Rudd Government to censor internet (1 Viewer)

[poloktim]

It seems to me that once the filtering has been put in, every self-important busybody and victim group will want to impose their views on everyone else.

You mean like you do already?

As for the ISP filtering - it's funny. Rudd campaigned hard for the Internet during the election campaign, now that he's won he intends to dismantle the Internet with such censorship.

 

[volition]

As for the ISP filtering - it's funny. Rudd campaigned hard for the Internet during the election campaign, now that he's won he intends to dismantle the Internet with such censorship.

Give the government an inch, and it will take a mile. Such is the state of civil rights when you leave them up to some people to decide for others, rather than realising that everyone has a right to self-ownership.

Garrett wasn't too far from the truth when he said "when we get in, we'll just change it all" - even if he didn't know/mean it at the time.

 

[Generator]

You mean like you do already?

As for the ISP filtering - it's funny. Rudd campaigned hard for the Internet during the election campaign, now that he's won he intends to dismantle the Internet with such censorship.

In all fairness to Mr Rudd, this has been a part of Labor's policy platform since March 2006.

Liberals proposed this before.

It was Labor, but back in 2005 many Liberals were (and probably still are) in favour of such a system of filtering/censorship.


(Links taken from here.)

 

[DeathB4Life]

in other news: Sex crimes, teen pregnancy and STD spread is on the rise as millions go without their daily porn fix.

 

[poloktim]

But the speed-hit and latency increase won't impact IRC too much.

I know you're being an obnoxious cunt - but I totally agree with you! At least I still have one refuge.

 

[sambeatty]

Apparently you can't opt out of the 'violent' filter, but how do they define violent?

 

[ari89]

ah well lucky you, you get to read my blog before they filter it

STOP USING VIOLENCE TO MAKE ME READ YOUR BLOG! VIOLENCE VIOLENCE VIOLENCE EVERYTHING IS VIOLENCE AAAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! GOVERNMENTS ARE VIOLENCE, MEDICARE IS VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE!!!!!!
words that are not in caps to keep the message in caps but are blanked in white font happy new years

 

[ari89]

QFT CENTERLINK IS VIOLENCE!!

BeInG aN AnARcHiSt iS So HaRD CoRe DuDe I'M So CoOl, TAkE tHAt MiNarChists aNd BiG GovErNmENt LoVeRs. LIkE ViOlEnCe Is HoW GoVErnMeNtS wOrK tHeY FoRCe yOu tO EaT WiTh WEapoNrY aND DeaTh THreAts aND PrOvIDe A PoStaL SeRViCE UsInG ViOLeNce AnD OnLY tHat To DeLIveR thE MaiL.

 

[volition]

Wow, a bunch of people in denial about the way things get done in a 'democratic society'. Who would have thought?

So tell me, what happens if you don't pay your taxes?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Hahahahahahah this is so incredibly impossible to do and requires millions upon millions of dollars in infrastructure for ISP's in order to implement it. It would also seriously raise the cost of entering the marketplace to newcomers quite significantly and seriously reduce the natural competetive nature of the market.

That's good to hear. Is it rly that hard to make all ISPs block a set of addresses though?

 

[Evilo]

Hahahahahahah this is so incredibly impossible to do and requires millions upon millions of dollars in infrastructure for ISP's in order to implement it. It would also seriously raise the cost of entering the marketplace to newcomers quite significantly and seriously reduce the natural competetive nature of the market.

They will probably just outsource it. No doubt it will just be a keyword blocker lol - blocks words like "incest", "scat" etc... lolz

btw - it doesnt matter if it costs millions, if it (becomes) law, they'll have to do it anyway regardless of the price.

 

[withoutaface]

What a fucking moronic idea. I mean, fuck, only a month in the job and already Rudd's trying to implement brilliant ideas from his friends in the Orient.

Problems:
1. Having to opt out of the filtering means that every ISP has a list of who does and doesn't look up porn. Though I'm sure some sort of privacy act will try to make sure this information doesn't get out, that doesn't mean that it won't.
2. Burdens all internet users with the cost of filtering, even (presumably) if they don't use it.
3. Kids get killed by bad pills.
4. Bandwidth issues.
5. Fascism.

 

[jb_nc]

What a fucking moronic idea. I mean, fuck, only a month in the job and already Rudd's trying to implement brilliant ideas from his friends in the Orient.

Problems:
1. Having to opt out of the filtering means that every ISP has a list of who does and doesn't look up porn. Though I'm sure some sort of privacy act will try to make sure this information doesn't get out, that doesn't mean that it won't.
2. Burdens all internet users with the cost of filtering, even (presumably) if they don't use it.
3. Kids get killed by bad pills.
4. Bandwidth issues.
5. Fascism.

just fyi liberals proposed the same thing. you can try to blame it on labor but that liberal senator from tasmania loves to tell you what you can do on the internet and what you cant

how does that make you feel?

 

[withoutaface]

just fyi liberals proposed the same thing. you can try to blame it on labor but that liberal senator from tasmania loves to tell you what you can do on the internet and what you cant

how does that make you feel?

Evidence? When Labor first proposed it a couple of years ago there might've been a few backbenchers thought it was a good idea, but did the Communications Minister/Howard himself ever propose anything like this?

EDIT: I'd oppose this idea no matter which side it was coming from, but the fact that the Libs had 11.5 years to implement compulsory censorship on the internet, but didn't, says that Labor's on their own with this one.

 

[jb_nc]

Evidence? When Labor first proposed it a couple of years ago there might've been a few backbenchers thought it was a good idea, but did the Communications Minister/Howard himself ever propose anything like this?

LAST month, 62 members of the federal Coalition signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for a ban on access to pornographic, violent and other inappropriate material via the internet.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...ties-on-the-net/2005/12/07/1133829659783.html

A NATIONAL blockade against internet pornography and violence is now a possibility after the Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, showed signs of buckling to backbench demands for action on this issue.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/coonan-flips-on-net-porn-barrier/2006/03/22/1142703446070.html

 

[withoutaface]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...ties-on-the-net/2005/12/07/1133829659783.html



http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/coonan-flips-on-net-porn-barrier/2006/03/22/1142703446070.html

As I said, those 62 MP's are wrong, and the fact that cabinet managed to find a compromise solution which made most people happy meant that the practical consequence of a Coalition govt = relatively unrestricted internet.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

As I said, those 62 MP's are wrong, and the fact that cabinet managed to find a compromise solution which made most people happy meant that the practical consequence of a Coalition govt = relatively unrestricted internet.

Don't pretend one bunch of squeamish old men are much different to another

 

[jb_nc]

As I said, those 62 MP's are wrong, and the fact that cabinet managed to find a compromise solution which made most people happy meant that the practical consequence of a Coalition govt = relatively unrestricted internet.

62 MPs is a lot of the caucus. In fact for a party that's meant to stand for small government and individual liberty, that's a shit load. With geniuses like Alex Hawke in the party room, how can they go wrong?. Their buy-the-filter-and-do-it-yourself-we'll-subsidise-your-parenting option was just as dumb. I have a great filter than anyone can use: parental supervision.

And after that kid cracked Helen Coonan's master filter in about 20 minutes, the ISP level filter was never off the table.

 

[sthcross.dude]

WAF is right. Despite their intentions the reality is that in 11 years the libs did not introduce anything of the sort.


This whole desire to filter the internet seems to be based on a misconception that people "stumble" across porn. Unless your computer is chronically infected with adware, you can confidently browse the web without ever encountering explicit material.

"Oh hey mum, I was doing some research for school and then like all this porn popped up and forced me to download it."

If people choose to seek out porn they will find it, filtering or no filtering. How will they be able to filter every torrent and P2P file for instance?

 

[jb_nc]

WAF is right. Despite their intentions the reality is that in 11 years the libs did not introduce anything of the sort.

...and in the sixteen years of the Menzies government, they didn't introduce internet filtering either!

The government had no clue about the internet until, probably, about 2002. And in 2005 62 MPs asked for ISP-level filtering. It's not like these ideas sprung forth from the loins of Karl Marx himself. Social conservatives who seemingly dominate the Liberals now would savour the thought of internet filtering.