Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Internet Filtering: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

Jump to new
Rant:mad: 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.
 
Trembling Hand said:
:banghead:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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... :rolleyes:

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???).
 
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.
 
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.
 
WaveSurfer said:
My point is that it's yet another a band-aid solution to a surgical wound.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I am an expert in the IT industry and I don't have the answers either... :eek:

Julia said:
Doesn't this legislation have to first get through the Senate?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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. :D

Have a good one!
 
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.

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. :D

Have a good one!
Click to expand...

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
 

Attachments

  • Conroys filter.jpg
    Conroys filter.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 160
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.

I have two questions I would like you to answer:
1. Are you going to toe the party line or vote independently?
2. Have you actually done any INDEPENDENT research of your own into this legislation or are your ASSUMING Senator Conroy understands what he is doing?

It would seem there are many people including myself that are totally against government control of what I can and cannot read. To introduce such legislation is FASCISM of the highest order. Is that what your party stands for? I would appear at the moment it does.

The stupid thing about it is that it does little to actually stop what it claims to stop, yet the other end is that it stop thing it should not stop because the government decides they don't like people talking about topics that the government decides they shouldn't be talking about.

Have you ever watched the movie "1984" or read George Orwell's book of the same name? If not I will lend you my copy. I suggest you watch it or read the book. It is a society in which Big Brother ie. the state/government decides what you will think, what you will say and what you will believe. I for one do not wish to live in a society like that - your party is leading us down that path very very quickly. We will be in the company of China, Burma and North Korea - all countries with state control of their peoples minds.
Do you want us to be like them?

Can you give me any logical, well thought out reasoned argument why Australians should have a MANDATORY filter on what they can and can't access on the internet?

Regards,
Click to expand...

The response to that:
Dear lakemac

There has been no legislation in relation to internt filters introduces into parliament

Kind regards
<Federal Memeber>
Click to expand...
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?

I have Senator Conroy's press release regarding the plans for the legislation (on his website) but am after the Labor party policy document in relation to it.

Irrespective of the reference material the crux of the matter is the MANDATORY nature of what your party proposes.

I am not against filtering.
What I am against is MANDATORY filtering.

Your party is effectively taking away one of our freedoms by making it MANDATORY. And that has led to revolutions (bloody and otherwise) in history as I am sure you are aware.

So why is the Labor party making the proposed filtering MANDATORY instead of OPTIONAL?
That is the key question I would like to know.

Regards,
Click to expand...

So I get back:
Dear lakemac

There is none and there is no legislation.

Kind regards
Click to expand...
Ok again I agree there is no legislation - YET! But they are working on it.
Notice the denials...
 
My next (long) reply:

Hi <Federal Member's name>

I beg to differ.

According to Senator Conroy's press release:
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115

"The cyber-safety measures announced today include:
* Introduction of MANDATORY ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification
(RC) -rated content."

and:
"The Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting
Services Act to require all ISPs to block RC-rated material hosted on
overseas servers."

and:
"The Government expects to introduce legislation during the Autumn 2010
parliamentary sittings. There will be a twelve months process of
implementation after the passage of the legislation."

How can you say there is none?
Are you telling me that Senator Conroy is lying?
Or maybe he is just pulling an April Fools joke.
If he is then maybe you should ask why he is wasting taxpayer money on the
joke.

Conroy is proposing MANDATORY filtering based on a list that can have
ANYTHING added to it including policital discussions. But you might say that
will never happen. Really? The proposed legislation (that you claim does not
exist) includes websites relating to terrorism correct? Back about 20-30
years ago the ANC (African National Conference) was labelled by the
Australian Government as a "terrorist organisation". So on that basis any
information relating to that group would be banned (just like China, Iran
and North Korea does right now with other material they deem RC). You
realise of course that the ANC was the party that Nelson Mandela belonged to
and fought the oppressive aparthied regiem in South Africa from.

The legislation that your party proposes would block such activists and
discussions, information flow on such activities - because someone decided
that they didn't like what they were saying.

The same blocking of information happened in World War II. The tragedy there
was millions of Jews lost their lives because information about
concentration camps was kept secret - by the western allies. Any wonder
people don't trust their own governments.

Information is power.
Transparent government and to quote Senator Conroy "measures to improve
transparency" - ha what a joke.
You only have to look at the farce that current FOI is.
Governments hate the free flow of information.
It shows up their incompetencies.

Your party's attempt to install a MANDATORY filter of sites that may or may
not be politically sensitive smacks of Totalitarism and Fascism.

Do you or the Labor party stand for Fascism?

Because such MANDATORY filters of information do represent Fascism and
Totalitarianism in their worst form - control of the people by the state. Do
you want to live in China or Iran or North Korea? They do not have freedom
of speech, do not have freedom to choose what they read and do not have
freedom from the state interfering in their lives.

Your party's proposed MANDATORY filter is exactly that - a removal of our
freedom.
Google decided to pull out of China on the basis of China's demands for
internet filtering.
I applaud them for standing up to oppressive governments.
Right now your party's proposed MANDATORY filtering puts you in the same
category - an oppressive government.

And before you talk about all the so called "nasty content" needing to be
filtered - consider this - there is already laws in place to prosecute that.
Filtering can be got around by those determined to do so - but the average
person doesn't have the knowledge or tools to do so. So a MANDATORY filter
only stops the uninformed masses from being informed about other topics
(such as the example of the ANC in the past) that the paranoid controllers
of the RC list decide is "inappropriate" or might harm the party or might
make people wake up to the truth of how they are being manipulated.

So,
There is PROPOSED legislation for MANDATORY filtering by your party. You are
incorrect in your assertion that there is none. Such MANDATORY filtering
represents oppressive government such as found in Fascist states.
I suggest you get informed.

The question ask of you again is do you and/or the Labor party stand for Fascism?
And do you support this proposed oppressive government proposal of MANDATORY filtering of information?

I would like some answers.

Regards,
Click to expand...

The denial yet again:
Dear lakemac

There is no legislation - ring the parliament if you do not believe me.

Kind regards
Click to expand...

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.
Which is what I, along with a lot of others object to. Specifically the MANDATORY nature of the filtering.

What I would like you, as an elected representative, to do if you could, is to get Senator Conroy's reasons why he, and by logical extension the Labor party, want to behave like an oppressive paranoid government that is afraid of free speech. Why is he considering MANDATORY filtering? As I asked is the Labor party Fascist? Because mandatory control of what you can and cannot access is Fascist. Pure and simple.

So why is your party "considering" legislation to bring in MANDATORY internet filtering?

Regards,
Click to expand...

Ok that should be plain enough...
The reply and ultimate fob off:
Dear lakemac

I will forward you a formal written response.

Kind regards
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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/
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Won't help, cause I'm sure the ones up here can barely read. Maybe if I send it in as a recording:p:
 
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
 

Similar threads

M
Australia secretly censors Wikileaks Internet censorship list
Replies
2
Views
5K
doctorj
doctorj
A
Proposed New Website Blocking Laws
Replies
4
Views
4K
Kimosabi
Kimosabi
Top