Ok, done. Just ask. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGB
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
Printable View
Ok, done. Just ask. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGB
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
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGB
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
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 seems kinda telling...Quote:
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.
Here, Here!. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Some how I don't think he'll lose his seat either. :(
Shame, Shame! :p
I watch too much question time, lol.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hursticon
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGB
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hursticon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGB
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.
Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims engineer
Whoa. :eek:
Whoa :eek: Indeed SGB.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGB
Certainly demonstrates a severe lack of Technical expertise in a number of key areas such as State/Federal Government and the industry's governing bodies.
What the bloke describes in that article is Network Engineering Basics 101 really and for the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) to say what basically comes down to "No we didn't" displays a violent lack of understanding of how the Marshall R3000 series web monitoring, filtering and reporting package actually works.
Well I tend to think that from the ground up, the Government's proposed Internet Filter is riddled with faults both in design and concept, and the execution? - oh don't get me started on the execution...
How I'd love to be in charge of the execution of the policy. That is, taking a 12-gauge shotgun to it and shooting it to smithereens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hursticon
:D lol :pQuote:
Originally Posted by SGB
Q and A for next week has Scott Ludlum - we might be able to get a few questions on the filter etc in if we send in some not-too-ranty ones.
Gillard: Conroy will get filter into shape
I think Gillard's just guaranteed herself the loss of votes from the 18-35 demographic.
Just finalised my vote against her then.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGB
Comment by Mark Newton this morning on Kate Lundy's blog.
Quote:
A colleague of mine went to the NANOG conference in California last month. He reported that a significant chunk of his time every day was spent batting away queries from American and European delegates who wanted to know what the hell was going on in Australia, and what had happened to make our Government so terrible. The general perception was that Australia had already implemented Conroy’s censorwall, something previously thought too crazy to contemplate.
In contrast, hardly anyone had heard of the NBN.
Our international reputation is trashed. It’d be nice if someone in the Government cared about that.
Seriously, I can picture other countries laughing at us because of this moron Conroy. I really hope this claim that Mr Newton has put through actually leads to an investigation by the AFP.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGB
Gillard to stick with web filter despite disquiet
Why do they continue to use the child abuse/pornography card? We all know that most of that crap gets shared P2P, and not once have I stumbled on any of it in all my years of surfing the net. It's scare mongering I tells ya, they think by saying those magic words that people will be scared into believing that this POS filter will actually do anything.Quote:
''Images of child abuse, child pornography - they are not legal in our cinemas,'' she said yesterday. ''Why should you be able to see them on the internet? I think that that's the kind of moral, ethical question at the heart of this.''
It's obvious what needs to happen - internet filtering bill expected to be passed in November; election called in August ;)
That was actually amusing to read :pQuote:
Originally Posted by SGB
I'm going to ask a stupid question here which I believe I already know the answer to - but will this include a complete blanket ban of all P2P sites such as Piratebay and ISOHunt?
I use torrent sites from time to time; mainly for TV shows that aren't aired here in Australia e.g. Supernatural. Without the ability to download these, I will have no other avenue for watching my favourite shows.
EDIT: Just saw this posted on news.com.au. I wouldn't be surprised if it has been shelved until 2011 because of the pending election.
However, three of Australia's largest internet service providers have agreed to voluntarily block online child pornography material ahead of the Federal Government's planned internet filter. This includes Telstra, Optus and Primus.
It theoretically could.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5FDP
What reports have been failing to say is that the fiter will be mandatory for Optus customers. It looks like it'll be mandatory for Telstra customers too. It's likely to be the same for iPrimus customers as well.Quote:
However, three of Australia's largest internet service providers have agreed to voluntarily block online child pornography material ahead of the Federal Government's planned internet filter. This includes Telstra, Optus and Primus.
So if anyone here is with any of those three ISPs I recommend switching to another ISP ASAP. And let Telstra/Optus/iPrimus know why you're switching to a different ISP.
This is most likely a way to go to the next election with the filter still on the table for the types who want it (and somehow think it'll work) while placating the much larger - less politically influencial - group who want this filter canned.
Which means either they'll 1) wise up and dump it once re-elected (I suspect this is the case - there's more than enough evidence in Conroy's intray) or 2) bring it back soon after the election.
If the Govt were trying to placate, then they've failed by allowing Optus, Telstra and iPrimus to proceed with their own mandatory censorship systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by dirge
So, Telstra, Optus and Primus are going to block material that hardly exists then.
Good for them! :rolleyes:
I want to know what they will actually be blocking.Quote:
Telstra, Optus and Primus would censor a list of child abuse URLs compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority
Probally a list full of dead links, child modeling agencies (the kind that put pics in the Target catalog), and sites that claim to be teen porn but are the type of "teens" that are like 25 and just pretending.
It's the Swedish internet censorship list all over again :p
Lateline had a brief piece on the filter this evening. It was balanced, however one thing stood out: an Optus rep admitted filters won't stop availability of CP.
Then dear Optus, why the hell are you implementing one?!
Sky News have a poll running: "Should the government scrap its planned introduction of a mandatory internet filter?"
You all know what option to vote for.
Q&A: National Party Senator, Barnaby Joyce, on ISP filtering, Telstra and the NBN
The idiotic Barnaby has likely cost the Nationals some votes.
So that's the Nats and Labor I'll be placing at the bottom of the ballot.
Piece by Mark Newton:
Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss
A poll by @ABCtech:
Would you vote for a political party that supports the internet filter?
EDIT: According to this article, the above poll is a combined survey by IT media outlets.