Mandatory ISP filtering

[flappist]

Now here is the question for all you true believer labor voters (you know who you are) who are against this censorship....

Would you really vote against labor and for the "enemy" over this or would you just sit to pee quoting "the other side would be worse" or some other cop out?

No need to answer on the forum, it will be your choice at the ballot box where you will show to yourself whether you truly think, judge right from wrong on a case by case basis and have principles or not.......

[cs123]

Originally Posted by flappist

Now here is the question for all you true believer labor voters (you know who you are) who are against this censorship....

Would you really vote against labor and for the "enemy" over this or would you just sit to pee quoting "the other side would be worse" or some other cop out?

No need to answer on the forum, it will be your choice at the ballot box where you will show to yourself whether you truly think, judge right from wrong on a case by case basis and have principles or not.......

I am pro NBN and very anti filtering. I'd vote against them just on the filtering issue.

[DJL351]

Originally Posted by flappist

Now here is the question for all you true believer labor voters (you know who you are) who are against this censorship....

Would you really vote against labor and for the "enemy" over this or would you just sit to pee quoting "the other side would be worse" or some other cop out?

No need to answer on the forum, it will be your choice at the ballot box where you will show to yourself whether you truly think, judge right from wrong on a case by case basis and have principles or not.......

But will we ever really find out if this is the 'issue' should there be a change in power....??? With the ETS stuff still in the picture, one could assume that the next electon will be very hard to read.

[Bossxr8]

I'd usually vote labor but with this filtering BS and the joke that is the ETS i'll probably vote Liberal. Don't really want to but can't stand the way Rudd is trying to ram things through the people don't want. Thats not government of a free country, thats a dictatorship.

[balthazarr]

From: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...0211-ntm0.html

Google baulks at Conroy's call to censor YouTube
ASHER MOSES
February 11, 2010 - 5:07PM

Google says it will not "voluntarily" comply with the government's request that it censor YouTube videos in accordance with broad "refused classification" (RC) content rules.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy referred to Google's censorship on behalf of the Chinese and Thai governments in making his case for the company to impose censorship locally.

Google warns this would lead to the removal of many politically controversial, but harmless, YouTube clips.

University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt, one of Australia's top communications experts, said that to comply with Conroy's request Google "would have to install a filter along the lines of what they actually have in China".

As it prepares to introduce legislation within weeks forcing ISPs to block a blacklist of RC websites, the government says it is in talks with Google over blocking the same type of material from YouTube.

YouTube's rules already forbid certain videos that would be classified RC, such as sex, violence, bestiality and child pornography. But the RC classification extends further to more controversial content such as information on euthanasia, material about safer drug use and material on how to commit more minor crimes such as painting graffiti.

Google said all of these topics were featured in videos on YouTube and it refused to censor these voluntarily. It said exposing these topics to public debate was vital for democracy.

In an interview with the ABC's Hungry Beast, which aired last night, Conroy said applying ISP filters to high-traffic sites such as YouTube would slow down the internet, "so we're currently in discussions with Google about ... how we can work this through".

"What we're saying is, well in Australia, these are our laws and we'd like you to apply our laws," Conroy said.

"Google at the moment filters an enormous amount of material on behalf of the Chinese government; they filter an enormous amount of material on behalf of the Thai government."

Google Australia's head of policy, Iarla Flynn, said the company had a bias in favour of freedom of expression in everything it did and Conroy's comparisons between how Australia and China deal with access to information were not "helpful or relevant".

Google has recently threatened to pull out of China, partly due to continuing requests for it to censor material.

"YouTube has clear policies about what content is not allowed, for example hate speech and pornography, and we enforce these, but we can't give any assurances that we would voluntarily remove all Refused Classification content from YouTube," Flynn said.

"The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information. RC includes the grey realms of material instructing in any crime from [painting] graffiti to politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia, and exposing these topics to public debate is vital for democracy."

Asked for further comment, a Google Australia spokeswoman said that, while the company "won't comply voluntarily with the broad scope of all RC content", it would comply with the relevant laws in countries it operates in.

However, if Conroy includes new YouTube regulations in his internet filtering legislation, it is not clear if these would apply to Google since YouTube is hosted overseas.

"They [Google] don't control the access in Australia - all their equipment that would do this is hosted overseas ... and I would find it very hard to believe that the Australian government can in any way force an American company to follow Australian law in America," Landfeldt said.

"Quite frankly it would really not be workable ... every country in the world would come to Google and say this is what you need to do for our country. You would not be able to run the kind of services that Google provides if that would be the case."

This week the Computer Research and Education Association (CORE) put out a statement on behalf of all Australasian computer science lecturers and professors opposing the government's internet filtering policy.

They said the filters would only block a fraction of the unwanted material available on the internet, be inapplicable to many of the current methods of online content distribution and create a false sense of security for parents.

CORE said the blacklist could be used by current and future governments to restrict freedom of speech, while those determined to get around the filters and access nasty content could do so with ease.

Source: smh.com.au

:

Not only is Conroy persisting with this fool plan, but now he's comparing us to China when asking an overseas entity to do his evil bidding. Great.

:

[aye you]

There has got to be something we can do as a developed nation, to shoot this idiot in the face

[fangq]

Originally Posted by aye you

There has got to be something we can do as a developed nation, to shoot this idiot in the face

Conroy is to ISP filtering as Penny Wong is to the ETS. They have to much invested in these dead horses to back off gracefully.

Steve

[Pinch]

What a paradoxical world we live in where a multinational company is defending our interests against our own Government.

Conroy plainly came out and said (re Google) that 'they could do it with China'.

Right. China. Hardly the bastion of free speech and human rights is it?

I am more offended by the concept of filtering than anything it filters. I can simply choose not to access it. Has worked for me perfectly thus far.

The great irony is that it will lead some technologically naive parents into thinking it will be a substitute for proper parental supervision. Sadly not. As demonstrated on ABC's Hungry Beast last night 15 year olds can circumvent the filter in seconds. Hardcore peodophiles will use other means other than top banner websites. It will really do nothing but slow down the internet, AND create a mechanism where ANYthing 'deemed offensive' will be blocked. Deemed offensive by who? Conroy? some public servant? some arbirtary Minister? Ignorance is rife about all number of things such as RC content apparently being blocked by the new filter.

Hell no.

http://www.efa.org.au/epetition/

[Pinch]

Voting Liberal though?

This IS an ultra-conservative policy. What makes you think that the conservatives themselved don't have a similar agenda? I would be trawling through Liberal policies VERY carefully before voting for them. Some Labor Ministers are coming out against Conroy. Hopefully more will follow suit, for with the new filter comments such as this may be 'deemed offensive'. As they sit within the AFF site - then the whole thing could be blocked. Who would want to be an admin then?

Labor appears to be cowtowing to senators like Steve Fielding et al to get some sweetheart deals done in the Senate. Don't bet that Liberal wouldn't do it if the tables were round the other way. After all this is more a 'Liberal' (still can't get over the juxtaposition of the party name) policy than a Labor one. Scary.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by Pinch

Hardcore peodophiles will use other means other than top banner websites.

You try and find a web site that has child porn on it...










There are none. Pedophiles simply aren't that stupid. They get their sick fix through other means. This filter will do absolutely zero to combat this.
All this money for the filter would be better off given to the AFP to catch the people that peddle this type of filth.
I'd also like to say that I am all for a filter, but one that is not mandatory. I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there that would like that option. Me personally, no, I wouldn't use it when I have kids. I'll be supervising their usage like a good parent should.

[Pinch]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

You try and find a web site that has child porn on it...

That was my point, that crap is not on websites that would be caught by a filter, yet it is often cited as one of the main reasons for needing a mandatory filter.

Didn't the government already offer a voluntary filter as a download? Not sure.

My ISP already offers their own filter anyway, as exists relatively cheap commercial software for anyone to buy.

So why do we need anything other than an education program to explain what is already there?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Pinch

Voting Liberal though?

This IS an ultra-conservative policy. What makes you think that the conservatives themselved don't have a similar agenda? I would be trawling through Liberal policies VERY carefully before voting for them. Some Labor Ministers are coming out against Conroy. Hopefully more will follow suit, for with the new filter comments such as this may be 'deemed offensive'. As they sit within the AFF site - then the whole thing could be blocked. Who would want to be an admin then?

Labor appears to be cowtowing to senators like Steve Fielding et al to get some sweetheart deals done in the Senate. Don't bet that Liberal wouldn't do it if the tables were round the other way. After all this is more a 'Liberal' (still can't get over the juxtaposition of the party name) policy than a Labor one. Scary.

Say WHAT??????

Do I get it that you say that team A are doing a bad thing that you think team B would do but DIDN'T therefore team A are wonderful and under no circumstances should team B ever be considered because they MIGHT do the bad things that team A are ACTUALLY doing.

Thank you for explaining how we got into this mess is the first place Comrade Doctor Spin.....

[MustangNicko]

Originally Posted by Pinch

Voting Liberal though?

This IS an ultra-conservative policy. What makes you think that the conservatives themselved don't have a similar agenda? I would be trawling through Liberal policies VERY carefully before voting for them. Some Labor Ministers are coming out against Conroy. Hopefully more will follow suit, for with the new filter comments such as this may be 'deemed offensive'. As they sit within the AFF site - then the whole thing could be blocked. Who would want to be an admin then?

Labor appears to be cowtowing to senators like Steve Fielding et al to get some sweetheart deals done in the Senate. Don't bet that Liberal wouldn't do it if the tables were round the other way. After all this is more a 'Liberal' (still can't get over the juxtaposition of the party name) policy than a Labor one. Scary.

This is not a Liberal party policy at all. Since Labor's total take over of the country and States, I have never seen such a blatant attack on liberty and rights. Don't forget the Labor party's ties with far left ideologies such as State Communism back in the 70's

:

[jonk]

And that's what I said about the G. The YT stuff is the first sign... that they will challenge... the gov't. Google can lose a lot of advert money if this crap goes ahead. If the Oz gov't succeed in beating Google, then it will happen everywhere else, that's how they're thinking... openDNS can do the same job that Conroy wants.

[Pinch]

Ultimately what I was getting at was that for me, the pressure should be put on Labor to drop this rubbish now, and not via an after-the-fact protest vote that may or may not have any real effect anyway.

Flappist your argument is perfectly logical, and you are absolutely right - mine isn’t and in isolation doesn’t make any sense at all. If we were dealing about a single issue, or a referendum vote, then it would be a case of voting for whichever party was planning to introduce it or not. Unfortunately, with politics being what they are, it is often clouded.

Foremost is that this will not be a single issue vote so we have to consider that any vote is a vote for all that parties’ polices. Yes, at the moment on a total policy basis I am more Labor leaning. Hasn’t always been the case, and probably won’t be always the case either. If there was a clear indication by Liberal that they would always oppose any filter, then this would be a significant issue for me to consider. I suspect that Liberal will not make such a guarantee. Could be wrong though – it often happens

I suppose what I was getting as is that whatever way you look at it this it is a conservative-type policy. Liberals political philosophies espouse traditional, often Christian based values (ie conservative). This is the sort of thing that they would consider in the general course (whether they introduce it or not is another matter) and they would be under pressure from the same lobbyists. Of course it would be that Liberal oppose ‘this’ filter now because it is a political hot potato, but do they oppose ‘all’ filters or censoring? This would be a very important answer, and anyone let me know if they have answered it because I honestly do not know. They would probably simply campaign on the basis of blocking this filter, modify it slightly and then reintroduce their own like both parties do with contemporary issues. Politicians don’t work in a vacuum and lobbyists are good at what they do.

[cs123]

Here is the Liberal party opinion on the filter.
http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=4361

[Bundy]

the man in action......

http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/storie...nded-interview

and the full episode on ABC iView. Expires in 12 days. Seach for Hungry beast via the program guide.

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/index

[trippytaka]

I'm just disgusted that porn featuring women with small breasts and female ejaculation is going to be on the RC (refused classification) list because they are considered fetish. What does this say to women with small breasts (god bless them all!) or the ones who enjoy the extremely pleasurable (not to mention perfectly natural) sensation of ejaculation? Sorry, you're freaks. You're not normal, sex with you or just finding you attractive should be considered a fetish.

Women have enough hang ups about their body and sexuality without being marginalised because their bodies are perfectly NORMAL!

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Pinch

Voting Liberal though?

This IS an ultra-conservative policy. What makes you think that the conservatives themselved don't have a similar agenda? I would be trawling through Liberal policies VERY carefully before voting for them.

I'd be very careful about voting Labor actually, federally or at state level. Your pro Labor spin is quite clear, don't deflect Conroy's crap onto Fielding. To quote a mate of mine;

Conroy speaketh with forked tongue. He has advice from the industry that the filters will not prevent access to the nasty stuff. The only rational explaination for pursuing the "cleanfeed" is the "unintended consequences"; the "collateral damage" and the creation of a bureucracy that's beyond democratic and judicial oversight.

Labor are a pack of dangerous ratbags, and this black duck tells it so thesedays to both their suporters, and certainly,-directly to their party MP's faces when they intrude in my or my family life.

Heck, just today I rang the NSW Roads Ministers office and let fire over Labors 'dumb',- NSW petrol-turbo prohibitions as applied to P license holders that prevents purchase of 5 star safety rated cars such as the Moozda CX-7.
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fr...AND%20No%3D116

A P2 25YO wifie cannot drive a turbo SUV, but could be in the army and be expected to kill, but by Christ - ya ain't gonna drive a turbo woman! Hopeless, really.

Useless, nanny-state extreme left wingers. Right now the NSW Premier may be hot and she has great legs* (certainly more so that Barry), but she_and_her_'party'_are_gone.

Shall we discuss the SA Labor AG? Another dangerous loon, and that is my POV. Labor *needs* to reposition itself.

IF LIB become as loony, then I'll fight that as well. Heck, may have to become a NAT's fella, or independent. (Still keep asking if Canada takes Aussie refugees).

* = sexist pig mode.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Heck, just today I rang the NSW Roads Ministers office and let fire over Labors 'dumb',- NSW petrol-turbo prohibitions as applied to P license holders that prevents purchase of 5 star safety rated cars such as the Moozda CX-7.
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fr...AND%20No%3D116

A P2 25YO wifie cannot drive a turbo SUV, but could be in the army and be expected to kill, but by Christ - ya ain't gonna drive a turbo woman! Hopeless, really.

Heh, 18 year old male not allowed to drive a V8 but is allowed behind the controls of a US $4,300,000, 1500hp M1A2 Abrams tank.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Heh, 18 year old male not allowed to drive a V8 but is allowed behind the controls of a US $4,300,000, 1500hp M1A2 Abrams tank.

Yeh but he is only allowed to kill people the government tells him to and he has to do it on purpose.......

[Serial_Fool]

If the Liberals back this plan in any way, I will never advocate supporting the 2 party system again.

Whoever speaks out against climate taxation and internet censorship will get my vote.

[220]

Originally Posted by aye you

There has got to be something we can do as a developed nation, to shoot this idiot in the face

Cant do that mate, you forgot the Libs disarmed Aus in 96.

Just another case of goverment intervention that isn't needed, making rules for the sake of making rules because they can. Still if forced to I'll vote for one of the two before those @#*%ing greens.

[jonk]

Can we forget the... (that means DROP! political statements) insinuations of your vote like intentions/whom you declare you're vote to...

This is purely a 'technical' argument' ! Keep it under your hat who you declare !

This could become an 'archived thread' with no replies allowed. Stop making it political. No one here, is asking for your voting intentions... cut the damn crap.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by jonk

Can we forget the... (that means DROP! political statements) insinuations of your vote like intentions/whom you declare you're vote to...

This is purely a 'technical' argument' ! Keep it under your hat who you declare !

This could become an 'archived thread' with no replies allowed. Stop making it political. No one here, is asking for your voting intentions... cut the damn crap.

From the initial post:

Yes the technical "Conroy" (not to be confused with the current [party who can not be named] minister for communications Conroy) on the technical website www.minister.dcbcde.gov.au (not to be confused with the Australian Federal [party who can not be named] Government website of the same name) announced their POLICY for their control of the internet.

So technically if the [party who can not be named] were no longer there then they would not be able to implement this policy.

Happy now.........

[jonk]

Originally Posted by flappist

From the initial post:

Yes the technical "Conroy" (not to be confused with the current [party who can not be named] minister for communications Conroy) on the technical website www.minister.dcbcde.gov.au (not to be confused with the Australian Federal [party who can not be named] Government website of the same name) announced their POLICY for their control of the internet.

So technically if the [party who can not be named] were no longer there then they would not be able to implement this policy.

Happy now.........

flappist, good n'healthy cynical post.

I will post later on :

Google & hot pipe.

How Atkinson is more feared than Conroy's filter.

& well blah...

[Serial_Fool]

Anonymous asks a question.

http://qanda.abc.net.au/_Anonymous-a...078/30560.html

[jonk]

I got auto banned. My username was red. Nice. So... I should probably find another hobby ?... it's the universe speaking to me. Should get out more. Buy a Toyota.

Any of youse got an idea what them thar Toyata forums are like ?

Slick shifting four speed packed onto front wheel drive. I could pick up cougar's.... or my luck end up with grannies. Slick shifting four speed FWD Toyota wagon. You can't have turbo on T's.... it makes grey hair turn blue rinse. Straight for the nearest salon... charge !!!

Been a long boring day... I wished I never heard of IT. I even hate calculators now... at least there's no enter button.

[ch33z1l]

Heard on the radio this morning that Mr Conroy has abandoned his Internet Censorship Filter. The planned legislation has been scrapped now that an agreement has been reached with ISPs to block child pornography websites.
ISP's were already blacklisting known child porn websites so no news there, and with the majority of child porn being distributed over P2P, I wonder how much money has been wasted

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by ch33z1l

Heard on the radio this morning that Mr Conroy has abandoned his Internet Censorship Filter. The planned legislation has been scrapped now that an agreement has been reached with ISPs to block child pornography websites.
ISP's were already blacklisting known child porn websites so no news there, and with the majority of child porn being distributed over P2P, I wonder how much money has been wasted

this was always going to happen politicians need to be seen to do something, anything pollies logic goes, I must do something , this is something, so I must do it. it is just like

1. All cats have four legs
2. My dog has four legs
3. Therefore, my dog is a cat.

(stolen from Yes Prime Minister)