Internet Censorship

[Kamshaaft]

Originally Posted by bdave351

thats why the previous govt had a free home based PC filter that could be installed on your computer available. Something the current govt canned and is instituting the country wide MANDATORY secret blacklist.

(Yes Im very angry about it, and Im normally pretty right wing)

I agree with most of the sentients in your post. Sentiments common among most of us. But this bit is a bit of a cheap shot mate - The previous government spent $84 million taxpayer dollars developing a filter which was hacked and bypassed by a 15 year old within 30 minutes of release.

On this topic, I have a few quick words to put down:

Firstly - Nobody should support this filtering, no matter what their political stance. It's not a question of where your bias lies but a question of you freedom. We need to watch ourbacks as tightly as we can in this country, because technically we do not have any rights. So, like this man said, it's a very slippery slope - especially for us. We have nothing with which we can claw our way back up the slope with. No constitution, no civil rights, no legal standing, no nothing. Do you want this to extend to no choice, and no freedom?

Secondly - There already exist third party software for protecting children which can be installed by CHOICE and the options are customised to parental discretion. There is no way in hell a body with interestes such as the government shoul have a hand in such a scheme.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

I agree with most of the sentients in your post. Sentiments common among most of us.

But this bit is a bit of a cheap shot mate - The previous government spent $84 million taxpayer dollars developing a filter which was hacked and bypassed by a 15 year old within 30 minutes of release.

Its not too hard to use a proxy, haha thats what we use to get around school blocks.

[Spudz27]

O.K two of the countries biggest ISP's Optus and IInet (I am with IInet) volunteered to subject their users to the trial to prove it was not capable of working. You know what the Government did? They said "NO WAY" and have chosen to trial it on 6 ISP's no one has ever heard of. They are ISP's that basically only need 2 people to run them and have a largely bussiness based clientelle who wouldn't give a **** if their net was censored as they use it for orders and email.

I am a parent and I am so against this crap. It enrages me that I as an adult and "responsible" parent can be told what I can and can't look at. I think this will be the nail in the coffin for this government if it goes ahead. Liberal will use the removal to win the next ellection, whether they actually removed it would remain to be seen. I will gladly pay more for my internet to cover fines if my ISP refused to implement the filter, "IF" it is introduced.

[MITCHAY]

Big mistake if they do this IMO. There's already website filtering software out there if people feel the need to use it.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

I agree with most of the sentients in your post. Sentiments common among most of us. But this bit is a bit of a cheap shot mate - The previous government spent $84 million taxpayer dollars developing a filter which was hacked and bypassed by a 15 year old within 30 minutes of release.

On this topic, I have a few quick words to put down:

Firstly - Nobody should support this filtering, no matter what their political stance. It's not a question of where your bias lies but a question of you freedom.

a)

PRIME Minister John Howard has made a strong pitch for the Christian and family vote with a $189 million package to provide a free internet filter for every Australian family in a bid to fight pornography and foul language online.

Mr Howard used a live web-cast last night to between 80,000 and 100,000 Christians across the nation to announce the policy: "Net Alert protecting Australian families online".

Under the expanded NetAlert package, there will be $43.5 million to pay for 90 additional Australian Federal Police officers for the online child sex exploitation team. The specialist team tracks down people using the internet to identify victims and groom children for sexual activity, and detects people using the internet to send child pornography.

Somewhat different to Krudds 'secret' whisper filter and control of content greater than MA+
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...530542829.html

b) Communisim isn't freedom, nor is fascisim.

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... SNIP

In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.

[Kamshaaft]

Wasn't arguing that mate used:.

[seduced_xr]

this is never going to happen. and i dont plan to worry about it until i actually see it in play, then ill spend my worrying time getting around it. i honostly think that the labour party sit down every morning and say well ... how can we p**s off australia today and get ourselves thrown out next election, i tell ya what they havent done very much for us and im quite glad that WA is liberal run that dodgy alan carpenter was spending all the tax payers money on bloody sports facilities and convention centres that get used once in a blue moon

[ch33z1l]

It was liberal government that introduced the blacklist, blocking around 200-400 websites. Labor has increased that number to 10000, and possibly more.

This censorship, is just a smokescreen, for the failed attempt of the national fibre-to-home broadband scheme that was one of Labor's big selling points.

If politicians spent more time fixing the problems that were raised by the Australia voters, rather the arsing around acting like that did something of importance today, they would be re-elected each year.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by ch33z1l

It was liberal government that introduced the blacklist, blocking around 200-400 websites. Labor has increased that number to 10000, and possibly more.

The difference was that LIB had the 'filter' as an optional item for mummies and daddies, LAB will mandate it for all, and it seems for MA+ rated content, and subjects of particulr note. Guns? bomb making, suicide sites, pro and anti-abortion webs, designated 'extreme' political sites, etc.

People will rue the day honey-man was elected.

People need to be placated, more handouts needed:-) Fed budget in a month or so, mmm.

[sgt_doofey]

An example of what will be blocked: http://www.australianit.news.com.au/...-15306,00.html

[Kamshaaft]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

The difference was that LIB had the 'filter' as an optional item for mummies and daddies, LAB will mandate it for all, and it seems for MA+ rated content, and subjects of particulr note. Guns? bomb making, suicide sites, pro and anti-abortion webs, designated 'extreme' political sites, etc.
People will rue the day honey-man was elected.

People need to be placated, more handouts needed:-) Fed budget in a month or so, mmm.

That and more. It's bloody scary.

[MustangNut]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

That and more. It's bloody scary.

You're not kidding - when I first read about this last year the komisar had decided to also force ISP to do a man in the middle attack on all encrypted trafiic (SSL) and to replace it with a gov generated certificate so that they can scan SSL traffic.

So much for eCommerce security and eBanking now every pimple faced p!$$ ant at your ISP will be able to snatch your visa and banking details :(

I'm so glad to live in a facist run 3rd world country pretending to be 1st world :

[Fev]

if this happens its not gonna be good - and i can forsee thousands of people over the world protesting this (think Anonymous) along with web attacks and the like..



i hope redtube's not on the blacklist :P

[Kamshaaft]

I know what you're saying, but it's going to be a little difficult to get hundreds of thousands opposed to this scheme assembled as a unified but nameless entity like Anon. Most people don't want to go to that level - or at least want to stay out of trouble, or are too lazy to do more than voice their opinion and maybe tick a box or two on a ballot.

I think Anon would be taking on more than they could handle if they wait too long before jumping on this. They should be pre-emptively sabotaging it already if that's what they're going to do.

P.S. Failchan is fail

P.P.S Tube8.com, my pick of the dozen or so identical sites which stream like Redtube, but also has good stuff (not everything though), and if you sign up for free with any email account and you can download it all too.

[Maggot]

If I was to write on this website what I hear on public radio stations each morning.. I would be banned..

Then.. theres what they allow on the Simpsons each night at 6pm.. thrusday there was suicide pills, fridy talk of suicide / sex/ prostitution and so on.

Then theres the Erectile disfunction ads while you are taking your kids to school.

I am for censorship to protect my kids .. but is has to be optional.. And they pick on the internet as it is an easy target.

So.. optional internet censorship.. they pay the isps 5 dollars per month per subscription.. and they user can turn it off if they want.

Then.. they need to clean up morning radio.

[Wally]

Kids need direction. It's no good putting the onus soley on parents. With the Govt actively making an effort any tacit approval is removed. I remember both my little treasures coming home from primary school to let me know the govt will send me to jail if I gave them a smack. If teachers can reliably say the police are on the lookout for people accessing various sites, the deterent will enhance the parents rules and controls.

Fail or not, people will think twice if they deem it's breaking the law.

Personally I pine for the early internet days of the late 80's early 90's, when there were very few controls.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Wally

Kids need direction. It's no good putting the onus soley on parents. ....

So who do we put the onus on then? The neighbours? Society? The government?

C'mon... you play, you pay... if you have children, it's the parents' responsibility to raise them, and that includes supervising them - when they're outside playing, when they're watching TV and especially when they're using the Internet.

[Wally]

Ok so you are a parent that has his kids under total control... well done.

Most of us mere mortals don't get to modify the classroom to suit our children, we can't police the playground to make sure the little dears are mixing with suitable peers, we don't get to modify the sports codes to fit into our parental agenda, we aren't influential enough to ensure adequate govt support is provided to raise children, we don't have the means to modify televison shows to fit with our family ethos.

Because you have it all under control, you would realise that the internet is of no use to raising well behaved, ethically minded people and perhaps you can make a call to have the whole thing shutdown.

God help you when your children retaliate and discover free will. Who you going to blame then?

[Serial_Fool]

If you don't want kids accessing Porn or the good ol' fashion ultra violence then IT IS UP TO YOU AS A PARENT to prevent them from accessing it. You can't just censor the internet- it's just gonna end badly for anyone who tries. Within 2 years we have gone from ol' howard to a neo-communist state handing out free money to anyone who does work. Leave the decision making to the conservatives Mr. Rudd, you're kentucking up this country.

[Wally]

Now you see therein lies the problem. As a parent you can't prevent them from accessing the net. My school teacher daughter is constantly vigilant that her students don't get around the firewalls on the computers in the classroom, but get around they do. It's a challenge that is just too hard to resist. Ask the student's parents and their darlings are model junior citizens who do as mummy and daddy tell them.

Then you have the same affluent goody two shoes students with there mobile phones that have access to the net and any messages with embedded video. They huddle in groups, snickering at the lude content or film bully fights for posting in youtube, myspace or facebook.

I suspect those that advocate for parental blame are not parents themselves or have grown old and crusty, pining for the good old days when the govt censored everything. Parenting is a difficult task with little tolerance to self indulgent outsiders telling them how badly they are doing.

[JMO]

The problem with the proposed system is that EVERYONE is included in the blanket ban. I don't like being told what I can and can't watch and say or do on the internet. How would you like to be told you were no longer allowed to buy a turbo or a V8 powered vehicle because a P plater might want to take it for a spin? As it is, it is up to the owner of the vehicle to make sure it isn't abused or used in the wrong way or by someone who isn't supposed to be using it in the first place.

All the examples you have mentioned relate to a school. If students are bypassing the school firewall and the school knows about it, let them know there are consequences. Why not get the school to put appropriate systems in place to prevent it from happening?

Parent's may require the tools to stop THEIR children from accessing material they don't want them to have access to. That doesn't mean you block an entire nation from accessing the same material.

I'm not a parent myself. I haven't 'grown old and crusty' and I'm not 'pining for the good old days when the govt censored everything'. I totally agree that parenting is a difficult task but part of that 'difficult task' is knowing what your kids are doing and taking responsibility for what they have access to, not getting someone else to do the 'difficult task' for you.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by ch33z1l

It was liberal government that introduced the blacklist, blocking around 200-400 websites. Labor has increased that number to 10000, and possibly more.

This censorship, is just a smokescreen, for the failed attempt of the national fibre-to-home broadband scheme that was one of Labor's big selling points.

If politicians spent more time fixing the problems that were raised by the Australia voters, rather the arsing around acting like that did something of importance today, they would be re-elected each year.

*Fibre to the node.

Originally Posted by Fev

if this happens its not gonna be good - and i can forsee thousands of people over the world protesting this (think Anonymous) along with web attacks and the like..



i hope redtube's not on the blacklist :P

There are many other "resources" other than redtube.....

[Wally]

When it did it become my view that the internet should be censored? I don't think it should be. I also think that parents should do their best to shield kids from bad things. I never let my kids watch the Simpsons, Neighbours, or any other content I felt was contrary to good citizenship. I installed firewalls on the homes computers to block the nasties and spent inordinate hours helping with homework. But ..... I am fairly well off and could afford the time and money to be diligent, others less fortunate have working mums and dads who cannot be home when the school bell rings and we all know that idle hands are the tool of the devil.

All I'm saying is it's naive to think that parents can do any more than regulate the immediate environment and encourage good behaviour when they are in other's care. Whether we like it or not we do abrogate our responsibilities to the school system during school hours and in the process expect proprietary and probity from the teachers and education department... we have little choice in the matter and therefore govt does play a significant role in the well beaing and modelling our our young ones.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Wally

When it did it become my view that the internet should be censored? I don't think it should be. I also think that parents should do their best to shield kids from bad things. I never let my kids watch the Simpsons, Neighbours, or any other content I felt was contrary to good citizenship. I installed firewalls on the homes computers to block the nasties and spent inordinate hours helping with homework. But ..... I am fairly well off and could afford the time and money to be diligent, others less fortunate have working mums and dads who cannot be home when the school bell rings and we all know that idle hands are the tool of the devil.

All I'm saying is it's naive to think that parents can do any more than regulate the immediate environment and encourage good behaviour when they are in other's care. Whether we like it or not we do abrogate our responsibilities to the school system during school hours and in the process expect proprietary and probity from the teachers and education department... we have little choice in the matter and therefore govt does play a significant role in the well beaing and modelling our our young ones.

Okay Wally, I agree with you on some points and vehemently disagree with you on others...

It may be harsh, but if "less fortunate" "working mums and dads" cannot supervise their children (whether because they're too busy working, too lazy, too drunk or whatever), they shouldn't have them. Period.

For some reason, we all seem to have the notion that having a child is everyone's right, and once they have a child, it's up to the government to dole out handouts hand over fist, and turn the country into one big child-safe nanny-state (censoring the internet, 40 zones, 50 zones, etc.).

Yes, parents are reliant on others to help raise their child - especially schools. I'm not saying parents need to hover over their child 24/7 but many, many parents do not do enough IMHO.

Then you have the same affluent goody two shoes students with there mobile phones that have access to the net and any messages with embedded video. They huddle in groups, snickering at the lude content or film bully fights for posting in youtube, myspace or facebook.

And whose fault is that? Why does a child need a mobile phone with Internet access? Why does a child need a mobile phone at all? And if you want one for "safety", buy a basic model that can make and receive calls and that's pretty much it.

My school teacher daughter is constantly vigilant that her students don't get around the firewalls on the computers in the classroom, but get around they do. It's a challenge that is just too hard to resist.

So if they can get around the block at school, what makes you think they won't get around the ISP filters?

I've gone on enough. Parents should be responsible for their children, and not rely on nanny-state policies to do it for them.

[Wally]

And I never gave my kids a mobile phone, etc. I also think it's unfair you should impose Orwellian ideals on couples, especially seeing as most parents are in that situation these days. In my childhood we had no need for parents except to provide shelter, administer a bandaid and put food on the table, The very society you find abhorent is the society people of your your thinking have made into a nanny state; blaming parents, govt, etc. In essence the blame game has become the tool that has emasculated parents and created a latch key generation.

If you had taken the time to look at my post history, you will find I am vehemently opposed to govt interference and loss of the freedoms I enjoyed in my youth. It seems no matter what I post I get admonished, mainly because members don't take the time to read what I have written, preferring to take the opposing view.

For anyone writing a doctorate on human behaviour, I would recommend you use the psuedenome "Wally", because by God it really is a flame that moths fly to in droves.

[colossus]

Good to see Stalin I mean Rudd coming up with these wonderful ideas - I honestly cannot stand the guy and his ideals and this is an absolute outrage in what he is planning. Basically China (his best buddy) has a similar system for the sole reason of trying to control their populations way of thinking. Rudd wants similar (but I think more along the lines of him being a prude) and is using "won't everyone think of the children" as a smoke screen to get it through.

Does it really matter if kids see some of the "bad" stuff on the internet - sheltering children through life is stupid IMO. The faster they learn about the "adult stuff" the faster they know about the bad stuff out there and how to avoid it.

I just see this as another assault on our freedoms by government since the terrorism fad in the Howard years launched all the new "security" measures. We become more and more like the overgoverned UK every day - we just need CCTV and loud speakers on every street corner (oh wait Sydney CBD already has that. For all their faults the US people at least would not stand for crap like this and we should take a leaf out of their book.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by colossus

...
Does it really matter if kids see some of the "bad" stuff on the internet - sheltering children through life is stupid IMO. The faster they learn about the "adult stuff" the faster they know about the bad stuff out there and how to avoid it.
...

I actually agree with you... kids should not be sheltered, and if they see some adult stuff, it's not the end of the world.

However, there is a lot of stuff that kids definitely should not see and, worse, there are predators and others that will prey on kids, online or offline. These filters will do nothing to stop this and, in fact, will encourage parents to 'let the kids loose', because of the false sense of security these filters will encourage.

[Boss 302]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitio...australia.html

Thanks for the link, I have signed as well.

[BlackLS]

I went through my teens with unrestricted access to the internet... I knew not to get into trouble.

[Daymoe]

http://apcmag.com/whirlpool-threaten...-blacklist.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/...054787635.html

$11,000 per day fine....