc etc.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance - Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## lakemac (31 March 2010)

> "I predict future happiness for a people if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."



Slightly misquoted Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Julia (31 March 2010)

Presumably if legislation is passed for this, ISP's will be forced to apply the filter?

Any point in lobbying our ISP's not to participate?  Has anyone already done this?  What response?

Wysiwyg:  don't ever trust what a politician says, especially someone like Senator Conroy.  Remember that there are religious zealouts like Jim Wallace from the Christian Lobby (or some such name) behind Conroy et al and they wield considerable influence.

When you have religious beliefs dictating formation of public policy, we are very much at risk.

There's a political risk in opposing this for the Opposition, in that the government will be quick to label them 'unwilling to protect our innocent children" and more nonsense like that.


----------



## sails (31 March 2010)

Julia said:


> ...When you have religious beliefs dictating formation of public policy, we are very much at risk.
> 
> There's a political risk in opposing this for the Opposition, in that the government will be quick to label them 'unwilling to protect our innocent children" and more nonsense like that.




I agree with this, Julia.  Extreme religious beliefs are usually very controlling - seems to be a power thing.  

I am strongly in support of protecting our kids from predators, but I'm not convinced this proposed legislation will do much, if anything, to protect them.  Hopefully the opposition can counter any accusations of this nature by pointing out the obvious that the proposed legislation is unlikely to stop these types of predators. 

Thanks for the links that have been posted and well done to those keeping this thread alive.  Have done my bit of voting & emailing to voice my protest...


----------



## lakemac (31 March 2010)

which is why you need to distill the issue down to MANDATORY vs OPTIONAL.

Protecting "innocent" children is and should always be the personal responsibility of their parents.

Parents that abbrogate that responsibilty (effectively givin it to the nanny state) should, imho, be charged with neglect.

And as anyone that has ever been a ward of the state or kept up with the news surrounding so called "state care" would know, the State makes a very very very poor substitute parent. Often far worse crimes are committed against children that are in or have been in the care of the state or religious institutions.

Tell your senators and federal member to stick to the issue at hand. Just remind them the state does a very poor job of "taking care of children".


----------



## $20shoes (31 March 2010)

Julia, the more they tinker with it, the more ludicrous it becomes. Conroy is up to his third revision now. It is just becoming silly:


*Mandatory/non-optional  blocking tier (compulsory for both ISPs and Internet users)*:
The Government will introduce legislation to require all ISPs to  block RC-rated material hosted on overseas servers (i.e. Refused  Classification  material, a sub-set of so-called "prohibited  content"). A new blacklist of URLs required to be blocked ("the  RC Content List") will be compiled/maintained by ACMA. This  blocking tier will *not* be optional for adult Internet users.

The vast majority of the sub-categories  of RC material are _not  illegal_ to access/possess under Commonwealth law, nor under the  laws of 6 of the 8 Australian States/Territories.

*Optional blocking tier (optional  for both ISPs and Internet users)*:
The Government will encourage ISPs to block additional content as  requested by households, but this will not be mandatory. 
For those families that wish to have a wider range of material  filtered, including possibly X18+ [pornography] and gambling sites, the  Government will establish a grants program  encourage ISPs to offer  these services on a commercial and optional basis.

As at March 2010 the Government has not stated whether the optional tier  will involve blocking of only specific URLs
You know, I'm worried about my kids stumbling on pr0n sites. We had a kid at our primary school who had passed on a note to another kid to go to an easily accessible you tube equivalent pr0n site. But that is our responsibility as parents to prevent this, use filters and educate children as to what is acceptable online behaviour and what is appropriate. 


A mandatory filter, is not only objectionable from a liberty viewpoint, but seems to circuit around the idea of what its trying to do without ultimately doing very much at all, save denting our liberties.


----------



## overhang (31 March 2010)

Julia said:


> Presumably if legislation is passed for this, ISP's will be forced to apply the filter?
> 
> Any point in lobbying our ISP's not to participate?  Has anyone already done this?  What response?
> 
> ...




Yeah true Julia the old "anyone who does not support the internet filter supports child pr0n" worst part is voters may not see through the irrational garbage. 
Not sure about lobbying ISP's but iinet have already been rather vocal on the issue. I know back when the filter was first conceived iinet signed up to the trial to demonstrate how ridiculous it was but they later pulled out due to the scope of the filtered content altering to content other than child pr0n.


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 March 2010)

Telstra support the filter 

I guess they have bigger fights on their hands at the moment.


----------



## Sidamo (31 March 2010)

Julia said:


> In the time it would take to make a post on this thread, you can send a clearly worded objection to the filter to the Shadow Minister.




Done. Emailed Abbott as well, and emailed Rudd asking him to tell Conroy to pull his head in 

POinted out to all three that they should consider searching Google for the phrase "how to beat an internet filter" to see how easy it is, and also mentioned that often the most tech. savvy people in the house are the kids, so the legislation is a complete waste of time.


----------



## awg (31 March 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> But the concern here goes beyond crime and into the moral arena. Let's uphold good morals and create a better society.




Like those excellent upholders of morality, the hierachy of Catholic priesthood, who witheld from public knowledge those of their number that abused their calling? 

Freedom of thought and expression please.

If you break the law, you can be prosecuted.

Or if morality is your concern, let God be your judge.

(If you are a non-religious moralist, then you will have to make up your own mind!)


----------



## Woodsy58 (31 March 2010)

I cannot believe that this ridiculous idea is even still on the agenda, the Labour party are really sinking if this is all they can come up with in an effort to be seen to be doing something. And how can the media critisise China for censoring the internet and yet support this!.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2010)

overhang said:


> .
> Not sure about lobbying ISP's but iinet have already been rather vocal on the issue. I know back when the filter was first conceived iinet signed up to the trial to demonstrate how ridiculous it was but they later pulled out due to the scope of the filtered content altering to content other than child pr0n.



Not sure if they ever did a trial or not, but for a while I had problems with certain sites "disappearing" and iiNet is my ISP. Some of those pages were on ASF - I'd be able to access page 1, 3 and 4 of a thread but not page 2. Not sure if it was due to a filter or not, but it did happen for a while.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2010)

$20shoes said:


> You know, I'm worried about my kids stumbling on pr0n sites. We had a kid at our primary school who had passed on a note to another kid to go to an easily accessible you tube equivalent pr0n site. But that is our responsibility as parents to prevent this, use filters and educate children as to what is acceptable online behaviour and what is appropriate.



Nobody had access to the internet at home when I was in primary school. That didn't stop pr0n magazines appearing at school.

The legal age for smoking was 16 when I was at high school. That didn't prevent the easy availability of cigarettes to 14 year olds.

The legal age for drinking is 18 in Australia. Show me a 17, or even a 15, year old who has never drunk alcohol.

Prohibition doesn't work. Never has and never will. All it does is create a new challenge - to get around the restrictions. Hence there's still an attraction in smoking especially whilst underage and to a significant extent alcohol as well - it's attractive _because_ it's not allowed.


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2010)

Julia said:


> There's a political risk in opposing this for the Opposition, in that the government will be quick to label them 'unwilling to protect our innocent children" and more nonsense like that.



That risk is minimised by them having a policy of their own and using it to go on the attack. Hopefully Tony Abbott will be a little more up to the task there than he was with the recent health debate.


----------



## Julia (31 March 2010)

$20shoes said:


> The vast majority of the sub-categories  of RC material are _not  illegal_ to access/possess under Commonwealth law, nor under the  laws of 6 of the 8 Australian States/Territories.



Thanks for that, $20 Shoes.  So the above comment is directly contradicting what Conroy is stating in that he says only illegal sites will be blocked.
Or am I now so confused with all the changes and complicated statements that I'm misunderstanding this?


> The Government will encourage ISPs to block additional content as  requested by households, but this will not be mandatory.
> For those families that wish to have a wider range of material  filtered, including possibly X18+ [pornography] and gambling sites, the  Government will establish a grants program  encourage ISPs to offer  these services on a commercial and optional basis.



Under the previous governments families could access free of charge an anti-pr0n filter which they could apply to their own computers.




> You know, I'm worried about my kids stumbling on pr0n sites. We had a kid at our primary school who had passed on a note to another kid to go to an easily accessible you tube equivalent pr0n site. But that is our responsibility as parents to prevent this, use filters and educate children as to what is acceptable online behaviour and what is appropriate.



Obviously you're an aware and responsible parent and if your kids did accidentally access some undesirable sites, you will probably have established sufficient level of trust with them that they will discuss it with you, or just move on.

Really, this whole stupid idea of Conroy's is nothing less than insulting to parents throughout Australia, implying that they don't have sufficient sense of responsibility to properly supervise and talk with their children.



drsmith said:


> That risk is minimised by them having a policy of their own and using it to go on the attack. Hopefully Tony Abbott will be a little more up to the task there than he was with the recent health debate.



Yes, let's hope so.  He cannot claim he hasn't had enough time to think about it.  There's probably a concern, though, that his own moralistic views could lead him to be silly enough to support it.


----------



## $20shoes (1 April 2010)

Julia said:


> Thanks for that, $20 Shoes.  So the above comment is directly contradicting what Conroy is stating in that he says only illegal sites will be blocked.
> Or am I now so confused with all the changes and complicated statements that I'm misunderstanding this?





This is a matter of interpretation, and Conroy would be looking at it  from the view of delivering or selling RC material, which is a no-no for  the most part. 

However, as I understand it, there is a subset of RC classification  which makes it illegal for persons to view or own such RC material which  includes child pornography, violence ( I think a Clockwork Orange had a  hard time with this sub category for many years) and now I believe,  material that could incite terrorism plus several other items.

For all other RC material outside of this subset (in most states), it is illegal to distribute  and sell RC material, but it is not illegal to possess such material  for personal/private use (seemingly incongruous, I know). 

Even then, there is "Category 2 Restricted" Classification where such  material is  subject to conditions of sale such as ensuring that children cannot  enter the  area of the shop which sells such material) which might apply to moving  images but perhaps not still images. I think this is how you get to access those websites that ask if you are you over 18. Click yes and there you have it...

It is messy and confusing.


----------



## Julia (2 April 2010)

Some of the letters of outrage from Australian citizens:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/b...e-made-public/comments-e6frfro0-1225847193801


----------



## Happy (5 April 2010)

Julia said:


> Some of the letters of outrage from Australian citizens:
> ...




We worry about Internet censorship, but we don’t worry that this site :
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums

is heavily censored even without touching on subjects that would make Chief Mr Cornroy concerned.

Is there any place we can complain about that? 

Or gagged people have to find another Forum to voice concerns about run over religion and forced immigration issues?


----------



## prawn_86 (5 April 2010)

Happy said:


> We worry about Internet censorship, but we don’t worry that this site :
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums
> 
> is heavily censored even without touching on subjects that would make Chief Mr Cornroy concerned.
> ...




This site is privately owned and when you joined you agreed to the rules, terms and conditions. If you dont like it you then you are welcome to go elsewhere or if you cant find somewhere to suit what you want, why not start your own site in which you can make the rules.


----------



## Happy (5 April 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> This site is privately owned and when you joined you agreed to the rules, terms and conditions. If you dont like it you then you are welcome to go elsewhere or if you cant find somewhere to suit what you want, why not start your own site in which you can make the rules.






I am more concerned that people fool themselves about their perceived *future *massive loss of in my opinion virtually non existent freedom anyway, with examples everywhere.

Might is right !


----------



## prawn_86 (5 April 2010)

Happy said:


> I am more concerned that people fool themselves about their perceived *future *massive loss of in my opinion virtually non existent freedom anyway, with examples everywhere.
> 
> Might is right !




Going off topic, so this will be my last reply on this issue.

So you would walk into a private place and deliberately break the rules if it meant you were exercising what you think are your rights? Would you walk into a property that said 'do not enter' and then get angry at the owners if you were hurt? Would you walk into a shop and go behind the counter or into the staff areas if you felt like it? etc etc


----------



## Julia (5 April 2010)

Happy said:


> We worry about Internet censorship, but we don’t worry that this site :
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums
> 
> is heavily censored even without touching on subjects that would make Chief Mr Cornroy concerned.
> ...



There has been plenty of discussion on ASF on issues which Mr Conroy wants to censor, e.g. euthanasia.
Might be more constructive to direct your criticism to Senator Conroy for yet another way he intends to misuse your tax dollars.  I doubt that ASF receives any financial assistance for its presence from the taxpayer or its members.  Therefore the owner is entitled to control the content of the site.


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 April 2010)

Happy said:


> We worry about Internet censorship, but we don’t worry that this site :
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums
> 
> is heavily censored even without touching on subjects that would make Chief Mr Cornroy concerned.
> ...





Yes. You can lodge complaints with www.acma.gov.au/hotline. *I myself have never seen any content on this site that contravenes the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.*

As was mentioned, this site has rules within the broader internet regulations and adherence to such rules is required for participation. *You can't post* *anything you want on the internet*, indeed as in general life. What you deem as censored may or may not be within the regulations.

Common sense (although not that common ) prevails in such circumstances while stupidity is oft scorned. 

I think Julia also has a good suggestion about directing complaints.


----------



## Happy (5 April 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes. You can lodge complaints with www.acma.gov.au/hotline. *I myself have never seen any content on this site that contravenes the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.*
> 
> As was mentioned, this site has rules within the broader internet regulations and adherence to such rules is required for participation. *You can't post* *anything you want on the internet*, indeed as in general life. What you deem as censored may or may not be within the regulations.
> 
> …







I have to tread this response carefully, but why posts regarding some religion and some boat issues keep disappearing?

Do you remove them because they contravene the Broadcasting Services Act 1992?


----------



## Joe Blow (5 April 2010)

Happy said:


> I have to tread this response carefully, but why posts regarding some religion and some boat issues keep disappearing?
> 
> Do you remove them because they contravene the Broadcasting Services Act 1992?




Either the moderators or I remove posts that violate ASF's Terms of Use or Code of Conduct.

This from the Code of Conduct:



> 3. Obscene language and the use of language that is hateful, sexist, racist, harassing or threatening is strictly forbidden and will not be tolerated.




...and this from the Terms of Use:



> You agree not to use this website to post anything which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, deceptive, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.




Quite simple really. I will not let racists or hatemongers use ASF as a soapbox for their views. They can start their own forum and post whatever they want, but they wont be doing it here. I'm all for reasoned, robust debate on almost any topic, but those who wish to promote hateful views or ideologies can do so elsewhere.


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 April 2010)

Happy said:


> I have to tread this response carefully, but why posts regarding some religion and some boat issues keep disappearing?
> 
> Do you remove them because they contravene the Broadcasting Services Act 1992?




Gee Happy, lighten up buddy.  Life wasn't meant to be all serious. 

Here is some information which gets back on topic. 

http://www.efa.org.au/censorship/mandatory-isp-blocking/


----------



## captain black (11 April 2010)

Good summary of the technical details of why the filter wont work published on the Internode blog on Friday by the big boss Simon Hackett.

http://blog.internode.on.net/2010/04/09/of-myths-and-mandatory-internet-censorship/


----------



## Trembling Hand (11 April 2010)

Yep good artical there Captain. Out of all the stuipid nonsense that this filter involves this one is the biggest concern,



> 4)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Heap of other good points in that article. when are the main stream media going to pick this nonsense up??


----------



## Julia (11 April 2010)

Thanks for the interesting link, captain black.

The more I hear about this nonsense, and the more Senator Conroy fails to answer such obvious criticisms as "if a URL is banned/filtered out, how could publishing the list be any problem???", the more I am becoming convinced that this whole proposition is not at all to do with protecting children, but is a backdoor way to allow the government to censor politically unpalatable material.

If it was really about protecting children, they'd use the considerable dollars invested to employ more Federal police and other valid measures to actually reduce child abuse/pornography.

It seems a thought too far that the government would actually devise a whole policy that's a nonsense in order to introduce a measure which will allow them into the future to decide what we may access in terms of purely political content.

Perhaps I'm getting paranoic in my thinking here?  Anyone agree that it could be so?


----------



## alwaysLearning (11 April 2010)

Julia said:


> Thanks for the interesting link, captain black.
> 
> The more I hear about this nonsense, and the more Senator Conroy fails to answer such obvious criticisms as "if a URL is banned/filtered out, how could publishing the list be any problem???", the more I am becoming convinced that this whole proposition is not at all to do with protecting children, but is a backdoor way to allow the government to censor politically unpalatable material.
> 
> ...




Yeah don't be fooled by Conjob and krudd. This filter is nothing more than a waste of tax dollars.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/c...rences-to-filter/story-e6frfro0-1225834474153

http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=cleanfeed

http://openinternet.com.au/


----------



## electronicmaster (11 April 2010)

Julia said:


> Thanks for the interesting link, captain black.
> 
> The more I hear about this nonsense, and the more Senator Conroy fails to answer such obvious criticisms as "if a URL is banned/filtered out, how could publishing the list be any problem???", the more I am becoming convinced that this whole proposition is not at all to do with protecting children, but is a backdoor way to allow the government to censor politically unpalatable material.
> 
> ...




Nope, you are right on track.  This is a global event taking place. Not just here in Australia.


----------



## electronicmaster (11 April 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Yep good artical there Captain. Out of all the stuipid nonsense that this filter involves this one is the biggest concern,
> 
> 
> 
> Heap of other good points in that article. when are the main stream media going to pick this nonsense up??




The media won't say anything unless it is a message of saying "it is for everyone's protection".  And they will say that with a smile may I add.  Giving people the impression to say "no big deal".


----------



## Julia (12 April 2010)

alwaysLearning said:


> Yeah don't be fooled by Conjob and krudd. This filter is nothing more than a waste of tax dollars.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/c...rences-to-filter/story-e6frfro0-1225834474153
> 
> ...



Thanks for the links, alwaysLearning.
I'm interested in the following extract from the Whirlpool link:



> # Don't Sign the GetUp petition, Be careful about donations to GetUp! Things are not as they seem: GetUp!? GET ACCOUNTABLE – Dont' steal money from Anti-Censorship Donors




At the time of the last election, GetUp was extremely active with some online 'advice' which purported to be without bias toward either side.
I can't now remember the details, but later it became clear that GetUp was a quasi subset of the Labor Party.

Does anyone know any more about this organisation?


----------



## awg (12 April 2010)

This BS makes me see red.

I have no doubt that this is the worst kind of abuse.

Intellectually I would liken it to Stalin

I cant even bear to read stuff about it, I become enraged.

Is there any other reason put forward other than blocking pr0n, and euthanasia sites?

I would advocate and participate in civil disobedience on this matter

I will also vote accordingly.

Am of the strong opinion that a campaign to unseat Conroy should be mounted.

John Howard got the boot, and that was because he did not pay attention to what many of his constituents wanted.

A very strong environmental campaigner was critical in removing him

Conroy is making us an International laughing stock


----------



## Bushman (13 April 2010)

awg said:


> Conroy is making us an International laughing stock




Quote from the US ambassador to Australia. 

"On the issue of the internet we have been very clear. The internet needs to be free," Mr Bleich said. "It needs to be free the way we have said skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They're shared resources of all the people in the world.

"To the extent that there are disagreements (about) trying to find the right balance between law enforcement and respecting that general principle, we work with our friends, and so we've been working with Australia on this issue, we've had healthy discussions and ... I'm sure we'll be able to find the path forward."


----------



## awg (13 April 2010)

Anyone know if Conroy is a Christian..ie a regular church-goer in his electorate?

We know his boss is.

I searched around a bit, and it is more than suggested he is beholden to Christian lobby groups.

but is he an actual commited Christian himself?

imo, this is very relevant, as he is the one trying to jam this down our throats

having christians ram their morals down my throat makes me want to retch

at first i thought this whole exercise was a cynical vote buying exercise, but it seems polls etc indicate that it is not a winner, so the only reason I can see that he would be forging ahead, wasting our money, on a project likely to have many hiccups, would be 

a) he is commited moralist
b) sucking up to the boss
c) insufferably arrogant and cant bear to back down
d) all of the above


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2010)

awg said:


> a) he is commited moralist
> b) sucking up to the boss
> c) insufferably arrogant and cant bear to back down
> d) all of the above




He is an idiot. This stupidity will (like the ETS) be shelved before the election.


----------



## Julia (13 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> He is an idiot. This stupidity will (like the ETS) be shelved before the election.



I hope you're right.  Hard to see why they won't drop it in the face of the massive voter outrage against it.  If the Libs actually have the courage to come out and say they won't support it, then that would be the end of it, no question.


----------



## alwaysLearning (16 April 2010)

7:30 report interview
Internet filter policy under fire 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BXYIbSz6Fg&feature=player_embedded

This was a pretty good story on the 7:30 report. I thought that Conroy was shown to lack credibility.


----------



## alwaysLearning (16 April 2010)

Julia said:


> Thanks for the links, alwaysLearning.
> I'm interested in the following extract from the Whirlpool link:
> 
> 
> ...




Good question Julia, I'm not too sure about GetUp.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2010)

Well at least that didn't get off the ground yet



> KEVIN Rudd has put another election promise on the backburner with his controversial internet filtering legislation set to be shelved until after the next election.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/rudd-retreats-on-passing-web-filter-legislation/story-e6frgakx-1225859630452


----------



## drsmith (29 April 2010)

moXJO said:


> Well at least that didn't get off the ground yet



Another one of Labor's children out the door.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2010)

drsmith said:


> Another one of Labor's children out the door.




Hmmm not just yet it's just on hiatus. Anyone know what liberals position is on the filter?
The Christian lobby party is also pushing very hard on getting this through and demanding a date for when it will come into effect.


----------



## drsmith (29 April 2010)

moXJO said:


> Hmmm not just yet it's just on hiatus.



In that sense the ETS is too.

These are reasons not to vote them back in but yes, it would be good to know the Coalition's position on the filter.


----------



## Ato (29 April 2010)

The Australian Christian Lobby party also wants to use the filter once it is in place to ban anything that has any kind of rating.

Ever watch The Simpsons when Bart stayed at the Flander's place, and everything except the god squad channel was banned...and the only game in the house was 'Good Samaritans'...


----------



## overhang (29 April 2010)

moXJO said:


> Hmmm not just yet it's just on hiatus. Anyone know what liberals position is on the filter?
> The Christian lobby party is also pushing very hard on getting this through and demanding a date for when it will come into effect.



Abbott said they will wait for the legislation before deciding but also said they have concerns with the proposal.
I find it ironic how the christian lobby backs the filter considering if the bible was released today it would probably be deemed RC material.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2010)

Ato said:


> The Australian Christian Lobby party also wants to use the filter once it is in place to ban anything that has any kind of rating.
> 
> Ever watch The Simpsons when Bart stayed at the Flander's place, and everything except the god squad channel was banned...and the only game in the house was 'Good Samaritans'...




The head of the Christian lobby is ex SAS, so he certainly had a change of heart:.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2010)

Well, that's good news.  When something is 'temporarily put aside', the likelihood of it descending into forgotten territory is pretty high.
Imo it's a way of the government backing down without completely being seen to back down.


----------



## Chris45 (29 April 2010)

Julia said:


> Well, that's good news.  When something is 'temporarily put aside', the likelihood of it descending into forgotten territory is pretty high.
> Imo it's a way of the government backing down without completely being seen to back down.



I hope you're right. So let's just hope we never hear Mr. Rudd say firmly, "An Internet Filter or anything resembling it is no longer Labour policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia." Because we now know what happens when politicians make decisive statements like that.


----------



## Bushman (25 May 2010)

Now Conroy is attacking Google for an invasion of privacy. Lol, nothing to do with Google suggesting that the good senator's internet filter is an attack on civil liberties.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...s-creepy-google-in-web-row-20100525-waby.html

This government is really bunkering down now and throwing grenades at the big corporates. Here is a news flash - try consulting with industry first so you have a handle on the issues.


----------



## inrodwetrust (25 May 2010)

I wonder if he heard about this 

Google promises private browsing via SSL pagex

before his outburst?

Will this throw a spanner in Conroy's GFW?



> Searching over SSL doesn’t reduce the data sent to Google — it only hides that data from third parties who seek it




???


Regards


----------



## Logique (26 May 2010)

Am loving seeing the good Senator put firmly in his place by the big boys (Google et al). For once I am siding with Google.


----------



## overit (11 June 2010)

> Govt wants ISPs to record browsing history
> 
> By Ben Grubb, ZDNet.com.au on June 11th, 2010 (1 hour ago)
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 June 2010)

overit said:


> Companies who provide customers with a connection to the internet *may soon have to retain subscriber's private web browsing history for law enforcement to examine when requested*, a move which has been widely criticised by industry insiders.




*1984* Redux!!

 

[size=-4]Psst: Just imagine how much dirt ConRoid could dig up by snooping on mining boss e-mails! Mmmm. He can expect to receive extra brownie points from his chum KRudd.[/size]


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 June 2010)

> Companies who provide customers with a connection to the internet may soon have to retain subscriber's private web browsing history for law enforcement to examine when requested, a move which has been widely criticised by industry insiders.




The fact is law abiding citizens would have nothing to fear but the "truth" is no one wants to be snooped on. What happens with this data is our very thoughts are tapped by entities without our consent. That ladies and gentlemen should never be allowed to progress via government office.


----------



## Julia (11 June 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> The fact is law abiding citizens would have nothing to fear but the "truth" is no one wants to be snooped on. What happens with this data is our very thoughts are tapped by entities without our consent. That ladies and gentlemen should never be allowed to progress via government office.



Completely agree.  Bit by bit, our rights to privacy are being eroded.


----------



## nulla nulla (12 June 2010)

Ato said:


> The Australian Christian Lobby party also wants to use the filter once it is in place to ban anything that has any kind of rating.
> 
> Ever watch The Simpsons when Bart stayed at the Flander's place, and everything except the god squad channel was banned...and the only game in the house was 'Good Samaritans'...




George Orwell "1984" or "Animal Farm". 
Bit by bit the pigs are taking over the farm and quietly but efficiently eroding the freedoms and rights of individual Australians. And it is not just Kevin Rudd and the current government. Look what is happening to the human genes, patent pending? 

As for the Simpson episode above, I caught this even though I normally lose interest when marge is not in the shot.


----------



## Trembling Hand (17 June 2010)

MORE news from the Nanny State Party.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology...policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html



> The federal government is hiding controversial plans to force* ISPs to store internet activity of all Australian internet users* - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for law-enforcement agencies to access.






> Colin Jacobs, spokesman for the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the government appeared to be trying to access whatever passes through any ISP in this country, while displaying "no regard whatsoever for our privacy or our civil liberties".
> 
> "What has emerged in recent days has been a clear picture of a government on a fishing expedition for as much data on the public as they can get," Jacobs said.
> 
> ...




Secretive, distrustful, privacy invading Police State come on down!!!!!


----------



## Bolle (17 June 2010)

Absolutely sickening.  Yet they've also taken away our guns, so what do we do...?  Boycott government?

Time for an anarchist uprising, people.


----------



## prawn_86 (17 June 2010)

Just view everything through a proxy. The ISP will record the proxy address and then that's it.

Not the best result, but better than having the gov snooping in on our privacy


----------



## DB008 (18 June 2010)

How much does your internet slow down if go through a proxy?
Is there a notable difference?

I don't view anything illegal or conduct illegal activities on the internet, but l just don't like the idea of being snooped on (Then again, and lets face it, we probably already are).

Any other ideas on how to get around this internet filter?


----------



## inrodwetrust (19 June 2010)

> Any other ideas on how to get around this internet filter?




The following are more to help general privacy - not necessarily to bypass any filter - but would be useful if adapted more. 

eg.

Digital IDs for Secure Email

Google for free versions or maybe create your own.

And 

Email - Secure Emai

This provides encrypted transmission to the ISP's mail server, but needs both sender & receiver mail servers to use secure mail servers to be fully secure across the internet. DYOR.

I don't know of any financial services company that provided either of these services, maybe only to 'valued' customers.  But I would have thought they would be good value added products.

Regards


----------



## Aussiejeff (19 June 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> Just view everything through a proxy. The ISP will record the proxy address and then that's it.
> 
> Not the best result, but better than having the gov snooping in on our privacy




Of course, banning of proxies will be next on ConRoid's "To-Do" list... no-one shall be allowed to escape the noose. 

I guess by typing this I am doomed.....


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 June 2010)

Obama administration look into information control

*Could Obama Have An Internet “Kill” Switch?* 

http://www.ecanadanow.com/technolog...-have-an-internet-kill-switch/comment-page-1/ 

*New Bill Introduces Internet Kill Switch*

Senator Joe Lieberman, Independent, is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. He is the one who introduced a new bill, an amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The bill, if passed, would create a new agency, National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications.

The bill is being presented as a security measure to protect against cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals. The bill gives the government the ability to seize control of portions of the internet considered a threat and have those portions shut down.

Online companies, internet providers, and search engines could be fined for not complying with the new bill. The bill does not allow for surveillance by broadband providers.


----------



## electronicmaster (19 June 2010)

The time has come to realize what is at stake and is put on our table:-

Here is the hidden plan for all of us.

*Jordan Maxwell - The Dawn of a New Day (2009)*


----------



## inrodwetrust (21 June 2010)

Well at least someones showing some concern. I saw this, of all people he had to ask! Penny Wong.....the teacher's pet of regurgitating govt spin! 

Ludlam raises ISP snooping issue in Senate



> Greens Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam has questioned the Federal Government in the Senate over a controversial new proposal that could see Australians’ web browsing, email and telephone records tracked by internet services providers.
> 
> The senator asked Senator Penny Wong ”” representing Attorney-General Robert McCLelland ”” in the Senate this afternoon whether the Government was considering a proposal which would see such records kept. The proposal ”” revealed several weeks ago by ZDNet.com.au, which has since published a major update on the situation ”” has been dubbed “OzLog” online.
> 
> In response, Wong appeared to read out a pre-prepared response which bore a close resemblance to statements the Government has previously issued on the matter.




Interestingly there was complete silence(no interjections etc) in the House! if you ever hear Parliament it is a rare moment indeed!

Maybe the politicians are starting to realise that it will also track all their internet usage? Are they scrambling to find a way around it yet?

Has the penny(no not wong!) dropped that the dirtdiggers of their political opponents are probably rubbing their hands to get onto any useful data? Oh the irony!

Interesting when asked about public consultation .... well have you heard about consultation with the miners??  It didn't seem to register to her as being worthy of an answer. 

This says it all



> Ludlam didn’t appear to believe the exchange delivered any insight. “One of those moments when you end up knowing less than before you asked the question,” he said on Twitter afterwards.


----------



## Julia (21 June 2010)

Yep, I heard Ms Wong on radio about this.
Wasn't it just recently that the government was making some complaint about Google invading people's privacy???

I contacted my local Federal member (National) to ask what the Coalition intend doing about the proposed internet filter.  I don't suppose I'm too surprised that the reply sits neatly on the fence.

Here it is:



> Thank you for contacting me regarding the Rudd Government’s proposed mandatory internet filtering system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 June 2010)

With the change of PM, will it simply be a case of Big Brother being side-stepped for Big Sister with regard to this issue?


----------



## electronicmaster (25 June 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> With the change of PM, will it simply be a case of Big Brother being side-stepped for Big Sister with regard to this issue?




Nup, Nothing is going to change.  What makes you think that our own government is in control?

This internet filtering is global, because the Rothschild family does not like people knowing what is going on.  

It sort of bothers them that the internet has all the information that proves that 911 (and many other occult conspiracy s) was an inside job.

You know how they say "God save the Queen", or "God bless America"?   Do you know which "God" they are really talking about?

Not many people know.   And they like it that way,  So the internet is going to be hit hard.  That's if they can get away with it.

Find the truth

PS: I do to much research lol


----------



## prawn_86 (25 June 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> PS: I do to much research lol




Or read too many conspiracy sites


----------



## electronicmaster (25 June 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> Or read too many conspiracy sites




*Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed*


----------



## electronicmaster (26 June 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> *Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed*





The interesting point here is that they never advise to fix the real security issue.   That security issue is Microsoft products, because only Microsoft products have "any form" of security issue.  

Keep in mind that Governments and 85% - 90% of the world user base uses Microsoft.   Even if Microsoft Advertises (in every new MS Windows releases) *"Windows is more Faster and Secure than ever"*, you still have the same security BUGS.  You also already know the Operating system runs slower because you need to upgrade your hardware.  

You are already aware of the Viruses.  Funny how 99% of all known Viruses only effect Microsoft Windows.  This is because of the Operating System design, not user popularity.  

I know this because I have designed my own Computer Operating Systems, and none of them have had a virus attack in the last ten years.

However, if one (a true expert) wants to get into your PC via the Internet?  They will, but it is done by hand as they need to route to your PC directly.
No OS no matter what security measures are in place will survive that attack, unless your data is on a CD ROM or DVD ROM.  And those medias are not in the PC during the time of attack.


----------



## electronicmaster (28 June 2010)

Obama Internet kill switch plan approved by US Senate
President could get power to turn off Internet

_Here is preview of this storry_:-

By Grant Gross
Published: 11:02 GMT, 25 June 10

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.


----------



## inrodwetrust (28 June 2010)

I can't see Gillard pushing for anything to extreme.. she seems level headed enough not to get too carried away... at least for the time being. Or at most an Opt-in variant.  Or is the GFW off the agenda .. for good? 

However if you are concerned that British or US visitors to Australia are unable to watch their favourite shows on the BBC’s iPlayer or the US network’s Hulu service. .. there are some suggestions in the following link!

HOW TO: watch Hulu, BBC iPlayer and more in Australia

or on a more serious note, if you want to be reminded how lucky we are ATM.. with our internet freedom them it's worth visiting 

Reporters without Borders

or even download a doc on just how much trouble it is to bypass authoritarian regimes restrictions.

http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/guide_gb_md-2.pdf

Personally, I've never used proxies etc. so I can't comment on their usefulness or recommend any. But the above does make interesting reading.


----------



## captain black (29 June 2010)

Oh dear, Conroy is back to his old tricks again... if you want to opt-out of the filter then you're obviously a paedophile. As the article says, after 2 years of technical argument as to why censorship will not work all he can come up with is this type of rubbish. Can't think of a time I've ever been more disgusted in the political processes in this country.



> _Q: What's your personal view of the opt-out and opt-in provisions  that could be added to the filter legislation are they a possibility or a  good idea or…
> 
> Conroy: I'm not into opting into child pr0n.
> _



_

http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-a...-qim-not-into-opting-into-child-pornq?start=1



_


----------



## nulla nulla (29 June 2010)

captain black said:


> Oh dear, Conroy is back to his old tricks again... if you want to opt-out of the filter then you're obviously a paedophile. As the article says, after 2 years of technical argument as to why censorship will not work all he can come up with is this type of rubbish. Can't think of a time I've ever been more disgusted in the political processes in this country.
> 
> _
> 
> ...




It's the old "Either you are with me or against me" argument. No room for difference of opinion or perspective. The same argument George Bush used to marshall international support for his invasion of Iraq.  Of course he is right, right?


----------



## sails (29 June 2010)

captain black said:


> Oh dear, Conroy is back to his old tricks again... if you want to opt-out of the filter then you're obviously a paedophile. As the article says, after 2 years of technical argument as to why censorship will not work all he can come up with is this type of rubbish. Can't think of a time I've ever been more disgusted in the political processes in this country.
> 
> _
> 
> ...




Yep, what I thought.  Nothing has changed.  Same government. 

I am strongly opposed to child pr0n - it sickens me.  But will these creeps will be stopped by internet filtering?  I doubt it very much. At best, it might (big might) slow them down temporarily.

IMO, to use child pr0n as their reason for internet filtering could more likely be the excuse to filter any information/news they don't want Oz citizens to see.  But then that's probably stating the obvious - lol


----------



## Chris45 (29 June 2010)

sails said:


> IMO, to use child pr0n as their reason for internet filtering could more likely be the excuse to filter any information/news they don't want Oz citizens to see.  But then that's probably stating the obvious - lol



This was posted a couple of years ago so some may have missed it:  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=368995&highlight=Hitler#post368995
_Mein Kampf; the Ralph Manheim translation published by Houghton-Mifflin, 1943. pg 403._

Perfect explanation IMO.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 June 2010)

More Orwellian moves:

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/bl...om-in-2010-looks-like-1984/20100618-ykr9.html


> ....intends to link the information gathered from monitoring your internet activities to identifiers such as your passport number open up the real possibility of mashing together all of the personal information available in your data matching matrix to (your income, your tax history, you bank account details, your medical records for starters) to your online life....


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 June 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> More Orwellian moves:
> 
> Source: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/bl...om-in-2010-looks-like-1984/20100618-ykr9.html




The Internet is Evil.

Ban it.


----------



## drsmith (7 July 2010)

Under the radar ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/aus...ation-on-the-way/story-e6frgakx-1225889109550

It would be good to see the Coalition's position on this.


----------



## lakemac (7 July 2010)

Thanks for the update Dr Smith.

In response to that I sent this to people on my email list:



> Well it seems that Herr comrade Julia is painted with the same brush as Herr Dudd.
> Now it's time for people to stand up and act.
> 
> I will be getting onto my useless federal member and my state senators regarding this draconian mandatory filter. Time to vote against these paranoid politicians that want to put in place the tools of thought control.
> ...




Feel free to use any part of this for your own campaign against this increasingly Fascist government.

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -Mahatma Gandhi.


----------



## lakemac (7 July 2010)

And just for a bit of inspiration from others before us:



> Augustine observed that without justice, a government is nothing but a band of thieves.
> 
> "All legislation and all laws are ultimately enforced by the government holding a loaded gun to your head" - my own thoughts
> 
> ...


----------



## electronicmaster (7 July 2010)

lakemac said:


> And just for a bit of inspiration from others before us:




Indeed.  

This is true.  Soon everyone will see the truth.  And I can assure you it is going to hurt everyone if nothing is done about it, _*whether you like it or not*_.


----------



## Julia (7 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> Under the radar ?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/aus...ation-on-the-way/story-e6frgakx-1225889109550
> 
> It would be good to see the Coalition's position on this.



They appear to be sitting on the fence.
See my post above No. 421 quoting response to my question from my local National member.

Given Tony Abbott's ultra conservative views, I wouldn't hold out too much hope of the Coalition not supporting the legislation, unless they simply perceive it as a vote changer in the election.  The greens will definitely not support it.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 July 2010)

"dark" side to be monitored

*PM vows to block 'dark side' of net 
*

http://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-vows-to-block-dark-side-of-net-20100707-100og.html

JULIA Gillard says she is aware of public concerns over the mandatory internet filter interfering with ''legitimate use'' but has vowed to push ahead with the controversial proposal.

In her first comments on the filter since assuming the Labor leadership, Ms Gillard told ABC radio in Darwin yesterday that the proposal was an effort to control the ''dark side'' of communications technology.

''Images of child abuse, child pornography - they are not legal in our cinemas,'' the Prime Minister said.

''Why should you be able to see them on the internet? I think that's the kind of moral, ethical question at the heart of this.''

Ms Gillard indicated Communications Minister Stephen Conroy might tweak parts of the proposed filter before it was introduced.

''I understand that there's a set of … technical concerns about internet speed, and also concerns that somehow this accidentally doesn't move into taking away legitimate use of the internet,'' she said.

Vocal filter critic Mark Newton said the comments showed Ms Gillard was not going to use the change of leadership to moderate the party's position on the issue.

What about the thinking side????? 

Ban this!!!!


----------



## inrodwetrust (8 July 2010)

> I can't see Gillard pushing for anything to extreme.. she seems level headed enough not to get too carried away... at least for the time being. Or at most an Opt-in variant. Or is the GFW off the agenda .. for good?




Yes, well I guess that about as wrong as can be!

From previous ..The Australian link 



> US Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich has urged the government to ditch the plan, saying child pornographers can be captured and prosecuted without using mandatory internet filters.




Like the power to already request ISP's to log 'all' traffic of any suspect , or the power of AFP or equivalent to bug a home or computer (ie with a keylogger) of any suspect..possibly without a court order ..(might just be NSW needs checking). Or setting up 'Honeypots' etc.

Why such a big deal about a filter ... here's a site with filters for some Firewalls as well as hosts file.

http://www.calendarofupdates.com/updates/index.php?app=downloads&showcat=1

We don't need the govt to do everything for us.

And what about this? How's this going to be regulated?? 



> HP has thrown the door wide open to let you print files from any email-capable device by sending the photos, documents or web pages directly to the printer's unique email address.




HP's new printers with email addresses

A Christian lobby seems to be support the GFW, which seems strange as I doubt Christians have much freedom of speech in any country that already has a GFW...I wonder if they understand what they are likely setting themselves up for?

*The problem will be how long will the queue be of all those who don't like what they see & read on the internet?? How long will it be before a political power gets there grubby mitts on it it to keep in power??* How will it evolve in 5..10..20 years time?? 

And finally an extract from Internode's engineer Mark Newton submission to the Federal Parliamen’s Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety, the guy  Conroy once claimed(erroneously) was supportive of the GFW trial.

oh-dear-mark-newtons-epic-anti-conroy-rant



> Internet censorship. Big red buttons. Websites that crash with the slightest provocation. eSecurity initiatives that attempt to make everyone except end users responsible for end-user behavior. A House Cyber-Security Committee that wastes the valuable time of expert witnesses by quizzing them about fabricated Hollywood movie plots, and recommends mandatory industry codes to force ISPs to respond to security threats which were obsolete years ago.
> 
> A Government anti-spam body which has made precisely zero difference to the amount of spam received by Australians. Content regulation which forces the ACMA to make reprehensibly foolish decisions, turning what should be a prestigious, respected regulator into a finger-wagging, tut-tutting grandmother.
> 
> ...




I hope Julia Gillard dosen't consider complaints about the GFW.... just a bit of a "giggle"??


----------



## overit (9 July 2010)

This mob really doesnt have a clue!



> *Communications Minister Stephen Conroy shelves controversial plan to censor the internet*
> 
> #  July 09, 2010  12:42PM
> 
> THE Federal Government's controversial plan to censor the internet has been shelved until a review can be conducted into what sort of material should be banned.


----------



## Julia (9 July 2010)

We could hope that the shelving will eventually turn into it being dropped.

But meantime apparently Optus and Telstra have volunteered to block all child pornography sites.


----------



## sails (9 July 2010)

More likely lying low until after the election, IMO.

I'm all for child pr0n being blocked as long as it stops there without other things quietly being blocked without our knowledge.  

In any case, paedophiles are most likely find a way around it somehow. :disgust:


----------



## lakemac (9 July 2010)

Wake up people. Shelving it "for now" is a way to say we have to get the clueless masses to vote for us so anything controvesial we will just put away in the cupboard then when we come back we will say "well you knew it was part of our policy so you have given us our mandate to take away your freedoms".

At first I thought Gillard might be different - but she is as self serving as the rest of them - all parties.

As to the Liberals - hey Tony you want my vote? Then make a stand, draw a line in the sand and actually stand for something concrete. Small business support - fix the Personal Services Income legislation so it doesn't do over legitimate professional contractors. Internet filtering - make it optional. Over government - cut back welfare, cut back government, cut back the overgrown public service. Medical services - cut the states right out, stop duplicating the bureaucracy, take over the whole mess and take it fully private. There are a million items on the agenda that need fixing. And can be fixed by reducing the nanny state.

Time for my medication I think...


----------



## Bolle (9 July 2010)

I might be being paranoid, but the National Broadband Network is going ahead, Telstra are signing over all their incoming cables and so on... so pretty soon, the gov will own the only access our whole country has to the internet anyway.

Looks, at least at the shallow end, like the internet filter BS from Comrade Conjob is just a sort of red herring... which would explain why such a complete moron appears to be being taken seriously by the other pollies... there may have never been any intention of pushing it all the way through, just of using it to distract people from the NBN's real raison d'etre... i.e., watching everything we all do, and monitoring what we do, and limiting our access to information.

Because once the gov owns the only internet gateway for the country, they can filter whatever they want, and won't even need to legislate or disclose blacklisted sites or anything.

This is some nazi style bull crud, right here.


----------



## Bolle (9 July 2010)

BTW Lakemac, i agree; less government, less nanny-state = less waste, and cheaper gov, and better economy.

Why not close down some of the dead-weight gov depts, reduce many others, streamline a few things 21st C style, and lower business taxes, to increase our actual production, so all the gov employees that just got fired, can start working in the private sector instead, and make things of actual use, or provide other important services, cost-effectively and efficiently, like most business aims to be.  (Most business that is, except a labour government, which aims to spend every cent they ever get, and then some.)

Less government, less big brother tactics.  This country would be an even better place if we could achieve this.


----------



## electronicmaster (9 July 2010)

Yep, they have let it loose on us.  Get ready to have it fully implemented without our vote.   I'm sure we can filter out our own pr0n using the correct filter software to protect the kids.  No need for big brother to do it for us.  What a scam. 


You have all seen Jordan Maxwell - The Dawn of a New Day (2009) I hope.


----------



## electronicmaster (19 July 2010)

Well we now have a hint on how Internet filtering is going to effect all of us.

*Alex Jones Tv Special Sunday Edition: Obama Deception Censored by NSA/CIA Controlled Google!!*


----------



## electronicmaster (24 July 2010)

*THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS SHUTTING DOWN THE INTERNET!!!*


----------



## warakawa (24 July 2010)

what's wrong with a bit of internet filter? China has the world largest internet filter and they're citizen ain't complaining too much.


----------



## wayneL (24 July 2010)

warakawa said:


> what's wrong with a bit of internet filter? China has the world largest internet filter and they're citizen ain't complaining too much.




I wouldn't complain either... if I wanted to live.


----------



## electronicmaster (24 July 2010)

warakawa said:


> what's wrong with a bit of internet filter? China has the world largest internet filter and they're citizen ain't complaining too much.




The problem is that the Internet filter is going to be global, it will restrict everyones freedom of speech and business practices.   

A total black out on War, finance, geopolitical, political, friends, family, toys, sports, weather, cosmos and business that goes on around the world is not a good thing.  

Unless you enjoy being brainwashed by the media with lies and more lies?


----------



## prawn_86 (24 July 2010)

At what point does 'it' become just the 'wold order' as opposed to the 'new world order'? As far as i can remember its been the NWO and not too much has changed....

Admittedly i agree the internet will be changed and resricted, but how much influence a minescule minority of the population has is debatable


----------



## IFocus (24 July 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> At what point does 'it' become just the 'wold order' as opposed to the 'new world order'? As far as i can remember its been the NWO and not too much has changed....
> 
> Admittedly i agree the internet will be changed and resricted, but how much influence a minescule minority of the population has is debatable




The political elite run the system which is a minuscule minority. 

Whether North Korea or Oz its the same no matter the system.

Freedom of expression and access to information dramatically changes the outcome on what choices are available for the individual some thing we take for granted.


----------



## prawn_86 (24 July 2010)

IFocus said:


> The political elite run the system which is a minuscule minority.
> 
> Whether North Korea or Oz its the same no matter the system.
> 
> Freedom of expression and access to information dramatically changes the outcome on what choices are available for the individual some thing we take for granted.




I dont disagree that the so called 'elite' and 'men behind the curtain' run the system, i jus think that the average person really doesnt care or know what is happening despite their internet access. So yes, it may effet the, say 1-% of people who know enouhg, but aren't big enohgt to do anything (like most ASF memmbers) but will not effect the majority of the population as a whole


----------



## IFocus (24 July 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> I dont disagree that the so called 'elite' and 'men behind the curtain' run the system, i jus think that the average person really doesnt care or know what is happening despite their internet access. So yes, it may effet the, say 1-% of people who know enouhg, but aren't big enohgt to do anything (like most ASF memmbers) but will not effect the majority of the population as a whole




You might be onto some there Prawn think of the time saved from endless hours of pointless argument about politics if it was blocked.


----------



## electronicmaster (24 July 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> I dont disagree that the so called 'elite' and 'men behind the curtain' run the system, i jus think that the average person really doesnt care or know what is happening despite their internet access.




That is what happens when you have the Media not doing their job correctly.

The media always gives people the impression of _"Nothing to see here.  Move along"_ approach.  With a smile.  Then they brain wash the masses with 15 minutes of sports promotion.   Every day.

No real meat on the bones is ever detailed.  Just rants and big smiles.  

People have noticed fear and terror reports?  yes, we all love fear and terror.  In response we call for protection.  

Protection = Control, Enslavement and no rights. =  No freedom.



prawn_86 said:


> So yes, it may effet the, say 1-% of people who know enouhg, but aren't big enohgt to do anything (like most ASF memmbers) but will not effect the majority of the population as a whole




Awareness is increasing.  And by the end of this year? More people will be asking questions due to currency changes and other economic/political events.

If the people do not care or wake up?  Then you will certainly be witnessing a nightmare you wished you never see in your life time.

The resulting damage will enslave most.  Certain death (starvation and/or World War 3) will come for the unprepared and the weak. 

Slave camps are possible too (Working for the government/ Dole programs).  Oh, that has already started?  

This Reminds me of something from the past, before I was born.

Oh yea, The Nazi system.


----------



## disarray (25 July 2010)

if any of this thought police internet policy goes through i'll be more than happy to pay $10 / month and run all of my net traffic through an american proxy. it'll be tax deductible.

when americans say "free speech"* they mean "free speech"*

*subject to political expediency


----------



## electronicmaster (25 July 2010)

disarray said:


> if any of this thought police internet policy goes through i'll be more than happy to pay $10 / month and run all of my net traffic through an american proxy. it'll be tax deductible.
> 
> when americans say "free speech"* they mean "free speech"*
> 
> *subject to political expediency




lol,  The Americans also have have the same policies but it will be worse.

This is going global  if the people let it.  All governments are trying to pass (or already have passed) the same or similar (worse) Bills.


----------



## drsmith (5 August 2010)

The Coalition have finally jumped off the fence.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974827.htm


----------



## Julia (5 August 2010)

Good for the Coalition.  That will definitely be a vote changer for quite a few people.

It's also a good sign that they're actually listening to the mainstream, rather than going with what I'd imagine would be Tony Abbott's natural inclination to agree to the filter, given his very conservative stance.  Possibly reassuring to those of us who worry about his views on abortion, stem cell research etc.


----------



## sails (5 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> The Coalition have finally jumped off the fence.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974827.htm



Excerpt from the above article:



> Mr Hockey has told triple j Hack's Kate O'Toole that if Labor wins the election the Coalition would not vote in favour of the filter.
> 
> "We believe the internet filter will not work and we believe it's flawed policy," he said.
> 
> ...




As it should be, IMO.  Now wait for that sugary voice to drone on about not protecting Australian children.  It seems to be known (with the possible exception of Ms Gillard and her cronies) that the filter won't stop these undesirable characters for long - crooks will find ways to work around any filter.


----------



## electronicmaster (5 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Good for the Coalition.  That will definitely be a vote changer for quite a few people.
> 
> It's also a good sign that they're actually listening to the mainstream, rather than going with what I'd imagine would be Tony Abbott's natural inclination to agree to the filter, given his very conservative stance.  Possibly reassuring to those of us who worry about his views on abortion, stem cell research etc.





It is an easy promise to make.  

They already said that they will shelf the filter for 12 months or so. 

It would be better if they said that they are gong to scrap the idea indefinitely.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 August 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...mp-flawed-internet-filter-20100805-11kmv.html

It's in the SMH too. 

Parental responsibility for children and PC filters for families choosing to use them seems a much better solution to the 'supposedly' pr0n issue. 

Regardless of who does what it is an issue having been raised that needs to be watched. If leaders talk about freedom etc then why filter the internet?


----------



## lakemac (6 August 2010)

> The price of freedom is eternal vigilance - Thomas Jefferson



Everybody that took a stance on this should take a bow.
Freedom salutes you - for now.


----------



## lakemac (6 August 2010)

> "I predict future happiness for Americans [or any people] if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
> 
> --  Thomas Jefferson



'nuf said.


----------



## sam76 (6 August 2010)

This is very good news.


----------



## DocK (6 August 2010)

Barnaby Joyce was quiet on this issue on Q&A on ABC the other night - either hadn't been updated, the issue had not been decided upon by then, or Nationals will back the filter?  I guess if the Libs oppose it then the National Party will fall into line?


----------



## sails (31 October 2010)

Full article: *Government department blocks access to site that keeps track of what MPs say *



> A site which makes it easy to keep a track of what MPs have said in parliament has been blocked by a government department.
> 
> Employees at the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service have been denied access to OpenAustralia.org on the grounds that it has been classified as a blog by its third-party internet filtering system, according to the site.




and



> It happened that they wanted to use email alerts to stay informed on issues relating to Customs policy discussed in the federal parliament," Mr Landauer said. "So, clearly, they were wanting to use the site for a very sensible, work related activity."


----------



## moXJO (16 November 2010)

Labor still pushing this crap. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/government/isp-mandatory-filter-plan-could-start-in-2013/comments-fn4htb9o-1225954572335



> LABOR'S controversial mandatory internet filter scheme could be delayed until 2013, when the next federal election is due.
> In the meantime, the government will give ISPs $8 million in incentives to encourage customers to voluntarily block adult material such as general pornography and gambling sites at home.
> 
> Labor wants to force ISPs to filter refused-classification content from the internet, but incoming government briefs from the Department of Broadband show that legislation to support the filter could be introduced six years after it was first mooted.


----------



## sails (16 November 2010)

More from Conray:

*Conroy tight-lipped on free-to-air sport changes*



> Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says he expects to release changes to the list of sporting events reserved for free-to-air television next week.


----------



## sails (16 November 2010)

Oops - sorry about the typo with Conroy's name...


----------



## captain black (17 November 2010)

Another of Conjob's brilliant ideas. An Anti-Bullying "Panic Button". $136,000 for a link on a taskbar!

I'm speechless..... 



> *Documents have revealed that the software-based anti-bullying  panic button launched by the Department of Broadband, Communications and  the Digital Economy in June this year cost $136,000, not the $73,000  originally announced.
> *



*

http://www.zdnet.com.au/conroy-s-kid-safety-red-button-cost-136k-339307328.htm




*


----------



## matty77 (17 November 2010)

You know it just amazes me that any of this is even real, it is so out there and wrong its almost unbelievable.. (the internet filter and the NBN)

Conroy will go down in history as being one of the stupidest politicians in history. (you can quote me on that)


----------



## Bat_Ears (21 November 2010)

captain black said:


> Another of Conjob's brilliant ideas. An Anti-Bullying "Panic Button". $136,000 for a link on a taskbar!
> 
> I'm speechless.....
> 
> ...




So how does an anti-bullying task bar button work? You press it when someone offends you over the internet and a team of ninjas drop down from a helicoptor inside the offender's home and then haul him off to the TimeOut Corner next to Longbay?


----------

