Government to censor the Internet

[SGB]

Well, Kevin Rudd and the Aussie government are stupidly barging on with their internet censorship plan.

Their recent (and hugely flawed) censorship trial report was released today:

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot

Censorship FAQ page:

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot/isp_filtering_-_frequently_asked_questions

Utter stupidity!!!

There goes the digital economy as well.

[kup]

This has certainly made me reconsider my vote.

[mknell]

it's ok they'll never be able to get it done, look at the Krudd netbooks given to students, even they can hack it really easily so I can't see them being able to censor the net. And by the time it even comes close, that's if it comes close up will pop a new election & bye bye krudd

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

it's ok they'll never be able to get it done, look at the Krudd netbooks given to students, even they can hack it really easily so I can't see them being able to censor the net. And by the time it even comes close, that's if it comes close up will pop a new election & bye bye krudd

The point isn't whether or not it can be hacked, its the fact that they are trying to infringe on the freedoms of everyone for the "benefit" of what is likely a minority group. That is not democratic and personally I object to having anothers goups views forced upon my own.

Inetersting though, surely with the filter in place, website will start needing a rating. R rating for the internet and yet we don't have one for games.

They always harp on about protecting the children but isn't that the parents jobs? The main problem I believe is parents not knowing anything about the activites their kids get up to. Education is always better than straight out censorship.

Intersting as well that they compare us to other countries,
Filtering is undertaken voluntarily by other ISPs in the UK but there it is VOLUNTARY, not mandatory.

From the FAQ.

17. Why does the Government consider demand exists for additional ISP-level filtering services?
While some ISPs provide downloadable PC-level filtering software to their customers, there are currently very few Australian ISPs who provide content filtering at the ISP-level. The aim is to encourage the internet industry to offer a wider range of content filtering options to consumers.

User-friendly ISP-level filtering would give Australians greater choice in the content they would like filtered without needing to manage the complexities of downloading software to their home computers.

(red added by me)
Because installing your own stuff is hard.
They want to give greater choice to some while taking away that same choice to others.
If they want to encourage the ISPs to filter content, why not offer the option of ISP level filtering for those that want it as a product?

This is ridiculous.

Australia is turning from the misused "lucky country" to a more appropriate Sucky country.

The Term "lucky Country" was originally used to describe the Australian economy as one created by luck and chance, as opposed to well thought out design.

Not my original source, but convenient evidence:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Country

[SGB]

Lots of Aussies have been pouring scorn on the government via Twitter:

http://twitter.com/search?q=%23nocleanfeed

Rudd also lost a ton of Twitter followers as well.

The ALP have effectively lost votes from the 18-35 demographic.


Lateline will have a report about the government's announcement tonight on ABC1 at 10:15pm.

[kup]

join the Pirate Party.

They are an aspiring political party which values centers around freedom of information just as the green centers around the Environment.

http://www.pirateparty.org.au/

Its $20 to join which serves to help them get enough members to become an active political party and have someone run on their behalf in state or federal elections.

[Sam]

The point isn't whether or not it can be hacked, its the fact that they are trying to infringe on the freedoms of everyone for the "benefit" of what is likely a minority group. That is not democratic and personally I object to having anothers goups views forced upon my own.

+1

If some people want to censor certain websites, that's fine. But make it optional, so that those who want to apply filter can, and those who take the issue of freedom seriously, don't have to.

I think it is a dangerous thing for more and more freedoms to be restricted in the name of security and protection.

[SofaMan]

join the Pirate Party.

They are an aspiring political party which values centers around freedom of information just as the green centers around the Environment.

http://www.pirateparty.org.au/

Its $20 to join which serves to help them get enough members to become an active political party and have someone run on their behalf in state or federal elections.

Aaaharr, you scurvy dog! You beat me to it! :D

I've joined, and so should we all. Hoist the mainsail!

(and yes, despite the pirate parlance, I'm quite serious)

[kup]

+1

If some people want to censor certain websites, that's fine. But make it optional, so that those who want to apply filter can, and those who take the issue of freedom seriously, don't have to.

I think it is a dangerous thing for more and more freedoms to be restricted in the name of security and protection.

The leaked government list of banned sites from a few months ago was not isolated to just child porn. There were also 'politically incovinient' websites too.

What the government is trying to do is lay the foundations of a fascist information control regime. The less (or 'more') informed the masses are the easier it is to drive public oppinion to your own ends.

21st Century 'Democractic Freedom' seems to have been gradually turning into 'keep the masses ignorant so that they are easier to manipulate' regime.

[Robzy]

This is nuts!

It'll never happen!

[SofaMan]

This is nuts!

It'll never happen!

We hope not, but worse things have happened when we sat back and hoped the apparent absurdity of proposals like this would be obvious to pollies.

[Tober]

Internet Filter Gets Green Light (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/984141/internet-filter-gets-green-light/?rss=yes)

[foor]

Internet Filter Gets Green Light (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/984141/internet-filter-gets-green-light/?rss=yes)

Very upsetting news indeed. Well, it has to go through the senate still. But it's not going to stop them if they're dead set on making this happen.

[Golden Phoenix]

saying illegal material can be blocked "with 100 per cent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed".

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/jimmey-11/emotes/laugh.gif
Pull the other leg Kev

[1AZRAEL1]

join the Pirate Party.

They are an aspiring political party which values centers around freedom of information just as the green centers around the Environment.

http://www.pirateparty.org.au/

Its $20 to join which serves to help them get enough members to become an active political party and have someone run on their behalf in state or federal elections.


Aaaharr, you scurvy dog! You beat me to it! :D

I've joined, and so should we all. Hoist the mainsail!

(and yes, despite the pirate parlance, I'm quite serious)

Set Sail and Conquer. I'd be all for the Pirate Party, would be fun, yet deadly serious. We should not have restrictions of our own personal internet use imposed on us by our Government. In a way, it is like China with their restrictions that they cannot view anything about Tiananmen Square incdent, among other things. Censoring should be up to the user. Or the parents if they don't want their kids to view porn. There are things called NetNanny and a whole bunch of others that are out there for that.


This is nuts!

It'll never happen!

Well you better start believing, this country is being led by an idiot. And all these people who voted for him and are now regretting it, do you really think it would have been better going the other way? Either way you look at it, they are all bad.

[1AZRAEL1]

Now I am reading this on SMH-


From SMH Article (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internet-censorship-plan-gets-the-green-light-20091215-ktzc.html)

An earlier version of the Government's top-secret list of banned sites was leaked on to the web in March, revealing the scope of the filtering could extend significantly beyond child porn.

About half of the sites on the list were not related to child porn and included a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

We are treading a very thin line me thinks.

[SGB]

Youtube will be slow as crap for all Aussies. There are some Youtube pages on the blacklist, and any pages from high-traffic sites that get added to a mandatory filter results in the entire site becoming very slow.

It happened in the UK with Wikipedia last year. The "offending" Wikipedia URL had to be removed from the UK blacklist to fix the problem.

[5FDP]

I actually work for one of the larger Telco's and can tell you that we're gearing up for enquiries from customers regarding what they are dubbing 'The Internet Filtering Initiative'. This includes a legal script (in that it's been approved by legal) to read out.

For the record, I do not support this at all and I'm not directly involved in its implementation. I will be affected like everyone else if this goes ahead :mad:

[1AZRAEL1]

I actually work for one of the larger Telco's and can tell you that we're gearing up for enquiries from customers regarding what they are dubbing 'The Internet Filtering Initiative'. This includes a legal script (in that it's been approved by legal) to read out.

For the record, I do not support this at all and I'm not directly involved in its implementation. I will be affected like everyone else if this goes ahead :mad:

And I can feel sorry for you at how many people will call up and abuse you because they will say its your fault. People just need someone to blame or to listen to them complain. I know all too much about that :p

But rest assured, I won't blame you :)

[SGB]

How f***ing embarassing:

Australia’s net filter makes world headlines (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163020,australias-net-filter-makes-world-headlines.aspx)


Net censorship move a smokescreen: expert (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html)

[1AZRAEL1]

I love the "Australia plans Chinese-style internet filtering" bit. That's how it seems that we are getting.

[mknell]

Just read this, people are already finding ways around it lol

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2009/12/ways-to-bypass-the-internet-filter/

[kup]

It's not so much if its easy to circumvent it but the Goverment's attempt to impose a mandatory information filter on the population that is of concern.

[Lint]

Do not want

[Gutsman Heavy]

God damn you Chairman Rudd you commie c*** sucking muppet mother f*****

[1AZRAEL1]

Lots of naughty words

Do I detect someone detests this new scheme? :p

BTW, a post like that will most likley be filtered :D:rolleyes:

[5FDP]

LMAO... maybe K Rudd is right. After reading Gutsman Heavy's post, I feel the urge to cut myself in anger, slaughter fluffy kittens, and listen to Marilyn Manson :mad::mad::mad:

I need to be saved from having my delicate sensitivities exposed to such vulgar words of hate :D

[Tabias Prime]

join the Pirate Party.

They are an aspiring political party which values centers around freedom of information just as the green centers around the Environment.

http://www.pirateparty.org.au/

Its $20 to join which serves to help them get enough members to become an active political party and have someone run on their behalf in state or federal elections.

Arrrrg do you get to talk like a pirate too....

[kup]

Arrrrg do you get to talk like a pirate too....

yes

[Lord_Zed]

God damn you Chairman Rudd you commie c*** sucking muppet mother f*****

Commie?

More like Dictator Rudd. thse days it seems like for our two main political parties we have centre right, and right of centre right. Talk about variety.

[MV75]

Well you better start believing, this country is being led by an idiot. And all these people who voted for him and are now regretting it, do you really think it would have been better going the other way? Either way you look at it, they are all bad.



Kevin Rudd: The fence post turtle.

Funny how all the misery in the country is at the hands of Labor. Pretty ironic how they are supposed to be the "party of the people".


What the government is trying to do is lay the foundations of a fascist information control regime. The less (or 'more') informed the masses are the easier it is to drive public oppinion to your own ends.

21st Century 'Democractic Freedom' seems to have been gradually turning into 'keep the masses ignorant so that they are easier to manipulate' regime.

Already in motion. Keeping reading and writing out of the hands of the peasants has been in the works for the last generation. Just look at any current day school kid. They can't write or spell to save their lives.

[SilverDragon]

Why does it have to be mandatory? Not everyone will want to have the internet censored, and those that do already have means of blocking sites that they don't want. Making it mandatory is treating the entire population like children who don't know what they want to find on the internet.

Rather alarmingly, to me this doesn't seem to be particularly unusual for this government, given the Bill Henson case last year and Ruddbot saying his works were repulsive despite having NOT SEEN ANY OF THEM. Stop emulating China so much, Ruddbot!

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

[MV75]

Making it mandatory is treating the entire population like children

This here is why I support a nanny state. Because people act like children and can't be socially acceptable by themselves.

But this has the ulterior motives behind it of extra control in the form of dictatorship.

[Golden Phoenix]

Making it mandatory is treating the entire population like children

Based on my room I'd say I was a child too

[SofaMan]

Funny how all the misery in the country is at the hands of Labor.

Yeah. The Coalition were all about the hugs and puppies. :rolleyes:

[kup]

Yeah. The Coalition were all about the hugs and puppies. :rolleyes:

The problem is that neither Labour nor the Coalition are parties which I can trully get behind and support. Ever since I have been able to vote, I have never wholeheartedly given my vote to either side thinking 'I support what this party stands for' its been mostly about 'Which of these is the lesser evil'.

I am sure that I am not alone when it comes to this.

[SofaMan]

The problem is that neither Labour nor the Coalition are parties which I can trully get behind and support. Ever since I have been able to vote, I have never wholeheartedly given my vote to either side thinking 'I support what this party stands for' its been mostly about 'Which of these is the lesser evil'.

I am sure that I am not alone when it comes to this.

You are not, and I agree with you entirely. I was just making sure that if there is manure to be spread, that it is spread evenly. It's easy after only 2 years to forget how mind-buggeringly awful the other lot were as well. :D

[SofaMan]

From the President of The Pirate Party (my emphasis):



Hi crew,

Pirate Party Australia has been working hard on getting press releases out and establishing media contacts to spread our message. We are establishing some working groups to plan a fresh round of national protests, and we are working on an overhaul of our IT systems. We are looking at sending members to LAN parties to communicate with the players, and sticking flyers up in city centres, where legally feasible.

So far, we have not touched a cent of the membership fees or donations, and some members are using their own funds on essential services, because we know that every dollar counts.

To those of you who have joined us already, thank you for your support. I know we haven't gotten back to most of you with confirmations, but we do plan to once we have started collating the memberships.

To everyone else, I would like to tell you some hard truths that you might not like to hear.

To fix the world, you have to do more than click some buttons on a website.We appreciate that you did sign up as a preliminary member, but sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and get a little dirty. In this case, all we are asking you to do is to go through the process of actually printing a document and faxing it. I know it's an old-world effort, but it's really just a few minutes of effort.

For those of you who have not joined because of the money, send me an email at davidcrafti@pirateparty.org.au and we'll see if we can work something out. I grew up dirt poor, so I know what it is like to really not have a few dollars to spare.

For those of you who have not joined due to other issues, just look at yesterday's release of Senator Conroy's Internet censorship report. We don't have time to waste. So far, around 140 people, or about 1 in 10 of the preliminary members have signed up. This is not good enough to affect serious change in Australia. We are trying to protect freedom of speech, but it looks like many of you don't have much to say. You need to get angry, and you need to join, and you need to convince other people to join. You need to do this by painting them a picture of what the world will be like if we don't put up a fight against the slide into tyranny that we are now facing. Ask the historians to imagine what Stalinist Russia would have been like if Stalin had the computing power of today. Tell them about how fragile democracy is and how it can be corrupted by just a few influential people over just a couple of decades. Let the environmentalists know that freedom needs to be protected, because without freedom, we don't have a world worth saving. Tell the libertarians that we are trying to keep the government out of their lives. Inform the concerned parents that we are fighting for their rights to run their own families. If you're in the country, speak to some farmers and tell them that we will stop companies from patenting their seeds. Tell the sick that we'll stop the drug companies from revelling in their pain. Tell the musicians that we will work with them to ensure they can earn good money doing what they love. Tell the trade unionists that we will work to repeal laws that infringe on their freedom of assembly. Let the gamers know that we'll rip out Michael Atkinson's spinal column if he doesn't realise that violent video games don't cause violent behaviour.

OK, maybe not the last one. In fact, I'm not even sure if my freedom of speech rights protect that statement now-a-days, so let me explicitly state that it was a joke that referenced Scorpion's finishing move in Mortal Kombat.

I hope my point is clear. We need you to join Pirate Party Australia, so we can protect our freedom to make the world a better place. You signed up as a preliminary member, so you already agree with our goals, so please make it official.


Regards,

David Crafti,
President
Pirate Party Australia

P.S.: Some people have stated a concern about being on the books as affiliated with the party, but the AEC treats the applications as confidential.

[Robzy]

Well you better start believing, this country is being led by an idiot. And all these people who voted for him and are now regretting it, do you really think it would have been better going the other way? Either way you look at it, they are all bad.I take it back! We're doomed!

[Robzy]

I was just making sure that if there is manure to be spread, that it is spread evenly. It's easy after only 2 years to forget how mind-buggeringly awful the other lot were as well. :DQFT!!

John Howard I'm looking at you - shame, shame, shame!!

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

thse days it seems like for our two main political parties we have centre right, and right of centre right. Talk about variety.
Rofl that sums it up too well!

The problem is that neither Labour nor the Coalition are parties which I can trully get behind and support. Ever since I have been able to vote, I have never wholeheartedly given my vote to either side thinking 'I support what this party stands for' its been mostly about 'Which of these is the lesser evil'.

I am sure that I am not alone when it comes to this.

Certainly not. They look so similar now I wonder what the point is sometimes. Old Johnny Howard was a clever dicky though, depsite the Liberals not being in power, Labor has had to follow their trends in many repects.

[SGB]

Web filter will compromise national broadband network, say providers (http://www.news.com.au/technology/web-filter-will-compromise-national-broadband-network-say-providers/story-e6frfro0-1225811213048)

[1AZRAEL1]

The problem is that neither Labour nor the Coalition are parties which I can trully get behind and support. Ever since I have been able to vote, I have never wholeheartedly given my vote to either side thinking 'I support what this party stands for' its been mostly about 'Which of these is the lesser evil'.

I am sure that I am not alone when it comes to this.

You are definately not alone on this. Me and most people I know vote from the ground up, with the one we least want in power and voting upwards. By the time I get to the last 2, it's so hard to decide which of those 2 are worse.

[1AZRAEL1]

The more I read on this on the web, the more my blood boils. I really don't like where the government is heading with this.

This country is supposed to be all about freedom, but with this being introduced, we lack alot of freedom to view what we choose on the internet.

[kup]

The political mentality seems to be that the trick to a successful modern democracy is to keep the population ignorant. That way you can manipulate public opinion to whatever you want with just 'Jeebus supports me!' or 'Will someone think of the children! (because we don't!) policy spins.

[SGB]

SAGE-AU warns ISP filtering tests fail fast Internet (http://www.sage-au.org.au/display/SAGEAU/Press+Releases#PressReleases-17dec09)


Also, blog post from ALP's Kate Lundy:

My thoughts on the Filter (http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/12/17/my-thoughts-on-the-filter/)

Lundy has been anti-censorship in the past but has backflipped just to keep her spot in the ALP, making her a hyprocrite.

[1AZRAEL1]

Lundy has been anti-censorship in the past but has backflipped just to keep her spot in the ALP, making her a hyprocrite.

My god, a politician that is a hypocrite? That is so unheard of :p:rolleyes:
Hypocrites the lot of them I say.

Still funny to watch, in a sad sorta way.

[Dkaris]

at first i thought the whole filter and black list issue was an idea of the labor far right christians, and the family first party, and other charming politicians who would run this country in the name of Jesus Christ. (for the record, im a christian, but i dont believe any form of religion should be incorporated into general politics) But its clear to me now that this has become the agenda to more than just the far right christian factions. I wonder if theres anything the big ISPs could say or do to the government to basically say "we're not doing it" ugh!

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

at first i thought the whole filter and black list issue was an idea of the labor far right christians, and the family first party, and other charming politicians who would run this country in the name of Jesus Christ. (for the record, im a christian, but i dont believe any form of religion should be incorporated into general politics) But its clear to me now that this has become the agenda to more than just the far right christian factions. I wonder if theres anything the big ISPs could say or do to the government to basically say "we're not doing it" ugh!
Depsite the law requiring sepearation of religion and the state, the fact that many politicians are religious ( and catholic a lot of the time) makes it hard for them to be un-biased about things. Thats why I object to Tony Abott. he has let his views on abortion and euthanasia go against the wishes of the his electorate as he follows his own.

This is also the reason I dislike conscience votes.

[1AZRAEL1]

at first i thought the whole filter and black list issue was an idea of the labor far right christians, and the family first party, and other charming politicians who would run this country in the name of Jesus Christ. (for the record, im a christian, but i dont believe any form of religion should be incorporated into general politics) But its clear to me now that this has become the agenda to more than just the far right christian factions. I wonder if theres anything the big ISPs could say or do to the government to basically say "we're not doing it" ugh!


Depsite the law requiring sepearation of religion and the state, the fact that many politicians are religious ( and catholic a lot of the time) makes it hard for them to be un-biased about things. Thats why I object to Tony Abott. he has let his views on abortion and euthanasia go against the wishes of the his electorate as he follows his own.

This is also the reason I dislike conscience votes.

See this is why religion and politics should not mix.

Now I am all for people believing in whatever religion they choose, but it pi@@es me right off when they try to force their views onto me. As this filter is doing.

[SGB]

I wonder if theres anything the big ISPs could say or do to the government to basically say "we're not doing it" ugh!
If filtering is mandated, any ISP that refuses to implement filters after the cut off date to get it implemented will be fined $27,500 per day.



Testing of Conroy's internet filter flawed: expert (http://apcmag.com/testing-of-conroys-internet-filter-was-flawed-expert-.htm)

[SGB]

For those that missed Sky News Business this morning:

Internet filter won't work, say critics (http://www.skynews.com.au/tech/article.aspx?id=407331&articleID=1073276)


And from this evening's episode of "The 7PM Project":

Colin Jacobs – EFA – Australian Internet Filter – The 7pm Project (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhAJgrISMrI)

[MV75]

The problem is that neither Labour nor the Coalition are parties which I can trully get behind and support. Ever since I have been able to vote, I have never wholeheartedly given my vote to either side thinking 'I support what this party stands for' its been mostly about 'Which of these is the lesser evil'.

I am sure that I am not alone when it comes to this.

Well get used to the saying "better the devil you know", because the lesser evils arn't apparent when they don't campaign with these idiotic things. Just look at CPT Bligh. :p The fantasy (even back then), NBN was probably in your mind when you voted.

And you guys do realise there is already a filter in place right? There is no such thing as a clean feed.

[SofaMan]

And you guys do realise there is already a filter in place right? There is no such thing as a clean feed.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

[Golden Phoenix]

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

They watch you with tiny camera's in every house and keep records of your internet browsing
There is only 1 real government.
the banks control the word!
9/11 was a set up
FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDO-----
.....
....
.....

I [GOLDEN PHOENIX] mean there is nothing to worry about. Move along. Nothing to see here

[SGB]

And you guys do realise there is already a filter in place right?
Got any sources for that claim?

[llamatron]

Argh labor have been a disastor over these last few years.

no nuclear power
internet filtering
carbon emissions trading
stimulus package

uuuuuuuuuuuuurgh

[fatbot]

The problem is that neither Labour nor the Coalition are parties which I can trully get behind and support. Ever since I have been able to vote, I have never wholeheartedly given my vote to either side thinking 'I support what this party stands for' its been mostly about 'Which of these is the lesser evil'.

I am sure that I am not alone when it comes to this.

If the Pirate Party doesn't stand in the next election, do what i intend to do. Vote for the Australian sex party, they're claiming the same ideals as the Pirates, such as free speech + plus a fairer classification system for porn, so it's win - win

[MV75]

Got any sources for that claim?

I'm sure you internet savvy anti-filter guys should be able to figure this one out for yourselves. I mean it's something you're proud to say you are all on top of and in the loop of right? :p

Anyway, start here:

http://libertus.net/censor/netcensor.html

[SGB]

I still don't know if you're serious about your claim or not. But, there is no filter in place. We do have internet censorship laws in place, but there's no actual technical enforcement of them (no filter will be able to enforce them anyway, the net is too vast and changes too quick for govts to keep up).

Thanks for that link though, however I've been aware of that site for a couple of years. :p

[SofaMan]

I still don't know if you're serious about your claim or not. But, there is no filter in place. We do have internet censorship laws in place, but there's no actual technical enforcement of them (no filter will be able to enforce them anyway, the net is too vast and changes too quick for govts to keep up).

Thanks for that link though, however I've been aware of that site for a couple of years. :p

Snap. Even when it is applied, it's seemingly only applied to Australian-hosted sites. The difference is that when applied, it's done at the hosting end, not the viewing end. Which of course just drives the hosts offshore.

Never forget the rubbish foisted on us by religious fruitstorms like Brian Harradine.

[SGB]

Here's something to think about ...

The censorship report says the average overblocking rate was 3.4%, which the government seems happy with. However, there's more than 1 trillion webpages in existence.

That means if a filter is implemented, more than 34 billion pages will be wrongly blocked.

[Scrapper]

I find it comical that you have chosen to start and engage on a conversation purely on the effects of the internet. Yet none of you have actually looked upon or brought up what krudd is actually doing towards the gaming on that certain games will be banned and also what the plans that they are doing towards WOW itself as well.

If any one remembers a show called "Glasshouse" you would recall they too were banned because the Government in the Howard reign would remember that they banned the show due to the fact that they were pointing out the stupidity of the government. The Government felt that the Australian citizens shouldn't watch anything which would make them feel and think any less of their Government, which was incorrect since the general Australian citizen disliked their pm any way.

All in all this is not the first time the Australian Government has done this to the citizens of Australia. It will not just affect the internet but it will affect the gaming industry, the media industry with what information can be placed on television, radio, advertisements and movies. It will also affect people who use PC's for research who make a living off of it and also affect other jobs like Librarians since information is not available to them. As they say knowledge is power and with these new laws soon to be passed that's saying if they do, the Australian Government does not want the citizens to have power.

But hey it's not surprising that Krudd has gone the way of China. China owns how many ex-Australian business's we have what percentage of immigrants coming from China as well also the political ties between Krudd and China of recent. It seems to me that more then anything that Krudd is trying to accommodate the Chinese immigrants and make them feel more at home. It's not a bad thing but we must remember every one that we are a nation of mass migration which means we have as much political sight as the U.N.. Which this law is walking a very thin line against freedom of information that any one has the right to access any information.

But all in all this also may see a mass shopping frenzy upon the Australian "Black Market" with gamers trying to access any way possible for them to get a hold of games and play games which are seen to be illegal in Australia. This new law would mean as well that sites which are blocked people would pay so that they can have access to them, though why a dentist in QLD was placed on that list confuses the best of us.

This "new law" if it ever does get passed will more then likely be passed around a few times and get amended so that it can be changed to allow certain information and material seen by the citizens of Australia. But look at Krudds law he tried to get passed of green house gases but sadly that failed and now he is trying to get it done again and again. So I don't think we have to fear this law being passed for quite some time.

[SGB]

National net censorship protests: January 30 2010 (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/national-net-censorship-protests-january-30-2010/)

[SGB]

http://www.thegiftofcensorship.com/


Forget Santa. It’s time to write to Senator Conroy and tell him what you really want for Christmas.

Not only will we deliver all of your messages to Canberra in a big red sack (no promise we’ll use reindeer), we’ll make sure there’s coal in his Christmas stocking as well.

That’s right, for every 1000 letters sent, we’ll also send a Christmas stocking with coal to the naughty Senator.

Get crackin'!

Don't forget to write to your local MP too.

[Dkaris]

Was just on news.com.au, http://www.news.com.au/technology/government-websites-hacked-by-anonymous-over-censorship/story-e6frfro0-1225828788264

COMPUTER hackers disabled several Australian government websites today in coordinated attacks protesting against a planned internet filter aimed at pornography.

at least someones doing something about this.

[SGB]

at least someones doing something about this.
Attacking Govt websites is foolish though as it damages anti-filtering/anti-censorship campaigning.

[kup]

Was just on news.com.au, http://www.news.com.au/technology/government-websites-hacked-by-anonymous-over-censorship/story-e6frfro0-1225828788264

COMPUTER hackers disabled several Australian government websites today in coordinated attacks protesting against a planned internet filter aimed at pornography.

at least someones doing something about this.

Trying to censor porn is like censoring 95% of the whole internet - They may as well ban it altogether :p

What worries me about this filter is that censoring porn (legal or illegal) is just the excuse - That's why they don't concern themselves with the widely reported inefficiency when it comes to preventing child pornography. The real purpose of the filter is to control information so that the Government can dictate what you know and what you don't.

Just as the leaked filter list showed some 'politically inconvenient' websites rather than illegal listed among the banned content, I am sure that over time more and more of these 'inconvenient' sites will be added on and soon you would end up with a China style Nation wide firewall.

Control of information is basically control of votes. The problem is that the Liberals are probably loving the idea too and can't wait to inherit it so there is no way of preventing this from happening or relying on the next Government to abolish it.

[1AZRAEL1]

Will it actually do anything? I doubt it, but we can only hope. Can't stop people from viewing pornography on the net. I say it's a conspiracy between the Government and the Porn industry to stop us viewing on the net so that we go and buy their dvds :p

[1AZRAEL1]

Just as the leaked filter list showed some 'politically inconvenient' websites rather than illegal listed among the banned content, I am sure that over time more and more of these 'inconvenient' sites will be added on and soon you would end up with a China style Nation wide firewall.

Control of information is basically control of votes. The problem is that the Liberals are probably loving the idea too and can't wait to inherit it so there is no way of preventing this from happening or relying on the next Government to abolish it.

Exactly my point. Where will they stop when it comes to banning sites? They could always blacklist a site that bad mouths the current government, or makes a joke out of them (though they do a good job of that themselves), and we would be none the wiser. I have been saying it ever since they annoucned the plan for this ages ago, it will become more like China with it's censorship.

[OrionPax]

The government totally has an ulterior motive and doesn't do a very good job of hiding it :mad:. They claim that this will make the internet safer for children but its total bulls$%#. Only the extreme material is blocked; they cannot do so with 'legal' porn i.e. made with consenting adults. If anything, this filter will do more harm than good as families are fooled into a false sense of security.

Apparently its also very easy to circumvent the filter lol. Just google "australian internet filter bypass"

[Lint]

Attacking Govt websites is foolish though as it damages anti-filtering/anti-censorship campaigning.

Though I'll never be able to prove it, it is of my opinion that these were orchestrated.

[SGB]

Apparently its also very easy to circumvent the filter lol. Just google "australian internet filter bypass"
It's dead easy.

One such easy example: add a question mark at the end of a banned URL and hey presto, the site's accessible.


I'm hearing a rumor that thanks to today's attacks, the censorship legislation is being fast-tracked and could be tabled next week.

EDIT: If the censorship legislation is passed, I don't see myself doing anymore online transactions due to censorship systems being security vulnerabilities.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

I think it will be a sad day when/if they pass this legislation, just goes to show how crappy australia is becoming really.

Parents need to put in the effort to monitor their kids activites, not just leave it to someone else. How many years have I been using the net now and I haven't come across any kiddy porn...

They are appealing to conservative morons and tkaing the easy way out. Typical

I will be interested to see if someone comes across something banned if they will be able to sue the govt for providing a faulty product?:D

[1AZRAEL1]

Parents need to put in the effort to monitor their kids activites, not just leave it to someone else.

Spot on there. It should be up to the parent to monitor it. There are simple things out there like net nanny and such that will block porn sites from kids. All they are doing, is imposing their own religious views upon everyone else IMO.

If they do fast track this, alot of people are going to be really pissed off. I know I will be. I do alot of my bills, banking and such, on the internet. SGB, if what you say is true, I won't want to use the net for anything to do with my money anymore either. Now I don't want to start a political debate or anything (but I know alot of you will probably agree with me on this) but I really think that the Government is screwing the country up by enforcing this.

[SGB]

Looks like the rumor I mentioned was false. The Senate isn't even sitting next week.

[Dkaris]

Sure, the members of /b/ sitting there ddossing government sites and servers isnt good, but at least they DID something. All these anti censorship groups havent really done much of anything to oppose this ban and hey at the end of the day, if the filters going to be put in place then ddossing a few servers isnt that big a deal, unless your the government, then it kind of is, because your site sjust got taken offline by a group of early to mid twenty year olds. Someone deserves the sack over that one.

I duno about you guys, but im stocking up my porn collection, only a matter of time before its ALL banned.

[SGB]

Sure, the members of /b/ sitting there ddossing government sites and servers isnt good, but at least they DID something.
Problem is, DDoSing is illegal, and the incident(s) puts the anti-censorship campaign in a bad light.

It also makes it harder for the Liberals to oppose the censorship policy as well.

[Dkaris]

Problem is, DDoSing is illegal, and the incident(s) puts the anti-censorship campaign in a bad light.

It also makes it harder for the Liberals to oppose the censorship policy as well.

As i stated in my last post, DDoSing isnt good. i never said it was good or the right thing to do. However without turning this into an all out political thread, i think it needs to be said that the liberal party most likely wouldnt oppose this policy, infact, i think theyd give their backing (but of course they couldnt make it seem that way, that defeats the purpose of politics.) I believe the liberals would be even more right wing if this policy was something they were implementing. As for being against the whole filter, its not like the Australian people have had a choice we were basically told "this is being bought in to prevent child porn, its non negotiable and itll be bought in in 2010."

[Burn]

I know we're quick to blame Rudd for this, but Howard was already looking into internet censoring before he lost government. Rudd just picked up the ball and ran with it.

So yes, Labour or Liberal would be irrelevant, both parties want to push this through for the betterment of the children.

To back up what SGB said, those attacks did the anti-censorship groups no favours. While they may not have been responsibile for them, they want what the attackers want and that's no censorship. The government's not going to give a toss that they're two seperate groups, they're just going to look at them both in the same light, that they're cyber-terrorists attacking a government policy.

[Dkaris]

If this kind of policy was to be bought into a country like France, they'd be rioting about this. Why is our country so quick to just roll over and take this kind of thing from the government? The more I think about how this countries changed in the past 15 years the more I want to move the the united states or Europe.

[SGB]

If this kind of policy was to be bought into a country like France, they'd be rioting about this.
Funny you say that as the French Govt are planning on bringing in such a policy. The French Govt will be holding a vote on it next week.

[kup]

Funny you say that as the French Govt are planning on bringing in such a policy. The French Govt will be holding a vote on it next week.

I think apathy is a global problem not just Australia's.

[Burn]

I wouldn't call it apathy, I put it down to lack of media attention over it.

Not like Stephen Conroy's paying them off or anything. (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26718780-3122,00.html)

[kup]

I wouldn't call it apathy, I put it down to lack of media attention over it.

Not like Stephen Conroy's paying them off or anything. (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26718780-3122,00.html)

Democratic capitalism in action - How depressing.

[SGB]

I hope everyone here has signed EFA's petition (http://www.efa.org.au/petition/) against the filter.

This petition will be presented to the Senate as the petition conforms to Senate rules and regulations.

[roller]

i refuse to sign

[SGB]

i refuse to sign
Any reason why?

[roller]

yep

[SGB]

yep
And the reason is?

[kup]

And the reason is?

I think that I know the reason.

However they don't deserve any support after the way this Labor Government has behaved. The reason we elected them was to move away from the crap we saw with the Liberals but it seems that the then 'alternative' government was just another flavor of extreme right.

Just like the Howard Government, the ALP gave us a lot promises for reform and forward moving policies but just like their predecessors, as soon as they were elected, they forgot about all of that. They instead engaged in baseless popular symbolism which changes nothing and engaged in neocon policies which they never mentioned before the election but are now top priorities for them just how Howard sneaked in the GST after the election but never mentioned it before hand.

We have two extreme right parties in a two party system. There is something seriously wrong there.

[Dkaris]

although this board isnt meant for political discussion, I feel so cheated by this government, especially for supporting them and being naive enough to think they could make a change to how things are, for the younger generation. Ive since lost most of my faith in the two big political groups and dont believe i'll vote for either of them again.

[roller]

And the reason is?

Im just thinking of the children :p

No, i won't state my opinion for fear of making a political remark, which in turn would make it appear as though i was trying to talk about politics. Political discussion has no place on this forum.

But i did vote for Beast Machines Megatron

[llamatron]

I think that I know the reason.

However they don't deserve any support after the way this Labor Government has behaved. The reason we elected them was to move away from the crap we saw with the Liberals but it seems that the then 'alternative' government was just another flavor of extreme right.

Just like the Howard Government, the ALP gave us a lot promises for reform and forward moving policies but just like their predecessors, as soon as they were elected, they forgot about all of that. They instead engaged in baseless popular symbolism which changes nothing and engaged in neocon policies which they never mentioned before the election but are now top priorities for them just how Howard sneaked in the GST after the election but never mentioned it before hand.

We have two extreme right parties in a two party system. There is something seriously wrong there.


although this board isnt meant for political discussion, I feel so cheated by this government, especially for supporting them and being naive enough to think they could make a change to how things are, for the younger generation. Ive since lost most of my faith in the two big political groups and dont believe i'll vote for either of them again.

Yeeeep, this right here.

[SGB]

Conroy's idiocy really knows no bounds -- he's just been caught censoring his ministerial website.

Conroy's website removes references to filter (http://www.news.com.au/technology/conroys-website-removes-references-to-filter/story-e6frfro0-1225834474153)

Conroy censors own site? (http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/gen-why/soa/Conroy-censors-own-site-/0,2001149271,339301360,00.htm)

[Lint]

We have two extreme right parties in a two party system. There is something seriously wrong there.

We consistently support a bunch of career politicians to tell us what to do. Of course theres something wrong here.

[SGB]

To anyone who's collecting signatures for EFA's physical petition, they need the signatures sent to them by March 10.

Petition Update (http://openinternet.com.au/2010/03/02/petition-update/)

[kup]

The Pirate Party is holding a meeting and attending an Anti-Censorship protest at Parra this Saturday:


Hi all,

Sorry for the extremely late notice, but the Sydney meeting has been shifted forward to 11:00 AM on Saturday March 6. For those expecting travel a distance for the meeting, I apologise in advance.

The agenda remains the same, anyone can add to it as they please.

http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/index.php?title=Sydney_Meeting_20100306

Some people have expressed an interest in attending both the Pirate Party meeting, and the anti-censorship action in Parramatta later that day and this is the main reason for the shift in time.

Hope to see you all there.

Rodney Serkowski
Party Secretary
Pirate Party Australia

I am thinking of attending like last time. Anyone else want to join?

[SGB]

Labor to vote on ISP filter this fortnight (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/339092/labor_vote_isp_filter_fortnight)

Net filters could put ISPs $1M out of pocket (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/339063/net_filters_could_put_isps_1m_pocket/)

Q&A with Kate Lundy (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/339085/q_senator_kate_lundy/)

[SGB]

According to this article (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/australia-on-internet-watchlist-with-iran-north-korea-20100312-q23p.html), it appears the net censorship legislation could be tabled by the end of next week.

[SGB]

The net censorship legislation won't be tabled this week.

Internet filter draft legislation delayed (http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/regulation/37640-internet-filter-draft-legislation-delayed)

[SGB]

Labor divided on internet filtering plan (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/labor-divided-on-internet-filtering-plan/story-e6frgakx-1225843981660)

[1AZRAEL1]

Conroy's internet censorship agenda slammed by tech giants (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroys-internet-censorship-agenda-slammed-by-tech-giants-20100323-qt83.html)

[SGB]

Government goes to war with Google over net censorship (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-goes-to-war-with-google-over-net-censorship-20100330-r9bp.html)

There's also a poll featured with the article. More than 23,000 respondents so far, with 95% opposing net censorship.

[1AZRAEL1]

Funny, I am part of that 95% :D

Well 96% now, and 43500 votes.

[1AZRAEL1]

This is just stupid.

I won't post a link to it, but SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/) has an article that would be quite offensive to alot of people about a certain game you can get on the internet. One of the people in the article seems to think that the internet filter will block sites with such material. A good comment I saw is like trying to block the ocean with a fence.

[1AZRAEL1]

Senator Conroy says the Internet is not 'special' (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internets-not-special-says-communications-minister-20100401-rg7h.html?autostart=1)

[SGB]

Senator Conroy says the Internet is not 'special' (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internets-not-special-says-communications-minister-20100401-rg7h.html?autostart=1)
He's doing a pretty good job at demonstrating how unqualified he is for his job.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

This is just stupid.

I won't post a link to it, but SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/) has an article that would be quite offensive to alot of people about a certain game you can get on the internet. One of the people in the article seems to think that the internet filter will block sites with such material. A good comment I saw is like trying to block the ocean with a fence.
Thats pretty lazy reporting there SMH, its an exact copy of a report on CNN, which reported on more than just the Japanese govt's talk of this. And I still cant believe that people are going on about that game...Its very old now. No-one would care anymore surely. Added to that its probably only available via p2p which wouldnt be blocked by the filter. I never knew about it until I found it in some news article somewhere raving about "evil" games.

Senator Conroy says the Internet is not 'special' (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internets-not-special-says-communications-minister-20100401-rg7h.html?autostart=1)
Senator Conroy 's mum says the he is 'special'

[SGB]

Elderly learn to beat euthanasia blacklist (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/elderly-learn-to-beat-euthanasia-blacklist-20100405-rn6i.html)

Abbott torn on internet filter plan (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/171354,abbott-torn-on-internet-filter-plan.aspx)

No proof ISP filtering works: Abbott (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/no-proof-isp-filtering-works-abbott/story-e6frgakx-1225850260443)

The rising cost of Rudd's high-speed broadband (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-rising-cost-of-rudds-high-speed-broadband/story-e6frg6zo-1225850073276)

[1AZRAEL1]

So when is this garbage supposed to be put through the legal processes for it to come into effect? All this who-ha about it, and I don't think I spotted a date anywhere.

[SGB]

So when is this garbage supposed to be put through the legal processes for it to come into effect? All this who-ha about it, and I don't think I spotted a date anywhere.
No idea. Legislation hasn't even been tabled yet.

[1AZRAEL1]

Ah. My guess is then, it will be part of an election campaign, I think we have some coming up soon. Albeit, a bad election topic, with most people I imagine are against it. Would be a bad move on any party.

[Burn]

I seriously doubt it'll be part of an election agenda considering how much little media attention it's garnered as it is.

The legislation was pushed back because it simply wasn't ready, it "needed more work".

Conroy's way of saying he needs more time to pull the wool over everyone's face and/or suck up to some more groups to get them on his side.

[SGB]

The legislation was pushed back because it simply wasn't ready, it "needed more work".

Conroy's way of saying he needs more time to pull the wool over everyone's face and/or suck up to some more groups to get them on his side.
The (laughable) "blacklist transparency and accountability" process is the official reason why legislation has been delayed.

However, I've heard that the policy is unpopular within Labor ranks, and I suspect this is the actual reason for the delay.

[SGB]

Australia should drop filter plan: US (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/australia-should-drop-filter-plan-us/story-e6frgakx-1225853103529)

You can watch the Q&A segment regarding the filter here (http://openinternet.com.au/2010/04/13/filtering-on-q-a).

[SGB]

ISP filtering bill delayed indefinitely (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/343939/isp_filtering_bill_delayed_indefinitely/)

[5FDP]

Dr. Nick Economou


“I feel it’s very unlikely that any attempt to try and divert Prime Minister Rudd and Senator Conroy would succeed. Firstly, it would be a terrible embarrassment for two very powerful members of the Government and secondly, Rudd and Conroy will feel they have the vast weight of public opinion on their side."

"they have the vast weight of public opinion on their side"... according to which poll?

[1AZRAEL1]

"they have the vast weight of public opinion on their side"... according to which poll?

The "poll" up their a** :p

I agree, they are not following public opinion, but their own interests. So much for representing the people.

[5FDP]

The "poll" up their a** :p


Boom boom tish!

[Hursticon]

I know that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is the leader and that "The buck stops with him" but does anyone have any links to proper quotes where he has actually given his approval or at least backing to Dictator Conroy's abortion of a policy of Internet filtering?.

I'm a person who, for some reason? :p, enjoys watching question time and I've not seen/heard of him saying he is for the policy but then I've not seen/heard him say that he is against it either.

I try to keep on top of these sorts of things as 1. I'm entering the I.T. Networking industry (Trying...) and 2. Conroy is probably the only member of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's cabinet that I would like to see Fired... Out of a cannon, into the Sun. :D

[SGB]

I know that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is the leader and that "The buck stops with him" but does anyone have any links to proper quotes where he has actually given his approval or at least backing to Dictator Conroy's abortion of a policy of Internet filtering?
The filter policy isn't Conroy's policy, it's Rudd's. Conroy's just the poor whipping boy who has been tasked with the policy because it falls under his portfolio.

As for your question, closest I've seen is a couple of months back when Rudd said on Sunrise he made no apologies for the filter. That's it.


I'm a person who, for some reason? :p, enjoys watching question time and I've not seen/heard of him saying he is for the policy but then I've not seen/heard him say that he is against it either.
Rudd's not spoken about the filter during QT so far. As I said earlier, the filter is Rudd's policy so he's all for it.

[Hursticon]

I know that politics is a Hotly debated subject and arguments can break out before people realise so with that being said SGB, please don't think I'm trying to start one when I say this:

If Prime Minister Kevin Rudd hasn't mentioned it during question time, hasn't stated that he himself has come up with a policy to ("directly" <- lol) combat Child Pornography and has only mentioned that he has no apologies for the policy in one media based situation, how do you know that it is indeed the PM's policy?

Do you have any sources that state this? I'm just curious because I'd like to read/hear it as I personally have no problem with the Policy so long as it is constructed and implemented properly and only performs what it was originally intended to do.

I would not be surprised if it was the Prime Minister's policy, at least it may of been in the beginning but as it is Senator Conroy's portfolio, I can guarantee you that since it has fallen into to Senator Conroy's hands the Filters scope has gone from only Child Pornography to whatever the Government, or at least Senator Conroy's departments, deems as "dangerous material" which is why we are seeing such appalling amounts of legitimate sites being blocked and disgusting impacts on data transfer speeds.

I agree that the preliminary tests of the filter have been far less than welcoming and that Australia's rank of 58 in a survey of the world's average connection speeds is only going to get worse if the internet filter is implemented, but if we are to hang someone for these atrocities against Freedom of Speech and an Australian Adult's right to choose what information they see and how quickly that they receive it, then I think we can all agree that we should make sure we reprimand the right person.

At the end of the day I believe a filter that prevents access to known and unknown Child Pornography websites should be implemented, so long as the filter does just that and only that but ask anybody in the I.T. field and they'll tell you, "If there is a Will there is a Way" and in I.T. there is always a way to get around even the heaviest of security measures.

[SGB]

I know that politics is a Hotly debated subject and arguments can break out before people realise so with that being said SGB, please don't think I'm trying to start one when I say this:
I'm not under the impression you're trying to start one. ;)



If Prime Minister Kevin Rudd hasn't mentioned it during question time, hasn't stated that he himself has come up with a policy to ("directly" <- lol) combat Child Pornography and has only mentioned that he has no apologies for the policy in one media based situation, how do you know that it is indeed the PM's policy?
It's definitely Rudd's policy because he calls the shots within ALP. He's known to have a "support me and my policies or you're out of the party" stance. If he didn't want the filter it wouldn't be on the table.

The only reason he's not spoken about the filter (apart from on Sunrise) is because it's an unpopular policy and Rudd steers clear of unpopular policies and lets relevant ministers take the crap and backlash over them.



I personally have no problem with the Policy so long as it is constructed and implemented properly and only performs what it was originally intended to do.
You should be concerned about it because it won't achieve the Govt's claimed aims at all, and legal content WILL be blocked under the policy. It'll take me way too long to fully outline/explain all the details about it, but I suggest you have a read through of EFA's Filtering Overview fact sheet (http://openinternet.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/EFA-Filtering-Fact-Sheets1.pdf) or the very informative Libertus.net (http://libertus.net) for more information about the Govt's plan and the ridiculous classification laws in this country that will allow the Govt to block legal content if the filter is implemented.

Simply put: the policy won't achieve any of the Govt's aims, and just creates a censorship infrastucture that WILL be abused (which is the primary reason why I'm opposed to the filter).

[Hursticon]

I'm fully aware that the current filter will not achieve what it was originally desired to do, but it's not like it cannot be done.

I support a Child Pornography Filter that works, the one that has currently been proposed does not fall into this category as it does not work as desired.

What I am saying is that I support the policy but the way it is being implemented is what I don't support.

Look at the Filter as a Computer File, the current file that is being proposed is riddled with bugs and full of exploits (i.e. Windows Vista) and those who wrote the current code for the file have failed to stick to the original scope which has compromised the quality, effectiveness and functionality of the file.

What needs to be done is that the current file should be deleted and the whole code writing process should be restarted creating a new file, whilst remaining within the constraints of the original scope so as to maintain the desired quality, effectiveness and functionality.

[kup]

I am not convinced that protecting children is the real motivation for this thing. That's just the selling point.

They know that the filter is meaningless for people who search for that stuff as they are likely already adept at hiding their 'steps' or bypassing protections. However this isn't the case for the average person who just surfs the net for general info.

The scary thing about this filter is that it may invisibly block content which is not illegal but just inconvenient to the Government. What is there to stop them from blocking websites which are critical of Government policies for example. That way all you end up reading are either websites that promote the policy or explain it without a hint of criticism making you think that the Government is doing 'a good job' when they aren't. Since you don't know critical websites are being blocked, how can you read the other side of the story?

In my oppinion, the real motivation behind the filter is to control what the voters know and that way the Government is in a position to 'control' votes.

[Hursticon]

I agree Kup, the policy certainly has become some what of a control measure, hence why many websites and other media outlets are likening the filter to that of China's which I believe has absolutely no place in Modern Australia.

Unfortunately, many members of parliament - local, state and federal display a pitiful knowledge level of Modern I.T. and subsequently bare a 60's-70's attitude towards it, "We can use this magic calculator to control the minds of the population" and "Computer games are only played by children between the ages of 3 and 10". It is these neanderthals that are defining the current policy's scope and who are dragging Australian I.T. further and further backward.

Unfortunately we'll have to wait another 10-15 years before anybody who is properly educated in I.T. considers joining politics because at the moment neither the Government nor the Opposition have any clue on what they're doing with the I.T. Sector, though at least the Government is thinking when it comes to the NBN but that is a subject for a different thread. :D

[DarkHyren]

At the end of the day I believe a filter that prevents access to known and unknown Child Pornography websites should be implemented, so long as the filter does just thatThe problem with that theory is that there are not really any child pornography web sites, only just a handful at any given time.
Most any that pop up are taken down within 24 hours by the FBI/CIA/Police task force.
Despite what people may think, CP doesn't get distributed over the net through websites but through usenets/darknets, file sharing and the like.
A filter is not going to be able to do anything about that.
Guaranteed that if a secret blacklist of sites is made and a filter used to block them, it will be abused by any government.

[Hursticon]

I agree that the vast majority of Child Pornography is distributed not through websites but through P2P and the like but I disagree that a filter is unable to do anything about it because the filter would only have to be applied at the protocol level as well, though I think that this is why transmission speeds are being affected as filtering at the protocol level tends to create a bit of a bottle-neck and can create large amounts of overhead.

[SGB]

but I disagree that a filter is unable to do anything about it
Circumvention makes filters unable to do anything. The fact that filters are easily bypassable/circumventable makes the filter policy absolutely useless. Takes no more than a couple of seconds to get around them.


Unfortunately, many members of parliament - local, state and federal display a pitiful knowledge level of Modern I.T. and subsequently bare a 60's-70's attitude towards it
It's certainly a sad indictment of the lack of tech understanding among pollies. Conroy has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of IT knowledge. His self-admission that he is unable to set up a digital TV boxset was an absolute doozy. I bet Conroy's three year old daughter could easily set up the boxset.

From what I've seen, the only federal-level pollies that have demonstrated decent understanding of technology are the ALP's Kate Lundy and the Greens' Scott Ludlam (who has the Greens' Communications gig/portfolio).

Lundy's had genuine interest in technology for years now (and used to be Shadow IT Minister during the Beazley era), and Ludlam has some IT-based qualifications (one of which is graphic designer).

Ludlam's been terrific in going after Conroy; if it weren't for Ludlam, we probably wouldn't know as much about the filter plans & details as we do now.

[DarkHyren]

because the filter would only have to be applied at the protocol level as well, though I think that this is why transmission speeds are being affected as filtering at the protocol level tends to create a bit of a bottle-neck and can create large amounts of overhead.A bottleneck is certainly one issue. I saw the tests about applying a protocol filter, but they are flawed for a few reasons.
One thing is that a filter can't check inside achives with passwords, so there's an instant filter cercumvention method right there.
Or even using an encrypted protocol would do the job.
And unfortunately both of these things (and more) are methods that those sick people both know of and use, I'm quite sure :(

[SGB]

Rudd retreats on web filter legislation (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/rudd-retreats-on-passing-web-filter-legislation/story-e6frgakx-1225859630452)

Despite the headline, the policy ain't dead yet.

I have no doubts that if Rudd wins the next election and gets House of Reps and Senate majority he'll ram the legislation through.

[Hursticon]

Whilst I hope that Labor do get the majority in both the Upper and Lower houses, I hope he doesn't bother with the filter as I think at the moment there is a lot of other major things that need to go through, like the ETS for one thing and hopefully the NBN and Hospital Reforms.

[kup]

Too bad that the choice is 'only one or the other'. Both the Liberal and Labour parties are two flavors of rotten.

[SGB]

Whilst I hope that Labor do get the majority in both the Upper and Lower houses
Trust me, you DON'T want Govts of the day to have majority in both houses. It gives them too much power and would allow them to pass ANY legislation virtually unopposed (and without proper scrutiny), no matter how unpopular they (the legislations) are.

This is how John Howard enacted Workchoices despite it being hugely unpopular.

[Hursticon]

I agree SGB that it could be too much power but then Labor isn't made up of out of touch dinosaurs like the Liberals, Kup is right though as it would be nice to have a 3rd option, Greens maybe?

[SGB]

but then Labor isn't made up of out of touch dinosaurs like the Liberals
There are some dinos in Labor as well, unfortunately.

To be fair on the Libs though, there are a few who aren't dinos. Alex Hawke, Jamie Briggs and Scott Birmingham come to mind.



Kup is right though as it would be nice to have a 3rd option, Greens maybe?
Up to to you as to who you think you should vote for, but if you do vote for the Greens, make sure you vote BELOW the line otherwise your Greens vote will flow to Labor instead.

[Hursticon]

SGB: no, no, no. Sorry dude I didn't mean vote for, I meant if it were a 3 party preferred system as apposed to a 2 party system, i.e:

2 party - Labor vs. Liberal
3 party - Labor vs. Liberal vs. Green

Sorry about that, I mustn't of defined it enough.

Another ex-Liberal, non-Dinosaur was Malcolm Turnbull, at least he was forward thinking but alas fell to yet another Liberal Power Struggle.

It is a pity that Federal Party Leaders aren't publicly elected, would you guys agree?

[DarkHyren]

Personally I'd rather a bunch of dinosaur liberals then these god botherer/utopian labor people.
Say what you will, at least under liberal we don't get in debt as much as under labor (even ignoring the "economic crisis").

[1AZRAEL1]

I'll say it before and say it again. Religion and Politics should stay well apart. As well as that, lets not get into discussion on who worse than others, it will lead to a heated debate where things would get ugly.

Also, we are not really supposed to talk about such topics in depth on here :) Kind of discouraged :p

This is really just a thread to keep updated on how bad the Internet Censorship idea is :p

[SGB]

DBCDE forum reveals filter legislation not drafted (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/04/29/dbcde-forum-reveals-filter-legislation-not-drafted/)

A must-read.

[DarkHyren]

Religion and Politics should stay well apart.True, the only reason I mention religion is because it seems to be one of the main points behind why labor wants to censor the net (oh wont someone think of the children...)
At least in my viewpoint. That and pure and utter idiocy. So two sides/same coin type of thing :p
What we need is some real tech people in politics, at least then maybe we'd have the NBN before anything else that would mess the net up forever.

DBCDE forum reveals filter legislation not drafted (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/04/29/dbcde-forum-reveals-filter-legislation-not-drafted/)Probally because they don't even know where to start, they have no idea what they are doing.

[Hursticon]

Originally posted by DarkHyren:
Personally I'd rather a bunch of dinosaur liberals then these god botherer/utopian labor people.
Say what you will, at least under liberal we don't get in debt as much as under labor (even ignoring the "economic crisis").

Perhaps DarkHyren, but then we have years of inaction and things going unfunded, even to the point of having funds taken away just so the Liberal party can say that they're saving money...

Some times money has to be spent in order to move forward and to make money, Big business and High income earners understand this but don't like it when they're taxed at a level that is proportional to that of middle to low income earners.

i.e. When a Liberal Government is in power, the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer.

Now with that all being said, I'm not completely against the Liberals and I'm not all for Labor. Former Prime Minister John Howard I believe should be congratulated for introducing, though he said he'd never, the GST and actually making it work but he then dropped the ball with Workchoices.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd I also believe should be congratulated on the National Broadband Network but shot himself in the foot with the Mandatory Internet Filter.

All I can say though is thank god we live in a Democratic Country, for all it's flaws it is great that we can all express our own opinions freely without persecution for not following mass opinions. <- lol I think that makes sense :D

[1AZRAEL1]

Seems like they are discussing it in private amongst themselves because they have their own agenda, and know that the majority of the public is against it. If this idiocy continues and it does get enforced, I really do not want to know how badly it will affect this country.

[SGB]

This part in the Delimiter article concerns me:


The Department noted “as a minimum”, the RC Content List — or blacklist — would contain a list of URLs with unencrypted content. But it noted it was aware that there might be some encrypted HTTPS pages — “for example, log in pages” — which could be “seen” by ISPs, and that it was interested in comments on the practicality of including such pages on the blacklist if they had RC content.

If any HTTPS pages are added to a national filter, then it has the potential to kill online commerce in Australia. No more eBaying, no more Amazon-ing, no more paying bills online, etc.

[1AZRAEL1]

I'm not smart, so what does that mean?

[Hursticon]

It basically means that using the internet for anything other than research, in some cases even that will be affected, will be essentially impossible perform.

[SGB]

I'm not smart, so what does that mean?
If any HTTPS pages are filtered, then it will potentially break security and encryption used on legitimate HTTPS pages/sites, which will make your financial transactions & credit card details visible to ISPs and anyone "eavesdropping" on network traffic each time you conduct a transaction. Major security issue!

Banks and financial institutions would go ape s*it over this.

Just highlights the Government's total idiocy.


PM and Conroy clam up on filter 'delays' (http://www.zdnet.com.au/pm-and-conroy-clam-up-on-filter-delays-339302771.htm)

Conroy denies filter circumvention offence planned (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/04/29/conroy-denies-filter-circumvention-offence-planned/)

Secret forum typical of Conroy: Ludlam (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/04/29/secret-forum-typical-of-conroy-ludlam/)

[DarkHyren]

The Government has acknowledged that a technically competent user could circumvent filtering. As the Minister has previously said it will not be an offence to circumvent filtering. The Government will not be creating any specific offences in relation to circumvention.Yeah, right, sure. Let's just see how long till they make circumvention a crime if they put this filter in.
I mean they won't be able to make it a crime for buisnesses because many use a VPN in their day to day work, and we all know VPNs can be used as a circumvention method.
No, I forsee that one will have to have a current active ABN/ACN to be allowed use of "circumvention".

The Minister has said publicly that URLs of high traffic sites will not be included on the RC content list if they agree to a process of either removing RC rated content or blocking it from Australian users when identified through the public complaints process.I really don't think sites will bother removing what one government tells them to, nor do I see them blocking only certain pages.

[SGB]

I really don't think sites will bother removing what one government tells them to, nor do I see them blocking only certain pages.
Yeah, if the sites are overseas they'll likely tell the Australian Govt to get lost as the Govt have no jurisdiction outside the country.

[SGB]

Internet filtering scope too broad, says Google (http://www.news.com.au/technology/internet-filtering-scope-is-too-broad-says-google/story-e6frfro0-1225860541640)

Web filter going ahead despite ’shelved’ reports (http://www.news.com.au/technology/stephen-conroy-pushes-ahead-with-internet-filter-despite-claims-it-has-been-shelved/story-e6frfro0-1225860641394)

Pirate Party: Circumvention promotion offence like Iran, China (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/04/30/pirate-party-circumvention-promotion-offence-like-iran-china/)

Reports of the filter’s death are premature (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/04/30/reports-of-the-filters-death-are-premature/)

Net filter legislation status uncertain (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/344972/net_filter_legislation_status_uncertain/)

Senator Sue Boyce: “Internet Filter Proposal Descending Into Farce” (http://openinternet.com.au/2010/04/30/senator-sue-boyce-internet-filter-proposal-descending-into-farce/)

[SGB]

More public consultation on internet filter (http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/the-big-house/38707-more-public-consultation-on-internet-filter)

[SGB]

Senate answers shed some more light on filter (http://www.efa.org.au/2010/05/03/senate-answers-shed-some-more-light-on-filter/)

[1AZRAEL1]

Yet another reason for me to dislike Telstra.


During consultations on the implementation of ISP-level filtering in Australia, a number of ISPs, including Telstra, have indicated their belief that filtering should be implemented on a mandatory basis through the implementation of legislation.

Telstra, in my books, has just been knocked down another notch BAM!!!

[SGB]

I wouldn't take Conroy's word for it that Telstra supports mandatory filtering.

Conroy's a known liar, and Telstra have implied in the past they don't support the idea at all.

[1AZRAEL1]

Good point. Still, Telstra doesn't have a high standing in my book.

That said, this net censorship crap keeps getting pusjhed back, makes me wonder if they are still trying to figure out a way to get it to work, and makes me doubt even more that it will.

[kup]

Good point. Still, Telstra doesn't have a high standing in my book.

That said, this net censorship crap keeps getting pusjhed back, makes me wonder if they are still trying to figure out a way to get it to work, and makes me doubt even more that it will.

We won't know if its truly over until after the next election.

[1AZRAEL1]

We won't know if its truly over until after the next election.

Oh I know it won't be over, I just doubt that this thing will actually work in the end, not that I ever thought it would anyhow. They want to put it in, and they will.

[SGB]

They want to put it in, and they will.
Only if the on-the-fence Libs support it.

Which is why if you're against it you, and anyone else opposed to the policy, should contact the Libs and express your dissatisfaction with the idea and state you won't vote for them if they support the policy.

[SGB]

Sen. Conroy agrees circumvention makes filter pointless (http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/whiskey-tango-foxtrot/38774-sen-conroy-agrees-circumvention-makes-filter-pointless)

[1AZRAEL1]

And how much studying and money did it cost him to figure that one out? :rolleyes:

[SGB]

And how much studying and money did it cost him to figure that one out? :rolleyes:
Close to $1 mil so far.

No, I'm not kidding.

[1AZRAEL1]

Close to $1 mil so far.

No, I'm not kidding.

See, he coulda paid me that and I would have given him the same conclusion :p

[DarkHyren]

Sen. Conroy agrees circumvention makes filter pointless (http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/whiskey-tango-foxtrot/38774-sen-conroy-agrees-circumvention-makes-filter-pointless)Well, I said it a few pages back, now it's looking more certain:
Let's just see how long till they make circumvention a crime if they put this filter in.
I mean they won't be able to make it a crime for buisnesses because many use a VPN in their day to day work, and we all know VPNs can be used as a circumvention method.
No, I forsee that one will have to have a current active ABN/ACN to be allowed use of "circumvention".
Cause I just know that Conroy will keep plodding away with this rather then give up.

[SGB]

Conroy's only plodding away on Rudd's orders.

Any anger over the policy should be directed at Rudd. It needs to stick on him.

[DarkHyren]

Any anger over the policy should be directed at Rudd. It needs to stick on him.That's what I think too, but I can't tell anyone that cause Mr wonderful has kept himself clean making everyone else do his dirty work, that people don't believe he's the (retarded) evil mastermind -_-
Oh what a tangled web those politicians weave.
Still funny it took them what, 4 months, to answer Ludlams questions.

[Hursticon]

Conroy's only plodding away on Rudd's orders.

Any anger over the policy should be directed at Rudd. It needs to stick on him.


That's what I think too, but I can't tell anyone that cause Mr wonderful has kept himself clean making everyone else do his dirty work, that people don't believe he's the (retarded) evil mastermind -_-
Oh what a tangled web those politicians weave.
Still funny it took them what, 4 months, to answer Ludlams questions.

Indeed, Politicians do weave intriguing webs, just look at the former Liberal Government with "Children Overboard" and the "AWB Scandal", It is annoying when they close ranks isn't it?

[SGB]

That's what I think too, but I can't tell anyone that cause Mr wonderful has kept himself clean making everyone else do his dirty work, that people don't believe he's the (retarded) evil mastermind -_-
Point out that Rudd's in charge of the ALP and that policies don't get the go ahead unless he agrees to them.


Still funny it took them what, 4 months, to answer Ludlams questions.
It's pretty typical of Conroy. It's not the first time he or any other ALPers have delivered answers late.

[Hursticon]

Monday 10/05/10 8:30pm - 4 Corners is Investigating the proposed Internet Filter with the premise that 89% of Australian's feel that the Responsibility lies with the Parents in order to protect their children on the Internet, NOT the Government.

Should be interesting to watch, I hope SGB and DarkHyren that you guys will watch it too because this is clearly a subject we are passionate about, unfortunately it looks like they'll only have Conroy on the show :mad:, as I would personally like to visually see Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's opinion and standpoint on the subject.

[DarkHyren]

Should be interesting to watch, I hope SGB and DarkHyren that you guys will watch it too because this is clearly a subject we are passionate about, unfortunately it looks like they'll only have Conroy on the show :mad:I don't have a TV... No, just kidding, but seriously, I don't watch TV often.
But anyway, whenever Conroy opens his mouth I feel like he's making everyone dumber...
But let me know how it goes.

[SGB]

Monday 10/05/10 8:30pm - 4 Corners is Investigating the proposed Internet Filter with the premise that 89% of Australian's feel that the Responsibility lies with the Parents in order to protect their children on the Internet, NOT the Government.
Thanks for the heads up. ;)



Should be interesting to watch, I hope SGB and DarkHyren that you guys will watch it too
I'll watch it if I remember the program is on! :p

[SGB]

And a heads-up of my own:

Following 4 Corners on Monday, Q&A will be having a somewhat Net censorship themed episode.

[1AZRAEL1]

And I'll miss it because the only channel I can get is Seven :p

[Hursticon]

And I'll miss it because the only channel I can get is Seven :p

You poor, poor Bastard, my condolences. :p

[SGB]

And I'll miss it because the only channel I can get is Seven :p
That's probably a good thing as it means you won't have to put up with the inane Tony Jones. :p

[SGB]

Internet filter could scupper NBN speeds (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/07/2893687.htm)

Internet censorship remains part of Conroy's agenda (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/internet-censorship-remains-part-of-conroys-agenda/story-e6frg6zo-1225863648749)


Colin Jacobs of Electronic Frontiers Australia has also tweeted (http://twitter.com/coljac/status/13583474636) that the censorship legislation might be tabled next month.

[SGB]

Anyone catch the Four Corners piece tonight?

It was a good, relatively neutral piece. LOL'ed at the elderly woman who thought the filter policy was "disgusting".

Really LOL'ed at the end at Mark Newton's comment about pollies being scared of the Internet.

Unsurprisingly, Conroy told porkie pies tonight, as usual. Really wish journos would start calling him out on things.

[Hursticon]

God damn it!, I knew there was something I was supposed to watch tonight. :(

I completely forgot and ended up following my normal Monday night ritual: 7:30 - Mythbusters then 8:30 - Good News Week.

I wonder if Four Corners will put up a Transcript or something? at any rate I'm sure somebody in the media will refer to the Four Corners report.

[SGB]

I wonder if Four Corners will put up a Transcript or something? at any rate I'm sure somebody in the media will refer to the Four Corners report.
A transcript is already available:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2895350.htm

You can also catch the show on iView.


I didn't watch tonight's Q&A as I elected not to watch it due to my dislike of host Tony Jones, however the program apparently was not all that favourable for the Government.

I read that towards the end of the show, the studio audience was asked to raise their hands if they opposed the filter and that an estimated 85-90% of them did so. Ouch.

Oh, and in a face-palmy moment, Labor MP Brendan O'Connor pronounced URL as 'earl'. *Cue head-banging-on-desk emoticon*

[SGB]

Sunrise will have a bit on the filter tomorrow. Looks like Conroy is the only one they're having on about the issue.

Geordie Guy from EFA was supposed to be on as well but they've dropped him with no explanation as to why. Smells fishy to me.

[1AZRAEL1]

Isn't about Internet Censorship, but damn well has to do with the privacy of anyone.

Travellers to be searched for porn (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/travellers-to-be-searched-for-porn-20100520-vh09.html?comments=66#comments)

Australian customs officers have been given new powers to search incoming travellers' laptops and mobile phones for pornography.

Are they kidding? So much for public consultation on major privacy issues. Where will this end, seriously.

[1AZRAEL1]

Sunrise will have a bit on the filter tomorrow. Looks like Conroy is the only one they're having on about the issue.

Geordie Guy from EFA was supposed to be on as well but they've dropped him with no explanation as to why. Smells fishy to me.

Did anyone watch this? Keen to find out what was said.

[SGB]

Did anyone watch this? Keen to find out what was said.
I think you can watch it here:

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/-/page/5/#fop

Click on the 'Watch video' link under the title "Big Brother online".

[SGB]

Government blocks bid for filtering report drafts (http://www.news.com.au/technology/government-blocks-bid-for-filtering-report-drafts/story-e6frfro0-1225870540484)

[SGB]

Akmal Saleh in anti-internet filtering video for kids (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/akmal-saleh-in-anti-internet-filtering-video-for-kids/story-e6frgakx-1225872044898)

[1AZRAEL1]

MINISTER for Communications Stephen Conroy has vowed to push on with his controversial internet filtering scheme, despite a barrage of criticism. (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html)

I'm gonna say it, the dudes a stooge.

[Hursticon]

MINISTER for Communications Stephen Conroy has vowed to push on with his controversial internet filtering scheme, despite a barrage of criticism. (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html)

I'm gonna say it, the dudes a stooge.

Hole in one dude. :D

[SGB]

MINISTER for Communications Stephen Conroy has vowed to push on with his controversial internet filtering scheme, despite a barrage of criticism. (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html)

I'm gonna say it, the dudes a stooge.
The author of the article appears to have not done her homework by allowing Conroy to get away with the claim that Telstra and iiNet support the policy when in fact they don't.

His claim that 85% of ISPs support the policy is completely false, too. Most of them are opposed to it.

[1AZRAEL1]

The author of the article appears to have not done her homework by allowing Conroy to get away with the claim that Telstra and iiNet support the policy when in fact they don't.

His claim that 85% of ISPs support the policy is completely false, too. Most of them are opposed to it.

Great journalism ay?

You know, I can't wait for the day that this does get put into effect, and then they realise what a dumb mistake it was in the first place, and fire that dumbass for putting his own agendas forward without even listening to what the vast majority of Australians, and even people overseas, think is a complete waste of taxpayers money.

[fatbot]

Great journalism ay?

You know, I can't wait for the day that this does get put into effect, and then they realise what a dumb mistake it was in the first place, and fire that dumbass for putting his own agendas forward without even listening to what the vast majority of Australians, and even people overseas, think is a complete waste of taxpayers money.


That's the problem, it's KRudd as well as Conroy that's pushing this. Conroy is a Puppet, KRudd is pulling his strings

[1AZRAEL1]

That's the problem, it's KRudd as well as Conroy that's pushing this. Conroy is a Puppet, KRudd is pulling his strings

I think it is about time those strings are cut. Why is it that they don't seem to want to listen to what people are saying? Is it because they are now too far gone to say, "We will cancel this idea, even though we have spent millions of dollars on something we were told would not work"

Either way, they are going to end up very embarrassed from this.

[SGB]

Conroy is definitely a puppet. That's why the filter idiocy needs to stick to Rudd. When criticising the policy, focus the criticism towards Rudd. Make the negativity and unpopularity of the idea stick on him, make him the person responsible for it all.



You know, I can't wait for the day that this does get put into effect, and then they realise what a dumb mistake it was in the first place
Problem with that is, no matter whatever negative consequences the filter causes for the Internet in Australia, and no matter how bad it is, neither the ALP or the Libs will repeal it. Neither will have the cojones to do so.

That's why it's so important that legislation not be passed, and why it's so vital everyone lobbies the Libs to oppose the idea.

As I've been saying, tell everyone you know about this dumb policy. Inform them of the negative consequences it will bring (Govt being able to block what they want at will; won't stop bad guys as ALL filters are easily bypassable; speed degradation; overblocking; filters being security vulnerabilities; increase in Internet costs, which the IIA has hinted will be significant; etc), and advise them to write to the ALP saying they oppose the idea and will vote against them because of it, as well as writing to the Libs, Greens and Independents urging them to flat out oppose the idea.

(Greens have stated they won't support the policy, as has Independent Nick Xenophon, but still send them letters anyway to help spur them on and maintain their resolve and let them know they have support for their stance)



Forgot to mention earlier, the filter was apparently slammed on Sunrise this morning. Video of it here (which I've yet to watch):

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/play/-/7315408/sunrise-all-stars-may-30/

[1AZRAEL1]

Forgot to mention earlier, the filter was apparently slammed on Sunrise this morning. Video of it here (which I've yet to watch):

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/play/-/7315408/sunrise-all-stars-may-30/

Thank you for that, they stuck it to Conroy on that saying what a waste of money. Definitely should watch it when you get the chance.

[Hursticon]

Conroy is definitely a puppet. That's why the filter idiocy needs to stick to Rudd. When criticising the policy, focus the criticism towards Rudd. Make the negativity and unpopularity of the idea stick on him, make him the person responsible for it all.

I still fail to see the substance in this argument, whilst Prime Minister Kevin Rudd maybe the Leader and hasn't canned the proposal, it is Senator Conroy's portfolio and his project so the blame lies with him and him alone.

With all the other policies of far greater importance that the Government and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd are working on, the argument that it is the Prime Minister "pulling the strings" with Senator Conroy over this policy is considerably misleading in my opinion as let us not forget that it was the Previous Liberal Governments Policy in the first place so all one can accuse the current Prime Minister of doing is stealing the policy, which is a common practice with both Labor and Coalition Governments.

With that being said, this policy needs to be Hung, Drawn and Quartered and I agree that lobbying the Federal Independents is the best way of fending off this farce.

[SGB]

I still fail to see the substance in this argument, whilst Prime Minister Kevin Rudd maybe the Leader and hasn't canned the proposal, it is Senator Conroy's portfolio and his project so the blame lies with him and him alone.
Rudd is calling the shots. He's in charge, so every policy is his responsibility. So blame lies with him too.

The fact he hasn't canned the policy and has failed to sack Conroy for his disgraceful conduct shows how complicit Rudd is in this policy.



let us not forget that it was the Previous Liberal Governments Policy in the first place
A policy the Libs wound up dropping.

[1AZRAEL1]

A policy the Libs wound up dropping.

Yet with all the little media coverage on the policy, I see even less of Libs openly opposing the policy now. They would get a buttload of voters if they voiced their opposition to it.

[Hursticon]

Rudd is calling the shots. He's in charge, so every policy is his responsibility. So blame lies with him too.

The fact he hasn't canned the policy and has failed to sack Conroy for his disgraceful conduct shows how complicit Rudd is in this policy.

A policy the Libs wound up dropping.

Indeed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is "calling the shots" and that a degree of responsibility does lie with him but to suggest that he is solely to blame or holds the majority of the blame is highly misleading.

At the end of the day the policy must receive the approval of a Majority vote from the party itself, this suggests that it is entirely possible that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may not of voted for it at all, but because there were enough votes for it, it became official party policy.

We have had plenty of recent examples of what happens to leaders who introduce policies themselves or hold differing opinions to the party majority.

I personally would like to see Senator Conroy join the unemployment line as well, he is a rogue and an idiot at best and has done very little to better this country.

Yes the policy was dropped by the former Government, but only because they saw how unpopular it was, how much money they'd have to spend on it (Something they really don't like doing) and they didn't need another nail in an already sealed coffin.


Yet with all the little media coverage on the policy, I see even less of Libs openly opposing the policy now. They would get a buttload of voters if they voiced their opposition to it.

I agree dude, I don't know why they haven't jumped on it but I'd say that, like Work Choices, it is probably something they have sitting in the play book that they intend on resurrecting themselves.

I tell you what though, I would be very scared of the day that people would vote for a particular party based solely on a singular policy, very scared indeed as there is already enough sheep that are legally required to vote. :p

[SGB]

Yet with all the little media coverage on the policy, I see even less of Libs openly opposing the policy now.
I suspect that's because they're waiting for draft legislation.

Some Libs are still speaking out against the policy, though. Sue Boyce was one of the latest, labelling the whole policy farcial in a press release a couple of weeks back. Also, Jamie Briggs and Alex Hawke make occassional anti-filter tweets on Twitter.



They would get a buttload of voters if they voiced their opposition to it.
Agreed.

[SGB]

At the end of the day the policy must receive the approval of a Majority vote from the party itself, this suggests that it is entirely possible that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may not of voted for it at all, but because there were enough votes for it, it became official party policy.
That could well be true, but I doubt that's the case. Rudd's a known control freak, and sources have indicated to me nobody in the ALP wants the filter apart from Rudd and Conroy.

[Hursticon]

That could well be true, but I doubt that's the case. Rudd's a known control freak, and sources have indicated to me nobody in the ALP wants the filter apart from Rudd and Conroy.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd being a "control freak" is very debatable, as that would allude to the Prime Minister operating in a manor of a Dictator and I'd find it hard to believe that his coworkers, and the greater ALP for that matter, would just sit on their hands and take that. Dictatorship flies against the very core beliefs of all Australians and the approach wouldn't work for either side of politics.

It's my personal opinion that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd probably doesn't care for slackers and expects all who have a hand in running the country to put a solid effort in or they are shown the door.

If the ALP didn't want the filter I would find it also very hard to believe that only 2 members would stand in the way of the rest of the party dropping it.

[SGB]

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd being a "control freak" is very debatable, as that would allude to the Prime Minister operating in a manor of a Dictator and I'd find it hard to believe that his coworkers, and the greater ALP for that matter, would just sit on their hands and take that.
He's definitely a control freak from what I've heard. ALPers are "taking that" (for now) because they risk getting disendorsed if they speak out against him (or any official ALP policy) or try to act against him.

That could soon change, though; I hear many within the ALP have gotten very sick of him and, using his poor polls as an excuse, will attempt to push him out a few months after the next election should he win it. Why do you think there's talk of Gillard being handed the reins? ;)



If the ALP didn't want the filter I would find it also very hard to believe that only 2 members would stand in the way of the rest of the party dropping it
As I said earlier, if any ALPer speaks against Rudd or his policies, they risk getting disendorsed and losing their candidacy for their seat at the next election.

Kate Lundy's the only Federal ALPer who's been brave enough to say she doesn't agree with the mandatory aspect of the filter. She's tried to get her colleagues to push for the filter to be optional, but Rudd and Conroy vetoed that, and Rudd gave her a major lashing for daring to speak against the filter.

[Hursticon]

He's definitely a control freak from what I've heard. ALPers are "taking that" (for now) because they risk getting disendorsed if they speak out against him (or any official ALP policy) or try to act against him.

That could soon change, though; I hear many within the ALP have gotten very sick of him and, using his poor polls as an excuse, will attempt to push him out a few months after the next election should he win it. Why do you think there's talk of Gillard being handed the reins? ;)

I doubt that very highly because for 1. He doesn't hold that much power and certainly not enough to dis-endorse and remove an entire party from their seats (that's just ridiculous). 2. the polls that you speak of are a sample of 1000 anonymous people which doesn't represent a National view, i.e. statistically statistics disprove statistics, and as for the talk about Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard taking the reins - the media will talk all sorts of crap, hell they did for 2 years with Former Treasurer Peter Costello and look what became of that.



Kate Lundy's the only Federal ALPer who's been brave enough to say she doesn't agree with the mandatory aspect of the filter. She's tried to get her colleagues to push for the filter to be optional, but Rudd and Conroy vetoed that, and Rudd gave her a major lashing for daring to speak against the filter.

Have you got a source for that? as I'd like to read it.
At any rate good on her for speaking out against it because a non-mandatory filter would be a far better approach.

[SGB]

I doubt that very highly because for 1. He doesn't hold that much power
He's in charge of the ALP, so he does have a degree of power despite him having no factional support. The ALP's strict disciplinary system also plays a part in many ALPers not speaking out against the leader or party policies.



the polls that you speak of are a sample of 1000 anonymous people which doesn't represent a National view, i.e. statistically statistics disprove statistics
I do agree that 1000 is not really statistically valid (which is why I tend to ignore most polls). I was just merely pointing out that ALPers could use any poor polling as an excuse to oust Rudd.



and as for the talk about Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard taking the reins - the media will talk all sorts of crap
I agree, the media do tend to talk crap. But the timing of the talk of Gillard being handed the reins is certainly interesting, especially considering she's seemingly more popular than Rudd.



Have you got a source for that? as I'd like to read it.
There's no reports to refer to as it was never publicised in the media.



At any rate good on her for speaking out against it because a non-mandatory filter would be a far better approach.
Lundy's been against mandatory filters for years. She spoke out against the idea when she was in Opposition.

Penny Sharpe is the only other ALPer to have spoken out against the filter. She's a state MP though, so I doubt anything she says against the idea will influence or resonate with any federal ALPers.

[Hursticon]

He's in charge of the ALP, so he does have a degree of power despite him having no factional support. The ALP's strict disciplinary system also plays a part in many ALPers not speaking out against the leader or party policies.

This is probable, the disciplinary system that is, but if a majority of members are against a policy, or a significant portion, you would have to agree that the odds of penalties being issued without serious consideration of the argument would lead to a party collapse. There for the threat is essentially null and void.


I do agree that 1000 is not really statistically valid (which is why I tend to ignore most polls). I was just merely pointing out that ALPers could use any poor polling as an excuse to oust Rudd.

I'd doubt this too as for the very same reason we agree on, polls mean nothing. Poor polling is what the Liberals use as an excuse, 3 Leaders in almost as many years?.


I agree, the media do tend to talk crap. But the timing of the talk of Gillard being handed the reins is certainly interesting, especially considering she's seemingly more popular than Rudd.

The timing is only relevant because a poll was put to, another 1000 people, who they would prefer, the Prime Minister or the Deputy? which was only issued when the poll of preferred Prime Minister showed that Kevin Rudd was down. The same sort of thing was done each time a new Leader of the opposition was to be instated.

I agree that Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard is popular, for many reasons apart from being a woman, but her popularity was only shown in a poll of 1000 people and as we agree, trust polls with a grain of salt. That and she has also said that she is very happy with what she is doing at the moment, this says to me that she most likely has aspirations of the "top job" but is only going to accept it a certain way.


There's no reports to refer to as it was never publicised in the media.

How do you know what happened then? You must of heard or seen it somewhere?.


Lundy's been against mandatory filters for years. She spoke out against the idea when she was in Opposition.

Penny Sharpe is the only other ALPer to have spoken out against the filter. She's a state MP though, so I doubt anything she says against the idea will influence or resonate with any federal ALPers.

I agree that State members probably hold very little influence, mind you if Former Leader of The Liberal Party Malcolm Turnbull had run for NSW Premier this might not of been the case.

It's a pity too because I probably would've voted for him because NSW State Labor at the moment is an absolute joke, though, what the Seven Television Network did to Minister David Campbell is truly despicable - Wollongong City Council ran without issue and Wollongong was a better and safer place when he was Lord Mayor, it's sad to see good people's lives destroyed like that.

[SGB]

I agree that Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard is popular, for many reasons apart from being a woman, but her popularity was only shown in a poll of 1000 people and as we agree, trust polls with a grain of salt.
Which is why I said "seemingly". ;)



That and she has also said that she is very happy with what she is doing at the moment, this says to me that she most likely has aspirations of the "top job" but is only going to accept it a certain way.
IMO her saying she's happy where she is is just to try and defuse public talk of leadership challenge.

As an aside, Gillard is one of the ALPers who's unhappy with Rudd and wants him gone.



How do you know what happened then? You must of heard or seen it somewhere?
Heard it from a reputable source.



NSW State Labor at the moment is an absolute joke
I agree. Especially with a premier who's just a puppet. She's hawt though. :p



though, what the Seven Television Network did to Minister David Campbell is truly despicable
Aside from the questionable journalistic actions, I feel a bit different about that. Given pollies love to pry into people's private lives, I think it's only fair they get a taste of their own medicine.

[Hursticon]

Which is why I said "seemingly". ;)

Fair enough. ;)


IMO her saying she's happy where she is is just to try and defuse public talk of leadership challenge.

That's a given, no sense in useless speculation.


As an aside, Gillard is one of the ALPers who's unhappy with Rudd and wants him gone.

Really? :rolleyes:, I guess you-
Heard it from a reputable source.




I agree. Especially with a premier who's just a puppet. She's hawt though. :p

lol, another thing we agree on. :p


Aside from the questionable journalistic actions, I feel a bit different about that. Given pollies love to pry into people's private lives, I think it's only fair they get a taste of their own medicine.

I agree so far as to say so long as those doing the prying are the one's who are pried upon, but I don't believe that Minister David Campbell fell into this category.

Now, bringing the focus back to the topic at hand, lol. :p
Let's forget the blame game and lets just focus on lobbying the Independents in the Senate to vote against this abysmal attempt at filtering.

This I think we can all agree upon. :D

[SGB]

Really? :rolleyes:, I guess you-
Heard rumors about it; plus it wasn't hard to come to such a conclusion when I read one online article recently that implied no-one in the ALP likes Rudd and that's he's done too much damage for anyone to like him again.

The article was on the Canberra Times website, if I recall correctly.



Now, bringing the focus back to the topic at hand, lol. :p
Let's forget the blame game and lets just focus on lobbying the Independents in the Senate to vote against this abysmal attempt at filtering.

This I think we can all agree upon. :D
I think so too. :p

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

3 things here...
1: You don't have to vote, just show up at a polling place and get your name ticked off on election day. Bonus points for showing up drunk.
2: Gillard over Rudd anyday, Rudd bores me to tears like Howard before him, but Gillard has moments of being fun to watch on TV.
3: The best bet for getting the Opposition to send this to legislative hell like it deserves (since the Greens/Independents can't do it alone) is through the Nationals. They're the more electorally endangered of the two Coalition parties, since most of their constituency is in regional areas where internet access is pretty substandard already they're more concerned with keeping the 'net as fast as is possible, and with the recent inter-party battles in Queensland (IIRC) it'd be an issue they could put some weight into to make a show of being an equal Coalition partner (which they're not, but appearance is everything in politics).

Try Barnaby Joyce (http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/Links/tabid/81/Default.aspx), as the politics junkies amongst us will know he's the Shadow Minister for Regional Development/Infrastructure, a high-up member of the Federal Coalition, and likes a good bandwagon to jump on.

[Hursticon]

3 things here...
1: You don't have to vote, just show up at a polling place and get your name ticked off on election day. Bonus points for showing up drunk.
2: Gillard over Rudd anyday, Rudd bores me to tears like Howard before him, but Gillard has moments of being fun to watch on TV.
3: The best bet for getting the Opposition to send this to legislative hell like it deserves (since the Greens/Independents can't do it alone) is through the Nationals. They're the more electorally endangered of the two Coalition parties, since most of their constituency is in regional areas where internet access is pretty substandard already they're more concerned with keeping the 'net as fast as is possible, and with the recent inter-party battles in Queensland (IIRC) it'd be an issue they could put some weight into to make a show of being an equal Coalition partner (which they're not, but appearance is everything in politics).

Try Barnaby Joyce (http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/Links/tabid/81/Default.aspx), as the politics junkies amongst us will know he's the Shadow Minister for Regional Development/Infrastructure, a high-up member of the Federal Coalition, and likes a good bandwagon to jump on.

You bring up some very valid points Odey, but man... (shows anguish), Barnaby?, lol, man that guy is as funny as hell. :p

[Golden Phoenix]

It doesn't really matter if Rudd is pulling conroy's strings or if it's his idea or not, getting it pinned to rudd gets the same result regardless.

If it is his idea and he is pulling strings then the mess will make him dump it so he can try to save face
If it isn't then he will dump it to distance himself.

If he supports it he will force him to vocalise his opinion and he will put his foot in it

[SGB]

iiNet: Conroy misrepresents our filtering stance (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/348361/iinet_conroy_misrepresents_our_filtering_stance/)

[1AZRAEL1]

And I still wonder why people trust this guy to give us a filter that works.

As I said before, the guys a stooge. He can't even get his facts right, so what makes me believe the rest of the bull**** he has told us is true? Not one iota do I trust this guy, never have and never will.

[Hursticon]

I actually did notice this story on www.news.com.au

This just further proves our point at how deplorable Senator Conroy's conduct is.

When I had read that he had stated that 85% of Australian ISPs were in support of the filter, I had to laugh as yet again another example of misused statistics had just been employed.

Anybody with half a brain when it comes to I.T. in this country would know that 85% is a load of poop, the problem is the vast majority of the populace have little understanding of I.T. and are subsequently unable to make a proper informed opinion.

I hope that iiNet's stance on this issue is followed by other misrepresented ISP's as this sort of poor performance needs to be reprimanded.

I can only imagine how long it will take before Senator Conroy's department's servers are hacked again and the actuality of this farce is plastered all over his department's site.

[SGB]

I actually did notice this story on www.news.com.au
I see it listed on the News.com.au main page, however the link for the story doesn't appear to be working.

Did find an alternative link for it though:

http://m.news.com.au/TopStories/pg/0/fi523453.htm

[Hursticon]

I see it listed on the News.com.au main page, however the link for the story doesn't appear to be working.

Did find an alternative link for it though:

http://m.news.com.au/TopStories/pg/0/fi523453.htm

Do you think that it's because so many people are viewing it or commenting on how deplorable Senator Conroy's actions are. :D

[SGB]

Do you think that it's because so many people are viewing it or commenting on how deplorable Senator Conroy's actions are. :D
Could be. :p

Updated version of the News.com.au story:

Don't claim we support filter, iiNet tells Conroy (http://www.news.com.au/technology/iinet-hit-backs-at-government-over-filter-claim/story-e6frfro0-1225873560741)

[1AZRAEL1]

Could be. :p

Updated version of the News.com.au story:

Don't claim we support filter, iiNet tells Conroy (http://www.news.com.au/technology/dont-claim-we-support-filter-iinet-tells-conroy/story-e6frfro0-1225873572897)

Whoops, I get an error saying the page isn't there.

Kinda funny that this was released at midday, and SMH nor other sites I look at have the article at present. Almost like they don't want to post it :p

[SGB]

Whoops, I get an error saying the page isn't there.
The URL changed. I've edited the post with the new URL in place of the old one.


iiNet have also issued a press release:

iiNet does not support Conroy's Internet Filter (http://www.iinet.net.au/press/releases/20100531-iinet-does-not-support-filter.pdf)

[1AZRAEL1]

Wonder what the old Con will say about this press release, probably more lies :p

[Hursticon]

Wonder what the old Con will say about this press release, probably more lies :p

That iiNET are running a scare campaign or are misinformed. :p

[1AZRAEL1]

Kinda funny that this was released at midday, and SMH nor other sites I look at have the article at present. Almost like they don't want to post it :p

Big suprise that that SMH still a day later have nothing about iinets press release. Seems to me that they are in on the scare mongering. So much for unbiased news.

[1AZRAEL1]

That iiNET are running a scare campaign or are misinformed. :p

Probably something along those lines lol.

[SGB]

Internet filter offers fresh target for hackers (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/internet-filter-offers-fresh-target-for-hackers-20100531-wr8u.html)


Right now, many black hatters are planning attacks on the proposed internet filter and its accompanying blacklist. I recently (and anonymously) spoke to one such black hatter who said the plan was not to leak the blacklist (yet again), but to highjack it. Imagine the havoc one could wreak if one could start adding innocuous websites to the blacklist - even just temporarily.

The first website to be added, of course, would be Senator Conroy's site, followed by The Australian Christian Lobby's site, and those of other groups in favour of the filter. Imagine the embarrassment and the public relations nightmare that would cause Conroy's people.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Actually, that's pretty funny - blacklisting the actual blacklist registry itself (assuming that's possible) would be funny too.

[Hursticon]

Actually, that's pretty funny - blacklisting the actual blacklist registry itself (assuming that's possible) would be funny too.

I agree that would be funny as :D, though I tend to think it would send the Servers into an inadvertent loop and crash the farm, that result would still be funny as hell though! :p

[1AZRAEL1]

Nice little thing I found that hope will help.

clearing up the confusion over the proposed government internet filtering policy (http://www.iinet.net.au/filtering/what-we-really-think.html)

[SGB]

If anyone's with iPrimus, leave that ISP NOW.

iiNet, Primus split on filter (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/182029,iinet-primus-split-on-filter.aspx)

[Hursticon]

Hey SGB, I'm with TPG and to date I've not been able to find anything on their involvement, or lack of, with the Internet Filter testing.

Do you think you could put your investigative skills to work for me?, I'd just like to know what my ISP's stance is is all. Would be much appreciated mate.

[SGB]

Hey SGB, I'm with TPG and to date I've not been able to find anything on their involvement, or lack of, with the Internet Filter testing.

Do you think you could put your investigative skills to work for me?, I'd just like to know what my ISP's stance is is all. Would be much appreciated mate.
TPG weren't involved in the trial last year.

They haven't commented on the policy as a whole as far as I know, so I don't know what their stance on it is.

[Hursticon]

TPG weren't involved in the trial last year.

They haven't commented on the policy as a whole, so I don't know what their stance on it is.

Ah good, I'm glad to hear as that could indicate their stance but could also mean that they're not prevalent enough to be a part.

Yeah, like I said, I haven't been able to find anything either which could mean they don't want any part of it or it could mean nothing at all. :p

I hate not knowing.

[SGB]

Shhh... ACMA preps URL 'block' page (http://www.techworld.com.au/article/350144/shhh_acma_preps_url_block_page)

[SGB]

Kogan mocks cost of internet filter (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/215737,kogan-mocks-cost-of-internet-filter.aspx)

Toxic net filters 'shelved until after election' (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/toxic-net-filters-shelved-until-after-election-20100618-ykvj.html) (bear in mind, the 'shelved until after election' comment isn't from Conroy's office, and the filter is still Govt policy)

[Hursticon]

Kogan mocks cost of internet filter (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/215737,kogan-mocks-cost-of-internet-filter.aspx)

Toxic net filters 'shelved until after election' (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/toxic-net-filters-shelved-until-after-election-20100618-ykvj.html) (bear in mind, the 'shelved until after election' comment isn't from Conroy's office, and the filter is still Govt policy)

Oh man, you beat me to it SGB, lol, I actually own a couple of Kogan appliances and they are a really good Aussie company, this will surely give them some good exposure as their "Portector" looks to be an excellent product, lol. :p:D

[SGB]

The Nationals are officially against the net censorship policy.

http://twitter.com/Lucy_M_Knight/status/16514598095


After a long debate, Nats oppose mandatory censorship of the internet - wasn't without a fight though!

[SGB]

National Party members vote against internet filter (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/21/national-party-members-vote-against-internet-filter/)

[SGB]

National Party votes ‘no’ to ISP filtering (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/350628/national_party_votes_no_isp_filtering/)

More than 19,000 sign anti-internet censorship petition (http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/more-19000-sign-anti-internet-censorship-petition)


EDIT: Anti-net censorship advocate and network engineer Mark Newton just tweeted (http://twitter.com/NewtonMark/status/16740142794):


Watchdog Int'l just sent me junkmail claiming an announcemnt about ISP censorship funding is due in July. How do they know?

[SGB]

The Senate Privileges Committee has published Geordie Guy's response to Conroy's attack against him and the EFA in the Senate a few months ago:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/priv_ctte/report_145/e02.htm

[SGB]

yARN: Why Kate Lundy won’t get Stephen Conroy’s job (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/351215/yarn_why_kate_lundy_won_t_get_stephen_conroy_job/)

[Hursticon]

Might have to change the name of this thread now... :(

[SGB]

Might have to change the name of this thread now... :(
Agreed.

I tried to but OPs don't have the capability to do so, only mods or admins it seems.

[MV75]

Ok, done. Just ask. :)


yARN: Why Kate Lundy won’t get Stephen Conroy’s job (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/351215/yarn_why_kate_lundy_won_t_get_stephen_conroy_job/)


And here I was thinking it had more to do with actually being competent. :)

I wonder if Conjob considers the portal gun a threat, you know, it can open another type of portal. :D

[SGB]

Conroy re-commits to filter, slams Lundy amendments (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/28/conroy-re-commits-to-filter-slams-lundy-amendments/)

[Hursticon]

Conroy re-commits to filter, slams Lundy amendments (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/28/conroy-re-commits-to-filter-slams-lundy-amendments/)

Is Conroy serious? there was no Election Commitment to introducing a Filter for the Internet - the whole thing came about after the election did it not?. :mad:

I like how he immediately avoids any questions regarding the consideration of Senator Lundy's proposed amendments - "I'm not for opting in to Child Porn" he really is an idiot isn't he?, does he really think that anyone in the public has been convinced that the filter is there to only filter Child Porn? :mad:

He seems only happy to answer any questions about the bill involving Telstra, probably because it's popular. Ask him anything about the filter and he is as tight lipped as Homer Simpson after eating that super sour lolly. :p

I'm all too happy to here about the positive steps that are being made for the construction of the National Broadband Network, but what I'd really like to hear is the scrapping of the proposed Internet Filter and the dumping of Senator Stephen Conroy from any and all Portfolios as well as his Senate Minister position and I think there would be a couple of people here that would also want this. :cool:

It's insane how many people were asking for his notice of termination with regards to the Government Cabinet re-shuffle today. :D

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

What a tosser - seriously, if you want to stop child porn then target the avenues where child porn is distributed, or better yet devote more resources into stopping distributors and producers at the source!:mad:
Here's hoping the election is called before the bill is passed and the balance of power in the Senate goes to people/parties who recognise this as BS...and that the Liberals don't decide to get onside with this one.:(
God I hope he loses his seat, but I doubt it.

EDIT - the comment from ACL spokeman Lyle Shelton on this article (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/28/2939129.htm) seems kinda telling...
Meanwhile, Australian Christian Lobby spokesman Lyle Shelton says the group opposes the new [.xxx] domain because it sees it as further legitimising the pornography industry.

"Anything which further mainstreams and legitimises the porn trade is obviously not a healthy thing for children," he said.

"It is not a healthy thing for the wider society because it just continues to take us down this path where profiting off naked young women continues to gather acceptance in our society and of course we are seeing the pornification of culture seeping into our everyday lives."

He says he hopes all online pornography will be banned in Australia through an internet service provider-based filter.

[Hursticon]

What a tosser - seriously, if you want to stop child porn then target the avenues where child porn is distributed, or better yet devote more resources into stopping distributors and producers at the source!:mad:
Here's hoping the election is called before the bill is passed and the balance of power in the Senate goes to people/parties who recognise this as BS...and that the Liberals don't decide to get onside with this one.:(
God I hope he loses his seat, but I doubt it.

Here, Here!. :p

Some how I don't think he'll lose his seat either. :(

Shame, Shame! :p


I watch too much question time, lol.

[SGB]

Is Conroy serious? there was no Election Commitment to introducing a Filter for the Internet - the whole thing came about after the election did it not?. :mad:
There was certainly no election commitment for a mandatory filter. ALP went to the 2007 election with an optional one, but after winning that election they changed it to mandatory.

So definitely no commitment for a mandatory filter. Conroy's saying otherwise is another lie in his long list of BS.

[Hursticon]

There was certainly no election commitment for a mandatory filter. ALP went to the 2007 election with an optional one, but after winning that election they changed it to mandatory.

So definitely no commitment for a mandatory filter. Conroy's saying otherwise is another lie in his long list of BS.

I didn't think that the Mandatory Internet Filter was taken to the 2007 election, cheers for confirming my thoughts SGB. :cool:

I didn't want to make a false statement unlike Senator Conroy who evidently seems to have no problem spewing false diatribe and then believing it himself. :confused: :mad:

[1AZRAEL1]

I like how he immediately avoids any questions regarding the consideration of Senator Lundy's proposed amendments - "I'm not for opting in to Child Porn" he really is an idiot isn't he?, does he really think that anyone in the public has been convinced that the filter is there to only filter Child Porn? :mad:

The dude really is a moron. He uses that line everytime he gets a hard question. And uses it to the uninformed get scared into believing that this piece of crap filter will actually work and is worth the millions of dollars wasted on it. Damn I really hate this guy.


What a tosser - seriously, if you want to stop child porn then target the avenues where child porn is distributed, or better yet devote more resources into stopping distributors and producers at the source!:mad:

Exactly, if they truly want to stop it, they need to target the source. Even if this filter actually works (which it won't), it would be like trying to put out an oil fire with water. Completely useless.

[SGB]

Oh dear: Mark Newton’s epic government rant (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/30/oh-dear-mark-newtons-epic-government-rant/)

[Hursticon]

Oh dear: Mark Newton’s epic government rant (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/30/oh-dear-mark-newtons-epic-government-rant/)

Unfortunately I think this will end up falling upon deaf ears which is a shame because I don't think I've seen a piece of writing with such passion with regards to the state of I.T. in this country.

The other annoying thing is that the message conveyed in this writing will most certainly be lost on those without a working knowledge of I.T. or it's Industry in general, which is basically everyone involved with the I.T. Communications portfolio for the past 20 years, save 1 or 2 instances.

It's amazing, he managed to raise every concern I and others have had with regards to I.T. policies from both State and Federal Governments in one breath :eek::D, an incredible rant maybe, but a rant dead on the money nonetheless.