Slashdot Mirror


Australia Chooses Education Over Filtering

riprjak writes "The Australian federal government has rejected a call for Internet filtering to 'protect' Australians from child pornography and has opted instead to undertake an education and information campaign to teach parents about the perils of the Internet."

244 comments

  1. Picks jaw off floor . . . . by Tetsugaku-San · · Score: 1, Funny

    Good God really? But what about the children!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Picks jaw off floor . . . . by spiralscratch · · Score: 1

      No child's welfare has ever gotten in the way of a politician's quest for porn.

    2. Re:Picks jaw off floor . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But do we have time?

    3. Re:Picks jaw off floor . . . . by mwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow...trusting the collective brainpower of an entire society, instead of depending on mechanisms created only by a handful of people who think and act just like the politicians...what a revolutionary idea!}irony off{

    4. Re:Picks jaw off floor . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the children??
      kids have a right to sit in school and play games
      on yahoo.....instant message their friends and flood ping their teachers PC --

      school is not for learning anymore......school is more or less a babysitter now.........

    5. Re:Picks jaw off floor . . . . by raddan · · Score: 1
      Good God really? But what about the children!!!!!!!!

      Well, they're all going to be very horny.

      Women: if you thought Italy was bad, I suggest avoiding Australia in the future.

    6. Re:Picks jaw off floor . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Heh. Yeah, without ability to access porn sites teenagers generally are not horny. :-)

      Now, I think you were just being funny, but honestly Italy being nasty for single blonde women has much to do with macho attitudes, and very little to do with pornography. Scandinavian countries and Netherlands, for example, are very liberal with regards to erotic entertainment, yet they are also most progressive with both women's rights, and very very safe.

    7. Re:Picks jaw off floor . . . . by vivian · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it, Japan is probably one of the safest places on earth for women after dark, yet they have all that weird tentacle schoolgirl porn that I have actually seen business guys in suits reading on the train!

      So mabey theres some kind of inverse relationship between society's attitude to porn and the level of sex crime caused by frustrated sickos on the loose.

  2. State of Shock by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Funny

    A government made a sensible, non-kneejerk decision with regard to the Internet?

    I want to to move there!

    Oh, wait... I already did. :)

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    1. Re:State of Shock by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A very sensible move by the Australian government. However, I do hope it also applies to their "number 1" telco, Telstra and their BigPond (aka Big Pong) ISP who did indeed filter a particular site recently.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    2. Re:State of Shock by CrackedButter · · Score: 1, Funny

      You smug fuck..... :-)

    3. Re:State of Shock by Manip · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It does sound good.. but remember this is also the country that decided to import American law as part of a 'free-trade' type agreement.

    4. Re:State of Shock by 9-bits.tk · · Score: 1

      I think it's more down to the ISPs to filter 'bad' content than the Government. The ISPs, _do_ control how you access the Internet.

    5. Re:State of Shock by krumms · · Score: 3, Informative

      It wasn't "filtered" so to speak - it was redirected to an intermediate page. You could still get to the gay porn if you really wanted to.

    6. Re:State of Shock by MEGAMAID · · Score: 2, Informative

      ffs, were you asleep when that happened? They didn't totally block the site. They simply gave people a choice by putting up a page which meant that you needed one extra click to get to your gay porn.

      Very responsible I thought.

      --

      Waking Up - There must be a better way to start the day.
    7. Re:State of Shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It does sound good.. but remember this is also the country that decided to import American law as part of a 'free-trade' type agreement.

      You can be right about one thing and wrong about a great many others.

      For example, the US also does not filter the internet. But nevertheless, it is notorious throughout the world as a liar and a rogue nation, lacking basic freedom of the press, and basic democratic principles.

      Or at least, that's what I hear on slashdot.

    8. Re:State of Shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but I'm sure that one extra click is really difficult when the mouse button is all sticky...

    9. Re:State of Shock by Sime208 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a breath of fresh air reading what Australia will do.

      Trying to plug the hole that is child Internet porn would be an ongoing battle swallowing much time and resource better spent elsewhere. Sure the majority don't want to see it and have no interest in it spreading, but trying to stop it is like trying to stop the use of drugs. If people want it, they'll get it. I'd rather my tax dollars went into dealing with it at the source.

      It also means the Government won't be submerged in requests of other anti- groups to stop whatever else they decide doesn't take their fancy.

    10. Re:State of Shock by Kurayamino-X · · Score: 1

      well it's about time we got one right...

      --
      ...I got nothing.
    11. Re:State of Shock by jez9999 · · Score: 0, Troll

      trying to stop it is like trying to stop the use of drugs

      Please, use the word 'narcotics'. I'm so sick of people moronically using the work 'drugs' to mean the same thing. They are not. The vast majority of 'drugs' are useful tools helping people to live their lives and recover from ill health. Thank you.

    12. Re:State of Shock by Sime208 · · Score: 0, Troll
      "Please, use the word 'narcotics'. I'm so sick of people moronically using the work 'drugs' to mean the same thing. They are not. The vast majority of 'drugs' are useful tools helping people to live their lives and recover from ill health. Thank you."
      Please, kiss my arse. I won't use another word when the one I used is perfectly adequate.

      From m-w.com, "drug: something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness"

      Get off your high horse. Stop thinking the rest of the world should join in with whatever little rules you've set yourself to follow in the use of language. Thank-you.
    13. Re:State of Shock by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 0

      Can anyone say "children overboard affair"? Don't speak so soon.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    14. Re:State of Shock by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Amen to that! If entire countries can do it then why on earth can a single school (like mine) not do it?

      *goes back to finding ways around irrational filtering of sites mentioning WINE (the Linux variant, not the alocholic one)*

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    15. Re:State of Shock by spinfire · · Score: 1

      Narcotics refers to a specific class of drugs, depressants, mainly opiates.

      Narcotic \Nar*cot"ic\, n. (Med.)
      A drug which, in medicinal doses, generally allays morbid
      susceptibility, relieves pain, and produces sleep; but which,
      in poisonous doses, produces stupor, coma, or convulsions,
      and, when given in sufficient quantity, causes death. The
      best examples are opium (with morphine), belladonna (with
      atropine), and conium.

    16. Re:State of Shock by mysticwhiskey · · Score: 1
      So, m-w is the be-all and end-all of definition? C'mon... you think a DRUGSTORE (US term) sells mainly illegal chemicals? No - A drug is a chemical compound, legal or otherwise.

      "Get off your high horse..." - same could be said for your comment, don't you think?

      --

      Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!

    17. Re:State of Shock by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      I admire and envy your gift of foresight... I personnally will know if this decision is sensible only when its objective results will be known.

      I sometimes wonder if brainjerks are any better than kneejerks. Do you have any idea of what level of supervision ( - support ) some (many ? most ?) parents are able to provide to their children ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    18. Re:State of Shock by krumms · · Score: 3, Funny

      You could still get to the gay porn if you really wanted to.

      I mean, not that I'd know or anything. :o

    19. Re:State of Shock by mpe · · Score: 1

      Please, use the word 'narcotics'. I'm so sick of people moronically using the work 'drugs' to mean the same thing.

      The term "narcotic" refers to a specific catagory of drugs. Some of which are legal, others of which are illegal.

      The vast majority of 'drugs' are useful tools helping people to live their lives and recover from ill health.

      This use has nothing to do with a drug's legal status.

    20. Re:State of Shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So because it was gay porn it was sensible? So if they blocked straight porn it would have been just as sensible?

    21. Re:State of Shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding, a friend of mine was suppose to do a report on Macbeth but the schools systems would filter out sites that mentioned the word witch. Thanks for providing a "learning tool" that won't let you learn about what you're studying.

    22. Re:State of Shock by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      trying to stop it is like trying to stop the use of drugs

      The fundamental difference being that drug using and selling between adults is clearly an act of voluntary consent -- there is no aggressor, and there is no victim -- while child porn is clearly an act of aggression, because a child is too young to make such a decision.

      Selling drugs to minors should be interpreted as an act of aggression, however, for the same reason child porn is interpreted as an act of aggression. The minor is simply too young to make adult decisions.

      The only question left is, exactly when does a child become old enough to make adult decisions? That can only be determined case-by-case, because of the reality of human nature. By the laws of human nature, we are unique individuals with different wants and needs, not borg-like clones that are served well by a one-size-fits-all blanket solution.

    23. Re:State of Shock by pdxaaron · · Score: 1

      Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    24. Re:State of Shock by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "The vast majority of 'drugs' are useful tools helping people to live their lives and recover from ill health. Thank you."

      Makes sense...I've heard people say "alcohol is a drug"...so, I'll help recover my mental health at the end of the day after work, with a nice martini.

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    25. Re:State of Shock by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's the last time I want to hear the words "Child Internet porn" and "swallowing" in the same sentence.

      How about "child internet porn" and "plug the hole"?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:State of Shock by Sime208 · · Score: 1
      The fundamental difference being that drug using and selling between adults is clearly an act of voluntary consent -- there is no aggressor, and there is no victim -- while child porn is clearly an act of aggression, because a child is too young to make such a decision. Selling drugs to minors should be interpreted as an act of aggression, however, for the same reason child porn is interpreted as an act of aggression. The minor is simply too young to make adult decisions.
      Agreed, but I was making the comparison because neither are likely to stop because a government says don't do them.

      With drugs/illegal drugs/narcotics or whatever you want to call them, the person taking them is consenting. A child cannot consent to being abused. I'm fully aware of this.
    27. Re:State of Shock by Sime208 · · Score: 1
      So, m-w is the be-all and end-all of definition? C'mon... you think a DRUGSTORE (US term) sells mainly illegal chemicals? No - A drug is a chemical compound, legal or otherwise.
      I'm sure it was obvious I was referring to illegal drugs from the context.
      "Get off your high horse..." - same could be said for your comment, don't you think?
      My reply was crafted in the same way yours was ;-)
    28. Re:State of Shock by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      But, I think that because the nature of child porn is naturally percieved as criminal by normal people (due to the lack of voluntary consent), law enforcement will have a much easier time making the laws work. (Unless of course, the laws target innocent people and not just the criminals, which they probably do.)

      Drug prohibition, on the other hand, is bound to fail because the act of drug using/selling is naturally percieved by normal people as non-criminal. (However, this can be a difficult leap for people who have been taught all their lives that drug users ARE criminals, i.e. anybody who was born and raised in the states.)

    29. Re:State of Shock by timts · · Score: 1

      I dont think either way would work that well, so there's no big difference.

      I mean, there's no way to filter porno clearly and since it's international, it's impossible to make it illegal.

      also, education never works that well for everybody. at least it didnot work for me.

    30. Re:State of Shock by uncledrax · · Score: 1

      "Or at least, that's what I hear on slashdot."

      and of course we all know that /. is on the internet, and everything we read (on the internet) must be true.. :]

      --
      ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    31. Re:State of Shock by BlackMagi · · Score: 1

      The thing about the IP laws is that none of our politicians seem to have noticed it. They're not saying things like "We fully support DMCA and extended copyright" or "It sucks balls, but it's less important than making more money selling exports" or holding any kind of position at all. I honestly don't think they noticed. And when we point it out to them, I think their eyes mostly just glaze over - it's just convention, right? Sigh.

      --
      http://melbournephilosophy.com/
  3. Finally some sense... by ebsf1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oi oi oi

    1. Re:Finally some sense... by thatJoshGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!

      Off topic? Just cause you yank's don't speak Australian, doesn't make it off topic

    2. Re:Finally some sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ? Just cause you yanks don't speak Bulgarian, doesn't make my comment offtopic. I swear it's relevant.

    3. Re:Finally some sense... by idlemachine · · Score: 1
      Ah yes. The "oi oi oi", proud cry of Australians and white supremacists alike.

      I'd like to believe there's a difference, I really would...but it's hard watching an entire nation make absolute idiots of themselves every time with this pointless absurdity.

      It's like they say, those who don't know their history are doomed to make complete dicks of themselves on the world stage.

  4. In the spirit of Fark.com threads... by Buran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [HERO]

  5. It's been cencored for a while .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Internet at schooles (or at least the ones I worked at) already had an internet filtration in place which was controlled at a state level. Bear in mind this was Queensland, I wouldn't know about other states.

    1. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      talking more on a broader scale here.. ie the country, or at ISP level.. it's fair enough to have filtering at schools

    2. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      The whole point of schoolies is to go and get it in real life, not to watch pr0n ;)

    3. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by DRobson · · Score: 1

      Here in NSW there's been filtering in schools for quite some time. While I'm unfamiliar with all the specifics of the system, from what I hear it involves all schools going (eventually) through one giant pipe using one giant "filter". The filter was of rather dubious quality while I was attending high school 2 years ago. A lot of it was based on keywords, eg www.planetdeusex.com was banned becuase it contained sex in the url.

    4. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      It's gotta be all going through one filter...beause I can't think of _ANY_ real reason why it takes 5 minutes to get a directory listing for the ftp server on my home computer.

      They have also blocked google image search. What they haven't really thought about though is: WHY would I want to look at porn at school? At home, yes. But over the DSL line where I have trouble getting directory listings of my home directory over FTP, how can it be possible?

    5. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, those are fairly easy to get around, I did it all the time :)

    6. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by westyx · · Score: 1

      or a pipe upstream is seriously saturated.

    7. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by Darkon · · Score: 1

      it's fair enough to have filtering at schools

      Damn I wish I had modpoints. Some people are bound to cry "no censorship!" and "information wants to be free!" but I have no more problem with filtering in schools than I do with a responsible parent using filtering on their child's computer. In fact aren't schools supposed to act in the capacity of a responsible parent when the kids are in their care?

      Mandating filtering in public libraries and other places used by adults just in case a child might come along and use them is a whole different kettle of fish though. I don't want my internet access curtailed just because little Johnnie's folks are too clueless to watch him while he's in the library. This whole education thing is a great idea. If more parents were clued in about the internet and kept an eye on what their little darlings were up to on it then they wouldn't be at risk of exposure to porn, paedophiles, etc.

    8. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      At 8:30 in the morning? I wouldn't imagine that there is a whole lot of traffic.

    9. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by dns_server · · Score: 2, Informative

      In South Australia it is the same, there are the same types of filters in place. it is funny when your teacher uses the internet to look up legitamate topics such as sexual harrasment, but it is blocked because the site contains the key word 'sex'.

    10. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by cute-boy · · Score: 1

      i think that is reasonable. kids can use thier own ISPs to steal music and jerk of to porn and cam sex.

      -r

    11. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      I am just reciently out of a Queensland stateschool and I was shocked to find my beloved http://www.phonelosers.org was blocked. Thankfully slashdot was not.

    12. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by westyx · · Score: 1

      Just when every office worker in the education department gets in and loads up their email?

      Dunno, only a guess. what do the traceroutes say?

    13. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      It's the same all day, but so far I haven't had time to do a traceroute, when i get 10 seconds to bypass the permissions to cmd.exe I might take a look...although school ends tommorrow so I won't have time anyway.

    14. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public library filtering could be done in the way that I saw it being done in one library. By default anyone can use a filtered terminal, but once you hit a certain age and show the librarians proof of it, they put a sticker on your card that lets you use an unfiltered terminal.

    15. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New South Wales has exactly the same thing... Gov't paid for the net access for all schools, and ran a transparent proxy you had to use, with filtering software.

    16. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm currently in a QLD high school (well, actually on holidays at the moment) and the funny thing is I can get to slashdot easy, but games.slashdot.org is blocked. Why? It's about videogames, so it's blocked like most other gaming websites.

      The trick is to just go to slashdot.org/games instead :P

      Me and my friend love finding ways around their filtering.

    17. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by Serinde · · Score: 1

      In Victoria ISP's who wish to provide an internet service to state schools must supply content filtering as part of the base package. At the moment there is a rather short list of Department of Education and Training approved ISP's who do this (and with some of these ISP's it is questionable how well they do it). Schools however do not "have to" use the filtering or the approved ISP's they can go outside VicOne (who supply the circuit) and the approved ISP's (who supply domain hosting, content filtering, upstream bandwidth etc.), if they chose. The Department has no mandate that will allow them to force the schools to use the services supplied, though after a recent departmental restructure they are looking at getting this changed. Even if schools use an "approved ISP" they can still turn the filtering off, as most of these ISP's have options for unfiltered user accounts, filtered accounts and accounts limited to the Edu-list. Edu-list is a collection of about 100,000 department approved educational friendly websites. So filtering has been around for a while in Victorian State Schools, just poorly implemented and while it is supposedly compulsory there are more loop holes than you can poke a stick at.

    18. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until recently I worked for the NSW Department of Education. I was heavily involved in setting up the environment that NSW Schools use to get to the Internet and as such I will post this Anonymously.
      Over three years ago the DET went to tender for a massive project to give the schools email, filtered web and hosting services. This project, while still being paid for has not produced anything of value and is about to reach the end of its contract life. No doubt the contract renewal will happen so the politicians can keep covering their collective bums while screwing the pooch on this.
      As a result of this there is no funding or management willpower to support and maintain the infrastructure that the schools actually use. This results in the often poor service that the students and staff of the schools receive.
      More than once I asked why we spent so much money on in-effectively filtering the web traffic when the money would be better spent on educating teachers / students and parents on responsible usage of the Internet. The answer I always got was that they had to appear to be doing the right thing so they did not get sued, while they agreed it was a waste of money in terms of actually protecting the student it was money really well spent protecting their collective bums.

      I am glad to be out of that environment and will be moving Interstate to keep my children away from the NSW Education system.

    19. Re:It's been cencored for a while .. by tommykat · · Score: 1
      In the ACT we have a very annoying filter at schools.
      • Pages are blocked for stupid reasons (e-commerce or message boards/bulletins)
      • The filter list is rarely updated. (In a way this is good because .nyud.net:8090 has not been added yet ;-) )
      • A lot of pages useful for school work are blocked
      • A lot of pages that should be blocked aren't blocked
      IMHO this kind of censorship is ineffective and should be abandoned.
      --
      Do you have an oblem?
  6. My god... by VirtualWolf · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...the Howard government doing something intelligent?!

    ::looks outside to see if the sky is falling::

    1. Re:My god... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I doubt if intelligence comes into it. I suspect that it is more a symptom of their inertia with respect to anything outside their more malevolent agenda.

    2. Re:My god... by dakara · · Score: 1

      No the sky isn't falling. However, there does seem to be a large number of pigs in the sky at the moment.

    3. Re:My god... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      ...the Howard government doing something intelligent?!
      Obviously it slipped through while the government was in caretaker mode during the run up to the election. Either that or the new technology minister is not a luddite like the last one.
  7. It's a step by monkease · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Really, it's laudable that the response by the Aussies is not the cyber-equivalent of smart-bombing (*cough*ChineseEmbassy*cough*Kosovo) but it's still part of the whole growing-pains thing that we'll experience for many years.

    I'm not sure any government (save, maybe, South Korea's, which is its current form as a direct result of the internet) realizes just how much the internet is changing the world. Protecting your citizens' bodies is one thing--hunt those child-kidnappers down!--but it's too late for their minds...

    and that's a good thing.

    1. Re:It's a step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who don't know what parent is talking about : http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/Bulletins 99/tim99-12-1.html

  8. Nice! by TheShadowHawk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As a fellow Aussie, it's good to see the government doing something reasonable for a change!! :)

    --
    Friends don't let Friends use Internet Explorer.
    1. Re:Nice! by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 1

      Totally agree! This has to be the first sensible thing the Howard Government has done in a long, long time...

  9. In Australia... by 12+inch+pianist · · Score: 2, Funny

    only stupid people vote for filtering.

    pr0n.au is my next investment.

    1. Re:In Australia... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      only stupid people vote for filtering.

      However, an awful lot of stupid people voted for the Howard government. Go figure...

    2. Re:In Australia... by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Sorry Australian hosted pornography is illegal.

    3. Re:In Australia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, no pr0n can be hosted in Australia or use an Australian domain.

  10. This seems really smart by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless you consider that kids still have access to the pornography and no amount of "education" is really going to block them or persuade them from accessing it.

    It's like those billboards that tell you that "God is Protecting You". It only reaches those who want to be reached.

    1. Re:This seems really smart by themaidtricks · · Score: 1

      It's like those billboards that tell you that "God is Protecting You". It only reaches those who want to be reached.

      But it doesn't reach people in prison, and they certainly want to be reached.

    2. Re:This seems really smart by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ...you think that you really could use filters to succesfully combat the creativity of 12-14year olds in their search for porn?

      maybe it's still good to tell them that you shouldn't stick a knife up your anus just because you saw a picture of someone doing that on the internet...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:This seems really smart by sinewalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, isn't the issue that:
      a) the children who are the subject of child-porn are the main victims.
      b) banning such content from viewing in Australia does nothing for the poor children photographed oversees in the first place (the proposal was to filter out kid porn from outside Aust).
      c) "what about the children viewing the porn?" Yes indeed. And what about the other offensive things they view, like adult porn, or bestiality, or planes flying into tall buildings, or.... where is the line drawn?

      Filtering is not an answer. Education, while only reaching those who's mind-share you already have, is probably the only sensible solution, and it only addresses item c. Unforturnately nothing can be done about a or b. Directly. In fact by filtering it out, you lose the opportunity to catch the adult consumers of the content, and hense lose a lead back to the perpetrators of a...

      I think that lead is worth keeping.

      --
      “Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
    4. Re:This seems really smart by Anne+Honime · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Unless you consider that kids still have access to the pornography and no amount of "education" is really going to block them or persuade them from accessing it.

      We've go a saying for this : a child who tumble inadvertantly over porn is not enough overlooked by the adult in charge of him, and that's the adult responsability ; a child who finds porn after looking for it is not a child anymore.

    5. Re:This seems really smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't about child porn - it's about moral supremecists wanting to stop underaged persons from accessing porn. I for one would have been quite annoyed if I couldn't access porn at age 15. I wasn't getting any (five years on, I'm still not), Porn was all I had.

    6. Re:This seems really smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teach them something of value, such as Zen Buddhism. Once you realize something spiritual such as that, you would really change - it makes you a whole lot deeper and a better person.

      I wish western religions had some of the philosophies that some eastern religions did - they really do help instill some good values, without the forced nature of follow-or-you'd-go-to-hell thing.

    7. Re:This seems really smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> it makes you a whole lot deeper and a better person.

      Sounds more like it makes you conceited.

    8. Re:This seems really smart by monkease · · Score: 2, Insightful

      c) "what about the children viewing the porn?" Yes indeed. And what about the other offensive things they view, like adult porn, or bestiality, or planes flying into tall buildings, or.... where is the line drawn?

      I hope I'm not getting too philosophical here, but that's a good point: What about the children viewing the porn? Now, I understand that minors are not supposed to be looking at any porn, and I understand that quite a lot of the child porn out there is a result of gross exploitation of children, but I'll relate an anecdote: My brother was 12 or 13 when I first started noticing his porn trails on the computer. I was distressed to find that some of the porn he was looking at was of girls around his age. Now none of these were hardcore images; most looked like webcam shots. Now, I couldn't tell him that it was "wrong" for him to be interested in girls of his own age, & I couldn't make the claim that these girls were being exploited (anymore than regular porn actresses/models/whatever are being exploited)--can you make the argument that these girls were exploiting themselves?

      What it came down to was, "look guy, I sympathize, I do, but if these are found on the computer, me & dad are going to be in a world of hurt. Here, he's a couple good regular porn sites..."

      I suppose my question is, with such malleable morals (as morals are today) how can we legislate on morality? (Note: Legislating to protect minors is a GREAT idea) Or rather, what is the difference between legislating protection and legislating morality?

    9. Re:This seems really smart by novakyu · · Score: 1
      ...no amount of "education" is really going to block them or persuade them from accessing it.

      So, are you saying that whole "education" thing is ill-conceived and doomed to begin with?

      It is the whole point of education program to dissuade them from accessing illegal porns (well, any porn is illegal for kids, if it's like in U.S.). If you are saying that this goal is unreacheable from the start, well, I would like to see some supporting arguments.

      BTW, I would rather argue that no amount of "blocking" is really going to stop them or persuade them from accessing it [illegal porns], if they really wanted to. Every firewall/security has a weakness, and for those who really wanted to get it, it's almost trivial effort to find a way to get around it. The solution is in curbing the demand, not the supply.

    10. Re:This seems really smart by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      kids still have access to the pornography and no amount of "education" is really going to block them or persuade them from accessing it.

      Your point being?

      Who cares if kids,(and of course were talking about pubesent teenagers here), go looking for porn. It's not going to turn them into drooling, trenchcoated Ken Keniffs, hungry for porn day and night. This will only happen to those destined for that path anyway.

      Internet porn today is exactly the same as porn mags in the fifties.

      Again I say, if you want to look after your kids, don't crush my freedoms to do it.

      P.S.
      Anyone who bans their child from the net over porn, without having ever talked with them about the birds and the bees, needs to have their gaurdianship revoked.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    11. Re:This seems really smart by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1
      Unless you consider that kids still have access to the pornography and no amount of "education" is really going to block them or persuade them from accessing it.


      Just tell them that the boobies are fake. But seriously, you are saying that kids never listen to adults. You are saying that if they were to view porn, they'd expload or something. They are going to give adults the same amount of respect that they get.
      What do you think would happen to their little minds if they saw some of the disgust-o porn? They will probably think "ewwwwwww" and no, they won't be scarred.

      -Phantom of the Operating System
    12. Re:This seems really smart by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unless you consider that kids still have access to the pornography and no amount of "education" is really going to block them or persuade them from accessing it.

      First of all, children are always going to have access to pornography. That has always been true as long as pornography has been readily available - you can just shoplift something pornographic. Or, barring that, I guess you could get together with some other kids and make your own child porn for children. It would be interesting to see how a legal case on that subject would come out, but that's wildly offtopic. The point is that you can't protect people by limiting their access to information, because people want information to be free.

      It's a truism that if you want to prevent people from doing things that are harmful to them (prove to me, however, that children viewing porn is harmful, please) that you have to educate them as to why they shouldn't do them. Some problems are self-correcting, like kids who don't know not to touch hot things. Porn, however, does not have immediate negative effects, whatever long-term negative effects it could potentially have, so you have to begin education sooner. Sure, if you could actually keep it away from them, that would be a solution of sort, but you can't. No amount of internet filtering will change that. Even if you could block it all, it would still be a good idea to educate your children on the subject once you've talked to them about sex in the first place. I hope you at least believe in educating them on that subject.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:This seems really smart by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      can you make the argument that these girls were exploiting themselves?

      Not only can I make one, but it's actually easy as the anti-pornography (read: anti-interesting-sex) lobby has provided us so much ammunition. Mind you, I do think that "child porn" is wrong when it involves anyone other than the minor, and that this is a gray area, but it is reasonable to construct an argument around the idea that our social construction of attractiveness and desirability has essentially forced these girls to put naked pictures of themselves out there because they feel that they cannot be sought after without doing so, and the entire situation preys upon their insecurity over their body image - and since data is forever, they will have to live with the consequences for as long as they are alive.

      Whether or not you believe it, it's an argument worthy of inspection. There are actually intelligent and educated people who hold views similar to these, for example an article I read that compared the bikini to the burka and decided that the two garments were equally tyrannical. Personally I disagree but again, you have to at least understand the argument before you disagree with it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:This seems really smart by monkease · · Score: 1

      Good points from a sociological standpoint, but if you mean them to apply to the legal nature of the question then you would have to take a rather large pen to the Constitution. I would support a movement that seeks to change the sociatal expectations/ norms/ morees of our culture(s) to something a bit more reasonable, or at least to something that places higher value on intellect, but suggesting that the government should have any part in this is rather ridiculous, at least considering the original intent of (what I assume to be) our country.

      Essentially, the girls may be exploited in the literal sense, but our government has no basis to force them to de-exploit themselves.

      There is quite a lot to be said for personal responsibility, but the fact remains that people will get left behind in every sphere of life. The ones that work through it, avoid it, whatever, on their own or by their own initiative are the ones that we want to enjoy the benefits of having worked through it.

    15. Re:This seems really smart by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are many indications that the founding fathers meant for us to take a torch to the constitution when we could come up with something better. Unfortunately true statesmen usually are killed or at least discredited which in political circles is actually worse in some ways, as it prevents even your progeny from succeeding. Instead we are saddled with career politicians. We the people are to blame, though, for allowing politicians to make elections into circuses.

      It would be interesting to see what would happen if our legal code were based on reason, however, instead of emotion. Certainly laws on sex and drugs would be substantially different, although most laws about property rights and legal contracts would probably be basically the same. But, maybe that's just my biases showing through.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. educating the public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    And remember folks... if you go to warez sites, you're going to get child porn popups from hell.

    1. Re:educating the public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if I'm using Firefox.

  12. Excuse my ignorance but by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article quotes

    including a British-style national internet filtering system but rejected it.

    I wasn't aware that the UK has a national internet filtering system. Can anyone elaborate?

    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    1. Re:Excuse my ignorance but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware that the UK has a national internet filtering system. Can anyone elaborate?

      Sure. You see, THERE'S NOTHING AT ALL BEING FILTERED. GO BACK TO YOUR DAILY ROUTINE, CITIZEN. lemurs, it's just gotten way out of hand.

    2. Re:Excuse my ignorance but by timmyf2371 · · Score: 5, Informative
      We don't.

      British Telecom's ISP blocks certain underage porn sites which are found on an IWF black list, however this is not a legal requirement by any means and AFAIK they are the only British ISP currently to do such a thing.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    3. Re:Excuse my ignorance but by nick+korma · · Score: 1

      If my memory serves me correctly this was proposed some time ago - but never got very far - it was probably pushed aside to talk about more important issues than protecting childrens innocence - such as speed cameras on the motorways and fox hunting...

    4. Re:Excuse my ignorance but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just tried calling the IWF for a copy of the blacklist (to use with DansGuardian) and they won't let me have a copy because I am not an ISP. But they are supposed to be helping 'protect' the public yet they won't let me use the list. What nonsense!

    5. Re:Excuse my ignorance but by danila · · Score: 1

      Because if they disclosed the list it would become obvious that there is little or no child porn sites listed there. It just so happens that for half a decade already there is almost no child porn on the Web or Usenet (it's still on the Internet, but mostly on P2P, private FTPs, etc.). So the list either blocks questionable sites, which aren't child porn, or it blocks sites that are merely discussion boards, or it blocks sites that don't exist already. In any case, neither the list creators, nor BT are interested in anyone learning the truth, because that would undermine their excellent publicity ("BT is protecting our children").

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    6. Re:Excuse my ignorance but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably mean 'Chinese', not 'British'. A common typo.

    7. Re:Excuse my ignorance but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that was a poor attempt at irony.
      "Protecting childrens' innocence" is a wonderful blanket phrase that covers all manner of evils; I'm sure Blunkett worked it into his ID Card speech somewhere.
      Fox-hunting is more important than you realise: by allowing it we are sending the message that such barbarous behaviour is acceptable; to any civilised society this should be abhorrent. If foxes are indeed vermin we should put them down humanely but I would like to see an independent study to back that up. I could even work this argument under the "protecting childrens' innocence" banner.
      The pro-hunting lobby often confuse 'rights' with 'desire', reason enough for me to distrust them.
      Speed cameras are a different issue; in known accident blackspots they are a good idea, but they've been subverted into a revenue-generation stream for the police. This is bad, and must be stopped.

    8. Re:Excuse my ignorance but by Jo+Owen · · Score: 1

      Most Schools in Britain get thier internet access via a network called JaNET, the web access through this network is heavily filterd, as it is only used for schools.

  13. Good for Australia, sucks to Haradine by sinewalker · · Score: 0

    Brian Harradine is such a f*ck-wit! While he's asking inane questions, how about "Why don't we also ban general broadcasts of news involving violence during prime-time, since this exposes violence to children?". Sheesh, to think my parents vote for this dick.

    --
    “Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
    1. Re:Good for Australia, sucks to Haradine by chrisjrn · · Score: 1

      But they don't vote for him anymore since he retired, and that can only be a good thing.

    2. Re:Good for Australia, sucks to Haradine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, save that poor violence from the children before they hurt it.

    3. Re:Good for Australia, sucks to Haradine by jlehtira · · Score: 1

      Uh, cut out of context, it's difficult to say what he meant. If he used irony, then yes, I would find it much better to filter violence instead of sex. News is probably not as bad as all the movies et cetera.

      I guess it's a cultural thing (in USA) that sex is bad but violence is okay. This is upside down. With little education sex is good and safe. Whatever you do, violence is always harmful.

    4. Re:Good for Australia, sucks to Haradine by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

      I guess it's a cultural thing (in USA) that sex is bad but violence is okay. Yeah, it's completely Darwinian. I can see why it's like this though. Sex is made out to be evil, because somebody secretly doesn't want you enjoying "their" women. Violence is OK, because then you can go around killing yourselves and never get "their" women. Just about every society spreads this bullshit to some extent.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    5. Re:Good for Australia, sucks to Haradine by hashwolf · · Score: 1

      I don't know Brian Harradine but knowing how (elected) politicians usually work I can assume that he is probably a f*ck-wit BECAUSE of your parents.

      Before you skin me alive let me explain...
      Polititicans usually propose and say stuff that they know the majority of their electors like to hear.
      Otherwise they wouldn't be (re)elected wouldn't they?

      --
      - "They misunderestimated me."
    6. Re:Good for Australia, sucks to Haradine by Mant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Completely Darwinian?

      I'd think it is much more about religiously beleifs of the early American settlers. Plenty of cultlures, both ancient and modern, have been much more relaxed about portraying sex than the USA. Plenty are still around, so it doesn't seem to be a trait promoting survival/reproduction which would make it Darwinian.

      That doesn't mean that adultary or the like is more socially accepted there.

    7. Re:Good for Australia, sucks to Haradine by bcmm · · Score: 1
      since this exposes violence to children
      I was unaware that children could cause harm to violence, or even that anyone cares if they do. Violence is bad, so what is wrong with children harming it?

      Oh, wait... Did you mean "since this exposes children to violence"?
      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  14. As they say in Australia to congratulate someone. by sowdog81 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Vegemite!

  15. For those that didn't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Basically the low down is Australia will have really educated children porn stars.

    1. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by sinewalker · · Score: 1

      Or if we are really hopefull (wishfull thinking I know), they may be educated by what the see with their parent's guidance so that they may not become porn stars themselves... long shot, but one can hope... :-(

      --
      “Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
  16. Awesome job, Aussies by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    5 pt. badges for everybody!

  17. Re:As they say in Australia to congratulate someon by flamearrows · · Score: 1

    No. But we do say things like "you farkin' idiot" to ignorant foreigners. flamearrows

    --
    The indiscriminate use of vulgar language is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker
  18. kids are afraid by arjovenzia · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As you may or may not know, there has been a massive, hugely publicized crackdown on child porn in Australia. and the byproducts are visible.

    I recently cleaned a friend-of-the-family's PC of a major spy ware infestation, brought on by their 7 yo son going on a porn site, egged on by his mates (as mates do). when the subsequent torrent of pop ups occurred a few days later, he was petrified that the cops were going to come and lock him up, as has happened to all the other people we have been hearing about on the radio/TV/papers.

    Although it wont have a lasting effect (IMHO, if pron is there, it will get assessed), but not for a while he will stay away. the poor kid was so terrified, so conscious of what he had done, he will need some serious hormones to get up the courage.

    1. Re:kids are afraid by daclink · · Score: 1

      On the up side he probably won't go on porn sites again!

    2. Re:kids are afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, this reminds me of a site I saw a few years back. It says "Do you want to see naked women" or something like that, and then when you click, it says "For shame! I'm going to email your mother and tell her all about the naughty things you've been doing". If I'd been that kid's age, I'd have been petrified.

    3. Re:kids are afraid by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      That's an upside? Since when was there something wrong with a sexually mature adult induling in pornography?

    4. Re:kids are afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...When it ruins you off women. When you can't get sexually excited by a cute girl anymore and you and your friends only hit on the super-hot ones when you're out. It's a real problem.

    5. Re:kids are afraid by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      If you're watching that much porn, you have other problems...

    6. Re:kids are afraid by stor · · Score: 1

      As you may or may not know, there has been a massive, hugely publicized crackdown on child porn in Australia. and the byproducts are visible.

      Yes. One interesting byproduct is suicide:

      http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/02/109652 79 71874.html?oneclick=true

      I doubt the viewers of child porn will receive sympathy but it's sobering to be reminded just how serious this issue is.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  19. Out of character... by B747SP · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've got to say, given our (.au) history on matters Internet related, this is very much out-of-character. Refreshing though!

    --
    I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    1. Re:Out of character... by SQL+Error · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, most of the previous idiocies can be laid at the door of Brian Harradine. Now that he's gone and the Liberals control the senate, the government doesn't have to listen to minor-party media-whores anymore.

    2. Re:Out of character... by Devar · · Score: 1

      I, as a life long Australian citizen would like to thank whoever it was that decided this course of action. You've restored some of my faith in the Government. :)

      Bloody good news is great stuff. :)

      --
      It's a Bagel.
  20. AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE.... by lachlan76 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oi! Oi! Oi!

    If you're not Australian, and don't know, then don't even try to understand ;)

    1. Re:AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Kiwi, and I wish I didn't understand :)

      BTW (directed at Shane Warne) - Who ate all the pies?

    2. Re:AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE.... by medep · · Score: 1

      yes mr lachlan, noone will be able to crack our secret code... :)

    3. Re:AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE.... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Ssshhhh....big secrets, crazy shit. Alright?

      And anyway, mostly Americans here it seems. No-one can break it ;)

      And whaddaya know? It's a month already!!!

  21. What are the mod's smoking? by zoloto · · Score: 2

    Off topic? This is more insightful than anything. Consider what sensible action this government of theirs has taken regarding one of the best tools mankind has ever had for the retrieval and dissemination of information! Yes there are bad things that we don't want our kids to be viewing at an age where they don't comprehend things as we do. Sure violence and certain types of sexual innuendo may be inappropriate for young kids to view because of their inexperience and easily molded minds, where they may become confused and not interpret things correctly as we, their parents, would have taught them correctly.

    [HERO] is definitely not off topic. You mods certainly are.

    Let the karma burn.

    1. Re:What are the mod's smoking? by roror · · Score: 1

      Another misuse of modpoint. If you guys had any sense, you'd mod parent insightful instead of the grampa. grampa didn't make sense, that is why he got offtopic, parent made sense, that is why he/she should get insightful. Anyways. I don't have very high hopes from slashdot mods. They'll probably mod parent high now, but, not me :( not that i am asking. but...

    2. Re:What are the mod's smoking? by Buran · · Score: 1

      I did that post as a joke (well, the format of it anyway) but I do think that this sort of falls into the 'hero tag', if anyone's ever looked at Fark (I go there occasionally for amusement.) And given how often governments don't trust us to be responsible (I'm in the US, but I have several Australian friends, so I hear from them firsthand how policies affect them -- they may not be as sue-happy as we are, but still...) it's a relief when someone in the government seems to have their head on straight.

      As for the karma? I've got tons. :)

  22. Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by ttys00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Little Johnny will soon recover from this horrible bout of common sense, and will go back to selling our country out to American corporations.

    1. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly! you all seem to have forgotten that you'll get censorship rammed down your collective throats by the US and its "free" trade.

      new zealand, anyone?

    2. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by physicsphairy · · Score: 1
      You guys just can't resist can you? Some guy does something you *agree* with and you *still* take the opportunity to snidely demean them?

      That's precisely why your voice has come more and more to mean diddly squat in politics. There is no point in trying to win you over, so may as well just ignore you completely.

    3. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by ttys00 · · Score: 1

      I was pointing out to people that this is ONE sensible thing his party is doing, amid the DOZENS of stupid things his party is doing.

      As for my voice... I have voted for him twice before, but I didn't in the most recent election due to a stupid (imho) thing he did (sending troops to Iraq). I am not against him or for him to the extreme that he may as well ignore me, I am a swing voter - exactly the type of voter politicians try to win over!

    4. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by physicsphairy · · Score: 1
      Well, in that case, my humble apologies for misjudging. :)

      I still maintain that when someone does something applaudable, a better recourse is to in fact applaud them, rather than insult them. When insult someone, they get defensive, and it becomes very difficult to persuade them. That is my experience, anyway.

    5. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      Helping liberate 25 million people from one of the most brutal dictators of recent memory?

      Yeah, that's stupid alright.

    6. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by nighty5 · · Score: 1

      what is left to sell?

      Our beloved Vegemite is owned by a cigarette company.
      I think we have Telstra just by a nose.
      Next goes the railways!

      Privatisation has taught us one thing, consumers are never considered first....

    7. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by cute-boy · · Score: 1

      if you know john howard you know that he is not a nice, in fct he is a he's a tough, nasty little man, and he doesn't mind it that poeple think that of him - so he is arragant too.

      so this is a good decision - honestly, probably the first good decision he has made since he came to power in my opinion.

      so the new communication minister is at least better the richard alston. that is, at least, slightly re-assuring.

    8. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has taught us one thing - there are a shitload of people in the community who are wholly ignorant of basic economic/business principles but do not seem to mind that when they loudly voice their blatantly incorrect opinion.

    9. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by nighty5 · · Score: 1

      yes, especially when that person is an Anonymous Coward.

    10. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by smacktits · · Score: 1

      I guess the smart thing to do was to plunge them into anarchy, civil war, and the constant threat from terrorists who weren't even there to begin with, under the pretext of oi^H^H^H^H "saving them from tyranny".

    11. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the bit about 'having no exit strategy or any idea of how to cope with the hordes of terrorists and crime-lords who would surge to fill the vacuum left by the removal of Hussein's regime'. It wasn't just stupid, it was (if you'll pardon my expletive) *fucking bone-headed*, a plan only a man x000 miles from the firing line (not to mention harbouring a *huge* chip on his shoulder *and* being a religious fanatic) could come up with.
      If this whole "hearts and minds" thing was more than just a convenient soundbite Iraq may well have been in a better state. Hell, even something lifted from 'Military Strategy for Dummies' would have been an improvement.

    12. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      So we can put them under control of another one to turn on us in 20 years?

      Don't beleive me? Take a look at the .U.S. past "liberations."

    13. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by lordperditor · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is recent elections seem to indicate that the wholly ignorant individuals are the majority.

    14. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by lordperditor · · Score: 1

      If you cannot see America has its own agenda here and it is not liberating Iraqis then you can consider yourself truly ignorant. True thinking for yourself, don't let Fox News do it for you.

    15. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by Democratus · · Score: 1

      Liberations like France? Belgium? Holland?

      Or do you mean freeing countries from dictatorial overlords like Germany or Japan?

      Did you know that we suffered terrorist attacks and assasinations for a long time after liberating Germany? (Check the history of the "Werewolves".) Surely it was a good thing that we stuck through that chaos and helped rebuild the country.

      Being entirely cynical is easy and even "cool" these days. But it isn't very constructive.

      We are in a sticky situation in Iraq - to be sure. Maybe we should have gone there and maybe we shouldn't. But the responsible thing to do NOW is to try to make it a bettter place.

    16. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Afghanistan. We put the hated Taliban there, you know.

      So in 20-30 years, I guess we'll have to bomb Iraq back into the biblical ages again too.

    17. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by powerspike · · Score: 1

      What you'll find, is it was more a business realated Decision then anything else, one of the main reasons they rejected the filtering was "because the burden on most small and medium size isp's would put them out of business".

      Dunno there if has been press about it in the US or EU, but there has been a massive crack down on Child porn in australia as well. With a Few hundred people already arrested.

      The main Oppistion to this is the same person that gave his vote to sell off out public telco for the first set of "internet child protection filters", makes you wonder realy.

      And on a different not (don't want to make 2 posts) the main idea of this was to block child porn from other countrys. But it is law in australia that all ISP's MUST provide links on there websites to filtering software already.

    18. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Dick's trying to get vegemite back tho!

      And I believe both coopers and boag's are still aussie owned... Shame about CUB and Castlemaine tho :'( My beloved XXXX.... Lousy fosters....

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    19. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by nighty5 · · Score: 1

      good to see.

      I have a carton of Coopers in my fridge and had a few 'red' coopers longies last nite :)

      Boags is also kick ass.....

      Not a real fan of XXXX - you must be a qlder :)

    20. Re:Fellow Aussies, don't worry... by G-funk · · Score: 1

      you must be a qlder :)

      Well, you could say I believe that the only thing New South Wales is good for is keeping a nice buffer between us and all those Victorians.

      That and bananas.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  23. Box of cereal 'worth $35,000' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
  24. What about filtering in public venues? by dannytaggart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The government rejected a national filtering system and is instead providing "education". Have they considered requiring filters in schools, public libraries, and government offices (as is being considered in the US)? This kind of system would not have the same drawbacks as a national filter.

    --
    PimpMyMazda.com - Crazy mods to a 2002 Mazda Protege DX.
    1. Re:What about filtering in public venues? by the_raptor · · Score: 2, Informative

      There already is in 99% of those places.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    2. Re:What about filtering in public venues? by L0k11 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      oh yes dont worry about that... as part of our welfare system you are forced to attend job searching sessions (basicly you are supervised while you send your resume via email to a million and one jobs that wont take you anyway but you have to make up a quota of job applications per day or you get cut off)

      Whilst looking through a website of a large clothing company the governments efficient little filter booted us off because we clicked on a link that said "girls fashions"

      meanwhile thanks to the crude keyword filtering some dropkicks were actively looking at porn and getting welfare payments for it... and dont worry, i start work at a real job on saturday...

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
    3. Re:What about filtering in public venues? by Mant · · Score: 1

      No, it has a new set of drawbacks that imperfect filters stop people getting information on, say, health issues, or places with names like Middlesex.

      A large problem with filters is how badly they work.

    4. Re:What about filtering in public venues? by mikechant · · Score: 1

      imperfect filters stop people getting information on, say, health issues, or places with names like Middlesex.

      And god help you if you live in Scunthorpe...

    5. Re:What about filtering in public venues? by kn0tw0rk · · Score: 0

      Well, as someone who works in one of the public circus's, pretty much all sites of dubious nature are blocked, plus most that can't be justified as work related.

      There have been a couple of people dismissed (read fired) for accessing pr0n at work.

      --
      See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
  25. Somebody has to...... by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In Korea, pornography is for old people.

    --
    I think, therefore I am. I think?
    1. Re:Somebody has to...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's really funny, actually.

      i just hope you don't get any of those nasty "+1 funny" mods.

    2. Re:Somebody has to...... by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      Another Korean old people joke. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! At least in Soviet Russia, the email reads YOU!

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    3. Re:Somebody has to...... by RonnyJ · · Score: 1
      In Korea, pornography is for old people.

      Well, I'm just glad it's not of old people ;)

  26. it could work by hexMonkey · · Score: 0

    as shocking as it sounds, it could be the better option.
    the filter would work for a little, but 'they' would get a way around it, and then what?
    I think educating _could_ have better results.

  27. Well Good For Them by Odin_Tiger · · Score: 2

    It's uplifting to see that at least some places in the world are willing to aim for a more intelligent citizenry than simply legislating morality and restricting personal freedoms to for the sake of the idiot majority.

    --
    Unpleasantries.
    1. Re:Well Good For Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can you say that? every legislation contains moral currency. not murdering is a legislated morality. anti-hate speech is a legislated morality. 'restricting personal freedom' is a vaccuous statement as everyone is restricted by laws. so what you really mean is that personal freedom is doing whatever you want as long as it doesn't cost the taxpayers any money...is that intelligent citizenry or hyper-narcissism?

    2. Re:Well Good For Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to bring up this flamebait, but they do restrict personal freedoms for the sake of the idiot majority there -- at least, last I heard, in Australia only criminals are allowed to have guns.

  28. soccer moms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't you soccer moms be doing something more constructive, like raising your children or contributing to society than trying to regulate large bodies of communial information.

  29. Lucky Country by Paraplex · · Score: 1

    Australia's lucky we have the USA to serve as a test bed for many controversial ideas. We can see mistakes USA has made (or is moving toward making) and can steer clear of them in advance.

    Part of me can't stand the terrible errors in judgement that other global powers have made, but deep down I know that their foolishness, while eating away at their own stability, is serving to strengthen Aussie liberal values...

    'plex

    1. Re:Lucky Country by conufsed · · Score: 1

      Test bed, like the good 'ol Free Trade Agreement? feels like we are on our way to being the 51st state of the US, just look at the TV shows that are on, and listen to all the teenage homies everywhere I go.

      I'm amazed the goverment screwed up something like this, but I'm sure it'll will get fixed up soon.

    2. Re:Lucky Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sorry to say this but you will become the 52nd state, they have the 51st place for us (UK).
      How sad ;(

  30. Did I make a difference? by EvilCabbage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wrote a metric shit tonne of emails to various people in positions of power about this.

    I doubt very much at the end of the day my words directly had much to do with it, but some part of me really hopes it did. If only one minister sat and thought twice about what I'd written to them and it somehow swayed them to the more sensible course of action, I think I can be a little bit prouder of my country.

    I'm sure I wasn't the only person making their voices heard over this issue, thanks to everybody else who stood up and let them know what we thought. We've done well this time.

    1. Re:Did I make a difference? by fatboyslack · · Score: 1

      Good on you for writing the letters! I work in State Govt in Victoria, and the theory politicians go by is that one letter = the opinions of 1000 voters. Or is that 100? So when they get stacks of letters on one issue, they can become quite passionate.

      --
      Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. -- Leo Tolstoy
    2. Re:Did I make a difference? by EvilCabbage · · Score: 1

      Excellent! I'm glad to hear from someone in your position that they do actually value those letters :)

      I'll be doing more of them in future, thankyou very much buddy.

    3. Re:Did I make a difference? by fatboyslack · · Score: 1

      although I do work in traffic, and *everyone* is passionate about what is wrong and what should be done to fix it.

      --
      Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. -- Leo Tolstoy
  31. In the spirit of people who don't visit Fark.com by Vicsun · · Score: 5, Funny

    [WHAT]

  32. "what-about-the-children dept." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean "what about the children" ? They'd find a way to get passed the porn anyway via proxy, so please don't act as if the children are some how going to be saved from the evils of the world because they can't watch, "SuperSluts 12" in its full glory.

  33. Yeah I have the same feeling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a good point here!

    bob@abirnet.co.il

  34. When I saw the story title ... by dhilvert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... I immediately assumed that the benefits of uncensored information had been recognized as a boon to education. Perhaps I was suffering from momentary naivete, but this interpretation still seems to hold much more promise than the other.

  35. The biggest threat by leereyno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always believed, even as a child, that the biggest threat to children are their elders.

    I know I for one never appreciated being lied to and manipulated, both of which largely define the relationship between the young and old.

    One of the questions we commonly hear asked is what advice we would give to someone younger than us, what do we know now that we wished we'd known growing up.

    Well my advice for the children of the world is this: Don't believe what people tell you, especially your parents. Keep your own counsel and take everything with a grain of salt. Just because someone loves you don't mean they won't lie to you, and it most definitely doesn't preclude their being crazy, stupid, ignorant, or some combination of all three.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:The biggest threat by sharkey · · Score: 1

      I see SOMEONE who is going the right way for a lump of coal in their Christmas stocking!

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:The biggest threat by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Examples: Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy.

    3. Re:The biggest threat by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Umm... I think you could come up with better, more harmful examples. How 'bout: " is inferior", "woman aren't as important as men", " is the one and only religion, and everyone else is a blasphemer and evil".

  36. Just FYI by devphil · · Score: 1


    I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying, but as an aside, here's an English note:

    Overlooked means "forgotten about," which isn't what you meant.

    You want to say overseen, which means guided and watched; exactly the opposite of overlooked.

    Yes, there are all kinds of English jokes playing on overlook versus oversee. It's a funny language. :-)

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  37. Luddites everywhere! by sendai2ci · · Score: 1

    With Alston (world's biggest luddite, for a time AU Communications Minister) leaving for the UK, and Family First promises to keep, I'm really surprised this happened...

    1. Re:Luddites everywhere! by Meredeth · · Score: 1

      Alston was the one who originally put so much egg on the governments face, his going would make this decision easier. As for Family First, they don't have a controlling vote anymore...

    2. Re:Luddites everywhere! by dbIII · · Score: 1
      As for Family First, they don't have a controlling vote anymore...
      With the bad press over preferences their full name should probably read "Family First, adulterers next, lesbians last" - and thus they became irrelevant in Australian politics. Who trusts a part time bunch of secretive religeous zealots these days anyway?
  38. From an Australian school student's perspective by BlastM · · Score: 2, Informative

    No no no.

    Web filtering might sound good in theory, but in practice too many sites with educational benefit are blocked.

    However, web filtering is not just an inconvenience.

    There is an alterior motive at work. The state is censoring information that might allow impressionable youths to form opinions that might be critical of the government.

    I am a Year 12 student of a high school in NSW. Sites that have been blocked by the proxy that I have noticed include: *.mozilla.org; *.sourceforge.*; *.sf.net; etc, etc. I'm guessing it's only a matter of time before SlashDot is blocked too. However, porn popups often appear thanks to the school using IE and infested Windows 98 machines (Microsoft donates licences to our school, the practice of which ominously reflects Hitler's Jungvolk).

    Of course, there are easy ways to get around the blocks, as there is no way you can completely filter the web effectively. It's an inconvenience for me, but someone who isn't a geek will miss out on access to a lot of information.

    The stated goal of web filtering is to 'protect' us from viewing "objectionable material" such as dangerous, dangerous porn, but more and more sites are being censored to 'protect' us from websites that aren't directly-related to the short sighted curriculum, e.g. mozilla or sourceforge, and soon we will be 'protected' from material that the state finds objectionable, such as critics of the government. The political blogs will go first because few will notice, then soon the news sites until only Packer's and Murdoch's news sites are endorsed for student viewing by the government.

    1. Re:From an Australian school student's perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bm's a nub

    2. Re:From an Australian school student's perspective by sc0ob5 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well I feel I am capable of replying to this.

      I have worked for three years as a network administrator at a highschool, and to the people that say their is filtering already on a state or national scale is slightly wrong. It is true that there is filtering already in place but thats only if you have a contract with a company that provides filtering, which many schools have, at least public schools in South Australia. I can not say that this is what its like in other states but I would assume it is the same case. However, I found like many people have said that sites are blocked that should not be. I have disabled the filtering and decided to do local filtering through squid. I find that it is much better in terms of sites that get blocked that shouldn't be, of course there are always going to be sites that are blocked that shouldn't be but because its local students can come to me and tell me the site and I can un block it on the spot as opposed to the 24hour wait on centeral filters. It takes more effort on the part of the Administrator but after all isn't that what they are there for in the first place?

      I can only imagine that sites such as mozilla and sourceforge are banned to stop students from downloading large programs and when schools are charged 13c a meg for downloads I can see the reasoning, particularly in under funded public schools. Also on the mozilla thing, I have blocked the mozilla site because of the fact that I choose to force proxy settings in IE.

      Its easy to critise but much harder to understand the reasoning. I am glad that the government understands that education is the right way, personally I would hate to see a national filter for internet traffic.

      Anyway I am glad I'm not working in that job anymore, underfunding in schools is whats going to impede on education and not internet filtering. I'm glad they made the right choice but I believe there are more important things to worry about such as upto date text books.

    3. Re:From an Australian school student's perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to flinders and a certain evil network administrator going by the innocuous handle 'mr?g?rs' (name cunningly masked to protect the identity of the wicked) had slashdot banned at the proxy for understandable reasons - bandwidth cost the uni heaps and we didn't have much of it. students needed it for study purposes. nevertheless, I did the right thing by my va software gods and complained, bitterley.

      (he his being evil was completely unrelated. rc5 indeed. and no eating, nettreck or dancing on tables in lab f. pah.)

    4. Re:From an Australian school student's perspective by NeuralAbyss · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'll give up my modpoints in this article, and post a network admin's view from Victoria.

      I used to (well, still do on a part-time basis) work as a network admin for a secondary school in Victoria. Previously, until about 2 years ago, all government schools were mandated to use a state-government-selected ISP (Fuck you, Edunet!) which had a DEET-approved filtering system (N2H2). Given that they were working within the constraints of the VicOne WAN, they did an acceptable job, but outsourcing the filtering was one of the worse moves possible. Many educational and open-source-related sites were blocked, and it took upto 24 hours to get a site unblocked - the central filters were updated via a daily cronjob.

      Things have improved slightly with regards to filtering - they have now allowed schools to filter by category, and turn off filtering for users (network admins/staff), but there's still the problem of inappropriate content being blocked.

      I, personally, would like to see an instant unblocking option available for staff in schools, once they have reviewed the site in question. Yes, many within the system say that staff should check this when developing their lesson plans, but given the time constraints, the current filtering system is less than workable. I should say that, for the record, we have moved to the private (non-Telstra) incarnation of Edunet - Schoolsnet. Different name, same low SLA.

    5. Re:From an Australian school student's perspective by mibus · · Score: 1

      It was amusing, however, when he went away for two weeks (Singapore was it?) in late 2002 IIRC.

      Slashdot was unblocked the day after he left! :-)

      In 2003 I believe the charging system was changed and you were quota'd. Then they let you use /.!

      CGTalk was also banned, which was a PITA.

  39. MOD PARENT DOWN -- BIGOTRY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter how funny you may think you are, it doesn't excuse the anti-Australian bigotry inherent in your post.

    I wish you cared about others more.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -- BIGOTRY by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      I do in fact live in Australia, and have for my whole life.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -- BIGOTRY by Carpal+Tunnel · · Score: 1

      I am an American
      Frankly, i welcome anti-american attitudes. Right now the only thing that will save us from ourselves is if the rest of the world pounds reality and sanity into us again and again and again.

      As some so-called "leader" in the USA said, "Bring it on."

    3. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -- BIGOTRY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Speaking as an Australian, I don't see any anti-Australian bigotry in the post. Take any Australian, show him (or her) that post, and the odds are excellent that he (or she) would laugh.

      It's something of an in-joke. If you don't get it -- and you obviously don't -- no explaining will fix it. If you do, though, it's moderately amusing.

  40. Bad move, guys by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 1
    The Australian parliament has once again failed to take into account that most parents in Australia whose children have access to the internet already know the perils.

    And of course with the recent child pornography scandal in Australia parents would be more aware than ever - the coalition's flopped again, filtering would be a much better way to go.

  41. Which just proves by Paddo_Aus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "One can't solve a sociological problem with a technological solution." - Edwards Law

    1. Re:Which just proves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can't solve a problem that isn't really a problem, they can only try and fail.

  42. Education campaign by MMercurius · · Score: 1

    ...an education and information campaign...

    How precisely do they intend to "educate" us about kiddie porn? :0/

  43. Kazaa by microbrewer · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this will apply to the Kazaa case .

  44. And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > if they want to stop child porn they should just make it illegal for priests to possess film and cameras.

    ...or Choir Boys.

    (rim shot)

  45. Those crazy uneducated parents? by Zapdos · · Score: 1

    Who are they educating? If you are unaware, you have been away from the planet for a while? Are they educating the other people that school aged children spend most of their days with?

    All this really means that they will produce 15 color brochures, and 5 very short commercials that will air off prime "cheaper" and no one will ever see either.

    Why do they think filtering would cost so very much? Squid + Dansguardian is very cheap "less than $500". Almost every ISP already uses proxy servers to save bandwidth. Maintaining the filters would be the more challenging aspect, but certainly well under the price tag of $45 million startup and $33 million annual maintenance.

  46. Redirection of resources by michaeldot · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is not just commonsense, it will also free up for resources for fighting the TRUE dangers to our children here in sunny Oz:

    If the dingoes don't get our babies, Steve Irwin will feed them to a crocodile!

  47. How do we know? by adrianhensler · · Score: 1

    I think the question here is how do we know that they aren't filtering outgoing news? And what sort of discombobulating filters does this internet thing go through before I get to read it? ...sorry, I'm just off night shift and I tend to get tin-foilie after a 12 hour shift.

  48. Just be sure by Fr05t · · Score: 1

    you don't put porn site addys on the educational material: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130592&cid=108 98026

  49. Australia rox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well australia rox.. even if people winge about broadband pricing its generally because they are stupid and dont understand the concept of money/costs/infrastructure..

    Its just a shame that we are so far up george bushes buthole to see the rest of the world laughing at certain aspects of our political parties policies.

  50. Protect whom? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    ..."rejected a call for Internet filtering to 'protect' Australians from child pornography"... "teach parents about the perils of the Internet."

    So... some or all australians are endangered by the possiblity they could view child pornography... right? And they need to be protected... right?
    So government decides to pass over the responsiblity to parents and educate them how to do it... right? So parents are to protect whom from the child pornography...? Children it seems?

    Why do they assume it's children who would be most interested in seeking child pornography? Maybe the government thinks "child pornography" would be something like "teen movies", Winnie the Pooh screwing Piglet or Snow White doing it with all 7 dwarves at once?

    Some misunderstanding?

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  51. Re:State of Shock Don't break out the chamagne by Meredeth · · Score: 1

    Its worth noting that a previous telecomunications minister pushed very hard for just such filtering up to a year ago. Polls showed that it was not a popular moove, and a tech saavy electorate didn't think it would work anyway. The kneejerk reaction already happened, but failed. This is just good politics.

  52. Re:Redirection of resources towards Better Modding by Meredeth · · Score: 1

    Insightful? How about +5 funny!

  53. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  54. Sucky Uppy Country by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    An arrogant Aussie on a US site - that makes me mad enough to forfiet my mods. We Aussies see the mistakes one particular "Global power" has made, then go right ahead and copy them. Examples that spring to mind are refusing to sign Kyoto, Iraq, Indefinite detention centers in the desert, Unflinching support for Isreal, Stealing oil fields from smaller impoverished countries we "liberate", Private prisons, Same sex marraige bans, Drug wars, Zero-tolerance, etc, etc, ect. If there is an unpopular or unjust US policy you can normally be sure Johnny will give it his full support. It would be nice to think our Government had a mind of it's own but this is definitely an unusual outbreak of independent thought from the Howard Government.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Sucky Uppy Country by Paraplex · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'd agree with a lot of that... However, Australia is only beginning to find its own two feet and I think extreme US policy will tend to turn Aussie citizens away from the natural "follow in big bro's footsteps" type mentality.

      People are generally educated enough to dislike being patronised by an overbearing government (at least, in my experience Australians are). Micromanagement is, I believe, inherently unstable. We're just lucky that a large amount of this instability is put on display for us well in advance of any policy making...

      Australias stance seems to be one of economic and military convenience rather than a righteous moral code. This is a country which abhors capitol punishment and citizens bearing arms. It prides itself (apparently) on tolerance and multiculturalism.

      If we could have claimed economic or military independence, I doubt that alot of those policies would have been implemented. As Australia asserts its independence over the course of the century, I think we will see our *values* shine through all the cluttered 'strategic policy making'

      I didn't vote for him, and you can hate him as much as you want, but to be fair to the Australian people, its not as if John Howard had any competition...

    2. Re:Sucky Uppy Country by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know, our good points far outweigh the bad (I do like the place). I didn't vote for Johnny, but I definitely don't hate him. The piss-poor competition would implement most of the same bullshit anyway. What I was reacting to was the nationalistic arrogance that was dripping out of the post. I think that type of "holyer than thou" attitude is the root cause of many global problems. I don't like it displayed in the name of Oz. Now I gotta go to work too.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  55. Wow. What is this, 1 in 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We keep seeing LOTS of Australian news posts on /. for some reason, and most of them are always about censorship and ridiculous decisions on the part of Australian governing bodies.

    For once they made a sane decision. THis is a rare case in Au though.....

  56. Re:The biggest threatS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to rain on anybody's parade, but... Isn't it hard to tell sometimes whether the greater danger lies in "education" or "technological solutions"?

    For example: Advertisers speak of their blatant lies and FUD as "educating" the public. So do the **AA in their intellectual property regime propaganda. And also the politicians that lead us into their various pet wars--drugs and terrorism spring to mind. Education can easily mean lies and smokescreens that warp the majority's minds and damage society.

    On the other hand, a "technological solution" can be just as bad, even if it does mean a likely gain in employment for a few of us technical types. For example, "technical solutions" can mean things like DRM chips and printers that call the secret service, as well as simple things like handcuffs and prison bars.

    I'm just saying, this decision seems value-neutral, until we see how ethically it is implemented. Because as stated, the decision sounds to me like it could imply increasing criminalization [in the public eye] of technical hobbies, same as we have been doing in the US.

  57. Wrong education target... by Sontas · · Score: 1

    How does education of children stop adults from accessing child porn? Filters to block child porn are not intended to keep children away from it, it is meant to keep the consumers of it (adults and older teens) away from it. I'm all for supervision of one's children, but I don't see how this supervision/education effort that's proposed is going to address the problem that the filters were supposed to.

  58. Not all illegal drugs are Narcotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And not all narcotics are illegal drugs.

    Narcotics are opiate-based drugs. This includes the illegal drugs Heroin and opium. It also includs perscription drugs like codeine, morphine, hydrocodone and oxycodone.

    Cocaine, marijuana, LSD, PCP, amphetamines, etc, are NOT narcotics. They are commonly refered to as such by law enforcement and the press, but this is technicaly incorrect.

    1. Re:Not all illegal drugs are Narcotics by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      The twit you responded to, like various law enforcement agencies, likes to pretend that illegal drugs are somehow different, in general, than legal drugs. For some reason law enforcement use the word is 'narcotic' for this.

      It's a form of doublespeak. If they called them illegal drugs, it would be obvious they're illegal drugs because, duh, they're illegal. By calling them narcotics, it implies there's something else going on there.

      I would correct people, but calling PCP and cocaine 'narcotics' is completely stupid, so there's a nice warning sign of people who have no clue what they're talking about.

      Something that is fun, though, is to always get clarification that they're talking about 'illegal narcotics', as opposed to that 'legal narcotic', caffeine. This confuses the hell out of them.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  59. Why can't Canada have a nieghbor like that! by IgLou · · Score: 1

    Nothing against the US. I love Americans... American lawmakers though...

    I have to wonder why one country would think along these lines and another thinks in terms of censorship. Is it a cultural thing? Is it education? Crazy stuff, I can only begin to wonder.

    --

    Oops, how did this get here?
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Why can't Canada have a nieghbor like that! by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 1

      As shown by our last election, it's a Moral Values thing, or so alot of us Americans have been conned into thinking. Forget our sons and daughters dying for Oil in a desert, forget the fact that jobs are being shipped overseas at an alarming rate, forget the fact that gas prices are going up up up. The most important thing on people's minds is Moral Values?

      The problem here is this "New Religious Revolution" thing we have going on here. Emboldened by a President who walks around professing his faith, starts "Faith-based initiatives" to skirt Constitutional seperation of Church and State, and tries to force his view of the concept of Marriage by trying to write discrimination into the Constitution banning Gay Marriages/Unions...

      I call it Pat Robertson Syndrome.

      Noone ever said our leaders had common sense...

      --
      Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
    2. Re:Why can't Canada have a nieghbor like that! by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      "The only thing unified or monolithic about religion is the opinions of those who think it's a conspiracy." The moral values thing has been misinterpreted profusely. All a moral values vote means is that one candidate's behavior was consistent and therefore predictable, while the other was not. This wasn't too suprising, as one was historically a governor, a "front man" position that involves holding firm stances, and one was a senator, a highly political position that involves a lot of give and take and compromise: things that result in a very inconsistent record. When presented with two choices one doesn't like (and no one really likes politicians) that seem about equal in terms of overall effect, most people will choose the more predictable outcome. Nothing more to it than that. Also, you switch positions halfway through your little rant. Should we favor other countries interest over our own (ie not invade them when its in our interest) or favor our own over people in other countries (ie stop hirin' them durn furriners?) Basically, I guess my point is that you might want to take off the tinfoil hat sometime and realize that there is no conspiracy to desroy your particular indoctrinated set of values. Many of us disagree, but it's not the kind of organized disagreement you make it out to be.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  60. In the spirit of somethingawful.com bannination by Zorilla · · Score: 1

    install linux, problem solved

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  61. Re:In the spirit of people who don't visit Fark.co by Buran · · Score: 1

    The short version: articles are tagged with generic classifications like 'asinine' 'stupid' 'hero' 'obvious' and so on (the front page shows this.) Sometimes, people disagree with the category the moderator chooses and will display the graphic of their preferred tag for the article as the text of their comment.

    The 'hero' tag is the closest one that fit, I thought, since these days governments tend to put their heads in the sand, don't trust their constituents, and over-regulate everything.

    And you didn't phrase your answer in the form of a question. :)

  62. next time 'round by PMuse · · Score: 1

    an education and information campaign to teach parents about the perils of the Internet

    What's this "information campaign" going to look like, eh? FCP, that's what. Fear, Certainty, and Panic. And after $30MM has been spent scaring the populace, what do you suppose the legislature will vote for the next time 'round?

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  63. Re:overlook != overseen by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1
    Ooops !

    Thank you for correcting my mistake.

    Errare humanum est, but true evil happens under the false sense that one actually knows something.

    I was so convinced I was right it didn't even occured to me that I might need to check.

    That lesson is as old as Icarus I guess.

  64. Uh-Oh.... by realityfighter · · Score: 1

    What if this turns out like "sex education" in the U.S.?

    "Now, little Jimmy, remember: the best way to avoid seeing gay horse porn is to never use the internet. Not until you're married."

    --
    A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
  65. Everybody Sing! by eguanlao · · Score: 1

    We are happy surfing porno sites as bright as bright can be.
    We all enjoy our porno sites 'fore breakfast, lunch, and tea.
    Our mummy says we're bloody perverts every single week,
    Because we love our porno sites.
    We all adore our porno sites.
    It puts a rose in every cheek!
    1. Re:Everybody Sing! by kn0tw0rk · · Score: 0

      And now I'm suposed to enjoy eating vegemite? Note: Pronouncing yosemite like vegemite will cause amusements :)

      --
      See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
  66. Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! by AnotherFreakboy · · Score: 1

    Porn! Porn! Porn!

    --
    Why not get the real ultimate power?
  67. In related news... by Dingeaux · · Score: 0

    Australia is to adopt the US Imperial measurement system and begin measuring everything in miles, inches and gallons. Also, the US grammar standard will be adopted, changes will be noticeable to words such as 'color' and 'humor'...

  68. Child porn sent to schools by NSW police! by Quizo69 · · Score: 1

    The New South Wales Police went one better recently, and actually sent child pornography images to thousands of state schools.

    The irony and sad thing here is that it's illegal to have child porn on your computer, yet the police can obviously have it and they sent it out to others as well. Imagine inadvertently getting it in your email and then getting busted by the cops for it. Imagine now if a teacher gets charged for child porn. It just goes to show that merely having the images should not be a crime, since it is all too easy to maliciously plant them on someone's computer in order to frame them.

  69. Weak Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Internet at Queensland schools is modurated nazi style using.
    http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/mis/fa qs/admin istration.html
    Everything is blocked, then they allow what they decide is educational, profitable and some cases a personal and business interest of the person/s who controls the proxy settings.In secondary school, any teacher with no computer training that says they have knowledge with computers can become a network administrator or IT co-ordinator by simply discussing the role with the principal. You have the blind leading the blind unaware of a software dictatorship. My friend was recently told its against governemtnt policy to use open source and free software to solve problems at schools, he asked how he can continue his work with the ethical views he had and was released from his contract.
    Here's an example of the misleading information they spread.
    http://education.qld.gov.au/itt/learning/ docs/oct2 9.pdf
    I don't see how creating a powerpoint slide can be explained as writing a program or creating software. My friend gave that teacher a remasterred gnu linux live-cd and it can run her ppts but she rejected it because her husband hates linux. Its sad these teachers are used as puppets when their work is with special ed, social justice and other human rights, freedom of choice/speech type subjects.

    But hey, good one australian governmant, this should keep people distracted while we continue to pervert technology in education.