Welcome to the new Chinese colony of Australia

[Mikeus Caesar]

Or at least, the very soon to be Chinese-style country of Australia.



Australia is planning tough new rules to protect children from online pornography and violence.

The new Labor government wants internet service providers to filter content to ensure households and schools do not receive "inappropriate" material.

Civil libertarians have condemned the plan as unnecessary, and say it will erode the freedom of the internet.

But telecommunications minister Stephen Conroy said more needed to be done to protect children.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7165987.stm

And more...



Britain and Scandinavia had successful internet restrictions, he said. "The internet hasn't ground to a halt in the UK, it hasn't ground to a halt in Scandinavian countries and it's not grinding the internet to a halt in Europe."


This is probably because those are countries that have a decent internet infrastructure. From my month or so of being here in Australia, i can tell this is not the case. I have to sit around for five minutes while a gif from 4chan loads.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/minister-warned-on-porn-filters/2007/12/31/1198949746454.html%5C

And the final piece of quality entertainment with regards to this story...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/cens-a20.shtml

As the story implies above, he's doing this not only to get the right-wing Christian vote, but because he is also a Christian and this is what he believes in, 'protecting us from the filth'.

I personally believe this is the largest crock of **** i have ever heard. Why incur on my right to look at consenting men and women doing perfectly legal things, just to 'protect the children'? Especially at a cost of $33 million per year?

Surely that money could be better well spent on educating morons to keep an eye on what their children are doing, and could also be better spent educating children themselves about internet safety?

Seriously, what harm has ever come from kids cheekily looking at pixelated boobs while their mum and dad are out of the house? It's no different from what kids did before the internet, stealing Dad's playboy magazines. Hell, i'll confess, i've been looking at internet porn and other 'violent' things Mr Conroy wants blocking since i was 12, and it's had no effect on me. If anything, the one thing that has affected my life negatively is my choice of friends. Why not just ban kids from having friends?

GAH!

It makes my blood boil, the utter stupidity of this. At least i can apparently call them up and ask to be excluded from filtering. Hopefully though one of the posts i read on the news board on 4chan is correct...



you dumb ***** this policy will PETER OUT to ******* nothing before march. they'll ask ***stra and optus to ban two or three sites, make some meaningless noise to the media about how everything's been a success and NO ONE WILL EVER HEAR OF IT AGAIN

[CountArach]

I have to sit around for five minutes while a gif from 4chan loads.
Our new Government is planning proper Hi-speed broadband within a few years.

I fully stand against this, however what is not pointed out is that people have the option to call up their ISP and to opt-out of the system if they are over 18.

EDIT: I forgot to say that I came in expecting a discussion about the rate of Chinese Immigration...

[TB666]

I didn't know we had it !!!
Certainly can't tell. My porn is lightning fast.
Thank you 10mb/sec:flowers:

[Husar]

So if you're not 18 yet, you cannot opt-out of it for your internet connection, sounds great except that I wouldn't expect many <18 year-olds to have their own internet connection. :inquisitive:

[CountArach]

So if you're not 18 yet, you cannot opt-out of it for your internet connection, sounds great except that I wouldn't expect many <18 year-olds to have their own internet connection. :inquisitive:
True, but since when were laws NOT redundant?

[HoreTore]

Btw, the internet restrictions in place here are child porn only.

But I'm not really sure I would use the word "government restriction" for it... It's a police thing, not a government thing.

[HoreTore]

EDIT: I forgot to say that I came in expecting a discussion about the rate of Chinese Immigration...

There's a lot of asian porn, right?

It's a start anyway :laugh4:

[Blodrast]

Btw, the internet restrictions in place here are child porn only.


For now, maybe. And how will you know that, anyway ? Will the list be made public ? What'll stop them from extending it at any point ?

Actually, first and foremost, why the heck should the gov't decide what I may see or may not see on the net ? Filters ALREADY exist, if I want one, I can get one myself, thank you very much.

You think it'll be complicated to add stuff to it, or do you believe they will make a public announcement every time they add an IP to it ? Puhleaze...
Besides, one of the articles says "Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material.
and "He says the scheme will better protect children from pornography and violent websites."

So it will most likely not be JUST child pornography... but any "inappropriate material". In other words, the gov't will decide what's inappropriate for me to browse. And no violence, naturally!
May Godwin spin as fast as he wants, but this is exactly the kind of stuff that dictatorships were doing - I've lived under one, except there was no internet back then, so they only had to forbid books and written publications.

I find it stunning that only a few years after the fall of the big scary menace that was communism, laws typical to all those oppressive regimes are passed with great ease, and very few people notice, or care, or seem to acknowledge that it's going towards the same thing they were oh-so-very-much against a few years ago...

Moreover, it's opt-OUT, not opt-in. A lot of people have expressed concern about being put on a special "list" when they would ask to opt-out. How do you know that won't be the case ?

The irony, of course, all the "children" who need to be "protected" will be perfectly able to bypass this in a few seconds...
but then again, they never really cared about that, it's all about votes, and _appearing_ to do something, regardless if it's an epic fail or not.

It's still digusting and appalling, and I hope the Aussies will try to fight this.

[lars573]

Blodrast you ever heard the saying that it takes a society about 100 years to fully integrate a new technology? Meaning that we in west have only just come to grips with the light bulb, film, powered flight, and the automobile. We're still working on computers, TV, and jet travel. Where as things like the internet and video games are far to new to even remotely understood by society at large.

[HoreTore]

For now, maybe. And how will you know that, anyway ? Will the list be made public ? What'll stop them from extending it at any point ?

Because the government doesn't have anything to do with this, it's a police thing. And it's completely voluntary by the ISP's, if they don't want to anymore, then they won't have to. Quite different from what the Australian government wants...

[KukriKhan]

...it takes a society about 100 years to fully integrate a new technology

Is that from Alvin Toffler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Toffler)? I remember (dimly) him writing something like that just before the explosion in Personal Computing.

[Blodrast]

Because the government doesn't have anything to do with this, it's a police thing. And it's completely voluntary by the ISP's, if they don't want to anymore, then they won't have to. Quite different from what the Australian government wants...

Wrong, according to the article. Which part of mandatory is unclear ?
It is mandatory for the ISPs, optional for customers - with an opt-out. You didn't really read any links, did you ? For one of them it's in the first sentence...

[Blodrast]

Because the government doesn't have anything to do with this, it's a police thing. And it's completely voluntary by the ISP's, if they don't want to anymore, then they won't have to. Quite different from what the Australian government wants...

And the police in Australia is private, and in no way part of the gov't... how does the gov't not "have anything to do with this" when they propose it ??

Seriously, what are you smoking ?

[Blodrast]

Blodrast you ever heard the saying that it takes a society about 100 years to fully integrate a new technology? Meaning that we in west have only just come to grips with the light bulb, film, powered flight, and the automobile. We're still working on computers, TV, and jet travel. Where as things like the internet and video games are far to new to even remotely understood by society at large.

Oh well, if we're taking the philosophical stance, then it's all A-okay, and we should sit tight on our behinds, because nobody really understands this technology. What kind of twisted argument is that ? In favor of what ?

If they don't understand the technology, then they shouldn't make rules about it, how about that ? :2thumbsup: Only mess with something you understand.

[HoreTore]

Wrong, according to the article. Which part of mandatory is unclear ?
It is mandatory for the ISPs, optional for customers - with an opt-out. You didn't really read any links, did you ? For one of them it's in the first sentence...

Read my first comment one more time.


Btw, the internet restrictions in place here are child porn only.

Now look under my nickname, where you'll find the word "location". Now read the word to the right of that. :2thumbsup:

[Blodrast]

Read my first comment one more time.



Now look under my nickname, where you'll find the word "location". Now read the word to the right of that. :2thumbsup:

Okay, if you're talking about what's going on in Norway, I thought we were discussing the article...

[HoreTore]

Okay, if you're talking about what's going on in Norway, I thought we were discussing the article...

I was...


Britain and Scandinavia had successful internet restrictions, he said. "The internet hasn't ground to a halt in the UK, it hasn't ground to a halt in Scandinavian countries and it's not grinding the internet to a halt in Europe."

I was pointing out that the restrictions in place here are completely different from the ones your regime is proposing.

[Blodrast]

I was...

I was pointing out that the restrictions in place here are completely different from the ones your regime is proposing.

Okay then; btw, it most definitely is not my regime, I don't live down under.

[Vladimir]

Okay then; btw, it most definitely is not my regime, I don't live down under.

I do. Baziiiiiinnngggg! :drummer:

[lars573]

Oh well, if we're taking the philosophical stance, then it's all A-okay, and we should sit tight on our behinds, because nobody really understands this technology. What kind of twisted argument is that ? In favor of what ?
Maybe not sit tight on your behinds but don't be surprised when the babyboomers and whats left of the "greatest" generation in power today make bad decisions on new technologies like the internet and video games.


If they don't understand the technology, then they shouldn't make rules about it, how about that ? :2thumbsup: Only mess with something you understand.
And at what point in human history has understanding stood in the way of decision makers deciding. :laugh4:

[sapi]

A completely unbiased look at the policy :laugh4: (http://www.netalarmed.com/)



There are more criminals on the Internet than there are in all seven continents:inquisitive:


Q: Can't we already download free webfilters? Shouldn't we fund the Australian Federal Police so they can actually combat Internet crime as opposed to something that already exists for free?

A: Law enforcement is old technology. Mandatory filtering is new technology. Who would you prefer protecting your children. Trained police officers or university graduates employed at NetAlarmed because they missed out on graduate intake into reputable Government departments? :grin2:

EDIT:

Interesting (taken from the list of what will be filtered, see here (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/good-content-bad-content-what-will-be-banned-under-the-new-filter/))...


The material to be filtered includes...material that deals with issues or contains depictions which require an adult perspective:wall:

[Blodrast]

Nobody should be surprised, it was damn obvious that's what it'd turn into, and fast. Welcome to full-blown net censorship!

[Mikeus Caesar]

I meant to post it a few days ago, but some sensible british scientists pointed out how difficult and unfeasible it is to censor millions of sites. Although, this recent site posted by sapi renders my point redundant...


material that deals with issues or contains depictions which require an adult perspective

In other news, the Internet had the plug pulled today...

[Mikeus Caesar]

I'm double posting i know, but i lol'd upon reading this statement from dear Mr Conroy...


"Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Mr Conroy said yesterday. "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."

Now let's cut out the doublespeak and make it coherent.


"I believe i'm doing what's right on my righteous crusade to protect the little ones from the world, but we won't censor everything, just bad stuff, not like China," Mr Conroy said yesterday. "If you ask to opt-out of this program, or moan about freedom of speech, you must be a pedophile."

Ultimately, if you want the entire internet to be free so you can look at your perfectly legal pornography or surf 4chan, THEN YOU ARE A FILTHY DIRTY PEDOPHILE, YOU SCUM. And we'll put you on a big list of 'deviants' that we'll monitor.

[R'as al Ghul]

:dizzy2:

FYI, Tor is planning to improve the network protocol so that it works with VoIp services. That's a lot of bandwith which should also be sufficient for almost everything else.

[sapi]

@Mikeus Caesar Was that from the site I linked to (because that was a satire :laugh4:)?


In other news, the Internet had the plug pulled today...Yep. If I drop off the face of the .org any time soon, pretend to miss me :grin2:

[Mikeus Caesar]

@Mikeus Caesar Was that from the site I linked to (because that was a satire :laugh4:)?

Yep. If I drop off the face of the .org any time soon, pretend to miss me :grin2:

Tragically no, that quote wasn't from your satire site (which was very funny btw :D)

I should've included the link, shouldn't i? But yeah, it's an actual quote from that stupid christian fundamentalist **** Conroy.

There's a thread about it on 4chan /b/, where some of the more intelligent users have crawled out of the woodwork. They've made rather good points about the numerous ways it will fail. I hope they're right.