Comments on: Internet filtering to become mandatory in Australia http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/ It is and we do. Musing, enthusing, libraries, emerging technologies, balancing, being mum. Mon, 21 May 2012 01:52:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: AgentCROCODILE http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-51389 AgentCROCODILE Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:00:53 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-51389 This will suck. It will be like China! Those bastards who are in favor of this filtering idea are absolute dicks. They should be tied to a flag pole and then cut using chainsaws. Then of course pour sulfuric acid on the remains. Then to clean that up you can simply obliterate the mess by dropping an atomic bomb on the remains. Attention Rudd and Conroy: Are you two bastards listening? Hello? Fuck off and leave the Internet alone, mate! I don't need my Internet speeds slowed down by 85%+ just because you two dicks want to filter the Internet for the whole of Australia. Go back to being politicians, not IT professional wannabes. You two are no good at it. This will suck. It will be like China! Those bastards who are in favor of this filtering idea are absolute dicks. They should be tied to a flag pole and then cut using chainsaws. Then of course pour sulfuric acid on the remains. Then to clean that up you can simply obliterate the mess by dropping an atomic bomb on the remains.

Attention Rudd and Conroy:

Are you two bastards listening? Hello? Fuck off and leave the Internet alone, mate! I don’t need my Internet speeds slowed down by 85%+ just because you two dicks want to filter the Internet for the whole of Australia.

Go back to being politicians, not IT professional wannabes. You two are no good at it.

]]> By: AgentCROCODILE http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-51390 AgentCROCODILE Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:00:52 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-51390 This will suck. It will be like China! Those bastards who are in favor of this filtering idea are absolute dicks. They should be tied to a flag pole and then cut using chainsaws. Then of course pour sulfuric acid on the remains. Then to clean that up you can simply obliterate the mess by dropping an atomic bomb on the remains. Attention Rudd and Conroy: Are you two bastards listening? Hello? Fuck off and leave the Internet alone, mate! I don't need my Internet speeds slowed down by 85%+ just because you two dicks want to filter the Internet for the whole of Australia. Go back to being politicians, not IT professional wannabes. You two are no good at it. This will suck. It will be like China! Those bastards who are in favor of this filtering idea are absolute dicks. They should be tied to a flag pole and then cut using chainsaws. Then of course pour sulfuric acid on the remains. Then to clean that up you can simply obliterate the mess by dropping an atomic bomb on the remains.

Attention Rudd and Conroy:

Are you two bastards listening? Hello? Fuck off and leave the Internet alone, mate! I don’t need my Internet speeds slowed down by 85%+ just because you two dicks want to filter the Internet for the whole of Australia.

Go back to being politicians, not IT professional wannabes. You two are no good at it.

]]> By: Joshua Warmington http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-49047 Joshua Warmington Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:19:06 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-49047 Are the Liberals supporting this? Well they can't go against it really since Labor has the lower house but the main problem is that if the Liberals support it, It'll easily go past the upper house as well. Main thing for Liberals to do if they go against it is to try to get the Greens on their side as the Nationals are already on their side. All you need is the Liberals and 2 minor parties to go against the Labor Government and it'll never go through. The main points that I was going to say have been discussed. It is very horrible that they introducing such a filter for a handful of people. The filter won't do much against Peer to Peer Networking and the culprits will just use that instead. Don't get me wrong, Child Porn is wrong as hell but let the Police do their job. They've already got the Iinet precedent making sure that ISPs can be judge, jury and executioner (I oppose to that decision). The only countries with a nationwide filter are mainly communist countries such as China, North Korea and Cuba. Britain and U.S tried it but scrapped it very quickly. Howard previously scrapped the same thing even when he had control of the senate. Rudd is obviously making sure that Labor will never get elected again. Are the Liberals supporting this? Well they can’t go against it really since Labor has the lower house but the main problem is that if the Liberals support it, It’ll easily go past the upper house as well. Main thing for Liberals to do if they go against it is to try to get the Greens on their side as the Nationals are already on their side. All you need is the Liberals and 2 minor parties to go against the Labor Government and it’ll never go through.
The main points that I was going to say have been discussed. It is very horrible that they introducing such a filter for a handful of people. The filter won’t do much against Peer to Peer Networking and the culprits will just use that instead. Don’t get me wrong, Child Porn is wrong as hell but let the Police do their job. They’ve already got the Iinet precedent making sure that ISPs can be judge, jury and executioner (I oppose to that decision).
The only countries with a nationwide filter are mainly communist countries such as China, North Korea and Cuba. Britain and U.S tried it but scrapped it very quickly. Howard previously scrapped the same thing even when he had control of the senate.
Rudd is obviously making sure that Labor will never get elected again.

]]> By: Aussie http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-45181 Aussie Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:39:25 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-45181 This guy Conroy is just a sick bloke who understands nothing in the Internet, freedom of speech, etc. Moreover, he is a maniac. Pity that Rudd's goverment has sich idiots and supports them. Hopefully even in case if that government gives money to people who do not deserve that money at all hoping those people would give their votes, in the next elections we will filter this goverment out of this country. They were saying nice words before elections but the reality proves they have different things in mind. I do not want my country to become a communist China and I do not want someone to decide what is appropriate for me to read in the Internet. Shame we have such a government. This guy Conroy is just a sick bloke who understands nothing in the Internet, freedom of speech, etc. Moreover, he is a maniac. Pity that Rudd’s goverment has sich idiots and supports them. Hopefully even in case if that government gives money to people who do not deserve that money at all hoping those people would give their votes, in the next elections we will filter this goverment out of this country. They were saying nice words before elections but the reality proves they have different things in mind. I do not want my country to become a communist China and I do not want someone to decide what is appropriate for me to read in the Internet. Shame we have such a government.

]]> By: Jman http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-43774 Jman Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:50:33 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-43774 I really find it funny that they control us after all they work for us not we work for them! I really find it funny that they control us after all they work for us not we work for them!

]]> By: Mike http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-32839 Mike Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:09:32 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-32839 I think filtering is pointless and is more trouble than whats it worth a person should be able to access what they want weather the rest of there world deems distasteful. I think filtering is pointless and is more trouble than whats it worth a person should be able to access what they want weather the rest of there world deems distasteful.

]]> By: Martin Ljubic http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-31647 Martin Ljubic Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:56:27 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-31647 CHILD pornography, simple answer, is wrong. The right action though is to find the perpetrators and gaol them AND not putting the rest of us behind the bars of internet filtering. No matter, the filters will be as effective as tits on a bull. Literally, the porn will get to you as tits on a bull- bypassing filters quite easily. Imagine being born naked. Now imagine that life requires you to gain a knowledge of reality in order to live and enjoy life. And now imagine a filter standing between you and reality. A taboo; a restriction; a filter, is an obstacle with deadly consequences to every person who chooses to think and act in order to live and enjoy life. The whole universe is open to the power of reason. There is no such thing as intellectual radiation exposure that can pervert and or destroy a mind. An image is not a lie. Its the explanation of an image that is or is not the soursce of perversion. When a child is exposed to porn, they do not yet have the context within which such things make sense. It is of no interest to them. The damage from exposure is none existent. It is natural to see a naked human body. They see their own body each time they take a shower. The perversion is to imply otherwise, through the prohibition of viewing the human body and or vilification of the human sexual act. The implication is these acts are evil. Christians are nortorious of this approach. If anything, pornography is a teacher, where parents have failed to teach. Not only have they failed to teach their children the beauty of love and the sexual act but actively promote it as simply the function of pro-creation and nothing else. Sex is a dirty word. They've never discovered love and are damned well going to make sure nobody else does. A parents function is to set rules of human behavour for their child and to be a guide to their childs enquiries. Their childs mentor and not his intellectual gaoler, not the repressor of their childs psychological development. That is the relationship between pornography and parents and children. Don't parents want to talk about the birds and the bees anymore. If left to government, they will tell you birds are an endangered species. Need I go on about the danger of letting government run your life for you. That's what it amount to- clammering for a dictator to step in and take over and run your life. Take over your problems and responsibliities. This generation of parents is morally bankrupt and spineless who wish life was regulated- to spare them the responsiblity of thinking because they have no moral values to pass on to their children; no guidence to offer. They are walking hulks of bitterness, applying every snake oil remedy except using their mind to work through a problem or moral issue. Parents, simple answer, braindead. CHILD pornography, simple answer, is wrong. The right action though is to find the perpetrators and gaol them AND not putting the
rest of us behind the bars of internet filtering. No matter, the filters will be as effective as tits on a bull. Literally, the porn will get to
you as tits on a bull- bypassing filters quite easily.

Imagine being born naked. Now imagine that life requires you to gain a knowledge of reality in order to live and enjoy life.
And now imagine a filter standing between you and reality. A taboo; a restriction; a filter, is an obstacle with deadly consequences
to every person who chooses to think and act in order to live and enjoy life. The whole universe is open to the power of reason.

There is no such thing as intellectual radiation exposure that can pervert and or destroy a mind. An image is not a lie. Its the explanation
of an image that is or is not the soursce of perversion.
When a child is exposed to porn, they do not yet have the context within which such things make sense. It is of no interest to
them. The damage from exposure is none existent. It is natural to see a naked human body. They see their own body each
time they take a shower. The perversion is to imply otherwise, through the prohibition of viewing the human body and or vilification of
the human sexual act. The implication is these acts are evil. Christians are nortorious of this approach.

If anything, pornography is a teacher, where parents have failed to teach. Not only have they failed to teach their children the
beauty of love and the sexual act but actively promote it as simply the function of pro-creation and nothing else. Sex is a dirty
word. They’ve never discovered love and are damned well going to make sure nobody else does.

A parents function is to set rules of human behavour for their child and to be a guide to their childs enquiries. Their childs mentor and not
his intellectual gaoler, not the repressor of their childs psychological development.

That is the relationship between pornography and parents and children. Don’t parents want to talk about the birds and the bees anymore.
If left to government, they will tell you birds are an endangered species. Need I go on about the danger of letting government run your life
for you. That’s what it amount to- clammering for a dictator to step in and take over and run your life. Take over your problems and responsibliities. This generation of parents is morally bankrupt and spineless who wish life was regulated- to spare them the responsiblity of thinking because they have no moral values to pass on to their children; no guidence to offer. They are walking hulks of bitterness,
applying every snake oil remedy except using their mind to work through a problem or moral issue. Parents, simple answer, braindead.

]]> By: BobTurbo http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-30867 BobTurbo Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:34:47 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-30867 @chris "You’d rather children had total access to porn than limited access?" This is wrong. The ISP filter will not provide "limited access" to porn, it will provide complete access (the same access as without a filter) to porn when a user implements any of a range of methods to by-pass said filter. The filter's only supposed goal would be to prevent accidental exposure to pornography, not willing exposure to pornography. It won't actually do this very well either. "Existing censorship in other mediums hasn’t turned us into a police-state with no freedom of speech." Actually, the internet is the only mass medium that provides relatively free speech. I am quite certain that the internet has had an effect on the religious views of citizens due to the information available to challenge the thinking that leads to the adoption or continuation of these views. To put my paranoid hat on, this may well be one of the reasons filtering of the internet is so desired by governments. "And regards parents, how can a parent “Do their job as a parent” when the child is out of their house???" I would be worried about my (potential) child being taken on a dangerous joy-ride by his friend's dad, not the rare accidental exposure to pornography that requires a click on the x in the top right hand corner to make go away. "Do TV stations broadcast MA15+ movies at 4:00pm and say “Well, it’s up to the parents to do their job”?" Do you even have evidence that watching MA15+ movies is detrimental to a child's health? I will note that at 8:30pm it is possible to watch someone's head being lopped off, but not see people engage in a loving activity. Censorship is driven by religion, not rationality. Just because there are current laws, that is not an argument that they are right. "Access to porn should be a choice, not a given." It is; don't use the internet if you cannot handle freedom. Don't drive a car if you can't handle the risk of crashing. Alternatively, install a software filter, or only visit porn-free websites. When did you last accidentally see pornography on the internet anyway? You cannot filter out the swear words you might hear as you walk down a street though can you? You cannot shape the entire world to meet your demands. That is what the internet is; people hosting websites on their own terms and you choosing to visit them or not. If you find something you dislike on the web, you have this amazing ability to navigate away from the website and never return. The most ironic thing of all is that when I was a child, the person so interested in smuggling in pornography was the guy raised in a highly religious family. The atheist and less religious had little thirst for this "banned" material. It seems that banning something makes it more desirable. The scariest consequence is that I don't think it is fully opt-out as some media suggest. I have found quotes of Senator Conroy that suggest it will not be fully opt-out. I think it will be more like the current censorship laws, which let the amca completely ban anything that is deemed offensive to an adult (yes, the classification code is that vague). If you can argue (based on evidence and logic, not religion) that the very rare and brief accidental exposure to pornography by children whose parents/schools are unable to install filtering software has a negative affect and that this warrants the censorship of the entire internet and the information that flows through it by the government with the power to ban anything as suggested under the vague amca classifaction code using filters that may not even achieve their desired goal; go for it. @chris

“You’d rather children had total access to porn than limited access?”

This is wrong. The ISP filter will not provide “limited access” to porn, it will provide complete access (the same access as without a filter) to porn when a user implements any of a range of methods to by-pass said filter. The filter’s only supposed goal would be to prevent accidental exposure to pornography, not willing exposure to pornography. It won’t actually do this very well either.

“Existing censorship in other mediums hasn’t turned us into a police-state with no freedom of speech.”

Actually, the internet is the only mass medium that provides relatively free speech. I am quite certain that the internet has had an effect on the religious views of citizens due to the information available to challenge the thinking that leads to the adoption or continuation of these views. To put my paranoid hat on, this may well be one of the reasons filtering of the internet is so desired by governments.

“And regards parents, how can a parent “Do their job as a parent” when the child is out of their house???”

I would be worried about my (potential) child being taken on a dangerous joy-ride by his friend’s dad, not the rare accidental exposure to pornography that requires a click on the x in the top right hand corner to make go away.

“Do TV stations broadcast MA15+ movies at 4:00pm and say “Well, it’s up to the parents to do their job”?”

Do you even have evidence that watching MA15+ movies is detrimental to a child’s health? I will note that at 8:30pm it is possible to watch someone’s head being lopped off, but not see people engage in a loving activity. Censorship is driven by religion, not rationality. Just because there are current laws, that is not an argument that they are right.

“Access to porn should be a choice, not a given.”

It is; don’t use the internet if you cannot handle freedom. Don’t drive a car if you can’t handle the risk of crashing. Alternatively, install a software filter, or only visit porn-free websites. When did you last accidentally see pornography on the internet anyway? You cannot filter out the swear words you might hear as you walk down a street though can you? You cannot shape the entire world to meet your demands. That is what the internet is; people hosting websites on their own terms and you choosing to visit them or not.

If you find something you dislike on the web, you have this amazing ability to navigate away from the website and never return.

The most ironic thing of all is that when I was a child, the person so interested in smuggling in pornography was the guy raised in a highly religious family. The atheist and less religious had little thirst for this “banned” material. It seems that banning something makes it more desirable.

The scariest consequence is that I don’t think it is fully opt-out as some media suggest. I have found quotes of Senator Conroy that suggest it will not be fully opt-out. I think it will be more like the current censorship laws, which let the amca completely ban anything that is deemed offensive to an adult (yes, the classification code is that vague).

If you can argue (based on evidence and logic, not religion) that the very rare and brief accidental exposure to pornography by children whose parents/schools are unable to install filtering software has a negative affect

and

that this warrants the censorship of the entire internet and the information that flows through it by the government with the power to ban anything as suggested under the vague amca classifaction code using filters that may not even achieve their desired goal;

go for it.

]]> By: Barry Greene http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-29690 Barry Greene Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:38:59 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-29690 Option out would not work in the US. It would be a violation of privacy. Option out provides governments list of people who want to by pass the porn filters, which means they now have a list of people who must want to look at porn. When then becomes a list you can use to target and extort. Not sure how big privacy issues are in Australian law. In US Constitution law they are Big. Option out would not work in the US. It would be a violation of privacy. Option out provides governments list of people who want to by pass the porn filters, which means they now have a list of people who must want to look at porn. When then becomes a list you can use to target and extort.

Not sure how big privacy issues are in Australian law. In US Constitution law they are Big.

]]> By: Jack L. http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-29335 Jack L. Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:34:53 +0000 http://librariansmatter.com/blog/2007/12/31/internet-filtering-to-become-mandatory-in-australia/#comment-29335 All the points have been made, and made well, but let me just add what I believe to be the two key ones, again. 1. Internet filtering isn't perfect. What this filtering is more likely to do than anything else is make the parents of children LESS likely to do the right thing in regards to internet security, i.e. actually find out about the various ways the internet can be abused/their children can be exploited or shown 'innapropriate' things, and take steps to avoid that because 'the government is taking care of it'. Having seen the hamfisted attempt to filter school computer content, i'm not too confident in their ability to stop people bypassing the filter, or to get the correct sites blocked. 2. The opt-out as opposed to the opt-in approach smacks of state censorship, violates privacy, can and will be a headache, interfere with legitimate internet usage, and cause annoyance and inconvenience for every single internet user who doesn't have children. All the points have been made, and made well, but let me just add what I believe to be the two key ones, again.

1. Internet filtering isn’t perfect. What this filtering is more likely to do than anything else is make the parents of children LESS likely to do the right thing in regards to internet security, i.e. actually find out about the various ways the internet can be abused/their children can be exploited or shown ‘innapropriate’ things, and take steps to avoid that because ‘the government is taking care of it’. Having seen the hamfisted attempt to filter school computer content, i’m not too confident in their ability to stop people bypassing the filter, or to get the correct sites blocked.

2. The opt-out as opposed to the opt-in approach smacks of state censorship, violates privacy, can and will be a headache, interfere with legitimate internet usage, and cause annoyance and inconvenience for every single internet user who doesn’t have children.

]]>