Internet Filtering: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

[captain black]

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]

Yep good artical there Captain. Out of all the stuipid nonsense that this filter involves this one is the biggest concern,

4)

“The Refused Classification Content list cannot be made public because if it was, it would simply be a catalogue to direct people to specific URLs that are Refused Classification. “

Publishing the titles of banned books and DVD’s is considered to be a fair and reasonable part of transparency in the operation of government. After all, we need to know what the government has decided that we can’t read, don’t we? Or else how can we object if they go too far?

And yet, the government have argued that publishing banned URL’s is different, because consumers can use the URL to look up the content itself – that it is more than merely the ‘title’ of the work concerned. So we are asked to just ‘trust them’ and allow this list to be secret.

It is impossible to avoid the logical fallacy here!

If the ISP filter worked, then the list of filtered URLs would be safe to publish in public… because if the filter worked, nobody could access the linked content!

Fact: The government doesn’t even believe that technical filtering of Internet content works (or, surely, they’d be happy to publish the banned URL list because it’d be safe to do so, because… the filter works, right?)

Heap of other good points in that article. when are the main stream media going to pick this nonsense up??

 

[Julia]

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]

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?

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]

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?

Nope, you are right on track. This is a global event taking place. Not just here in Australia.

 

[electronicmaster]

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]

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/

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks for the links, alwaysLearning.
I'm interested in the following extract from the Whirlpool link:



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?

Good question Julia, I'm not too sure about GetUp.

 

[moXJO]

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]

Well at least that didn't get off the ground yet

Another one of Labor's children out the door.

 

[moXJO]

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]

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]

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]

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.