Slashdot Mirror
Australian Senator Wants to Censor the Net
Paul writes "An Australian Senator wants Australians' internet connections to be automatically filtered by ISPs. Anyone who wants to view pornography or 'other adult material' (details not specified) must apply to their ISP to be given access to it. Another step towards becoming a nanny state."
Anyone who's desparate to surf pr0n will find a way around it.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Well, I want monkeys to fly out of my ass. That doesn't mean it's likely to happen.
Is this any different from hotels or cable companies blocking adult channels by default? By requiring this step, it blocks children from adult sites on the Internet (to the extent that the filters work).
This gives much more power to parents to control what their children have access to at home. Whereas there are numerous ways to circumvent PC-based web filters, there really isn't much a child can do to bypass ISP filters.
It's a good idea.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
So what? Isn't the government the same as my parents? The government gave birth to me, raised me, fed me, taught me right from wrong. Surely they should be allowed to censor me?
The article talks about the Internet but my bet is that they are talking about content filtering on http traffic.
Peer to peer is much harder to filter and readily available to the porn industry.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"Keeping kids from nasties on the net"
Here, I have a much better suggestion - supervision your children while they use the internet!
Wildly unpopular, impossible to implement and very, very expensive to even attempt.
Yup. Sounds like a winning proposal to me.
He forgets or never knew that there only appears to be a common stream to censor (http) because it was NOT being censored.
As soon as he censor he fragments the web enough to make his censoring useless.
Of course anyone using the non-censorable "technology" must be a criminule, right?
I'm anti-porn, I think it damages peoples minds, but I don't like this either.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
The privacy issues of such a rule are staggering. Suppose the police want to find out who all the pervs are on a city block. They just subpoena the local ISPs to find out who's applied for pr0n access. Not to mention what happens if the ISP gets hacked (electronically or socially) and someone manages to get a copy of the pr0n access list. I suspect a lot of legislators will eventually be exposed for their hairy palms if such a law ever got passed.
Weird, I didn't realize you Aussies had elected Bush as Prime Minister.
Senator's come up with the stupidest things sometimes. Good in theory but impractical to implement.
This is a Tasmanian senator. Tasmania is an Island long associated with jokes about incest and redneck stupidity. For you Americans think West Virginia style jokes (except that Tasmania is a very cold place and it's population quite tiny).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
From TFA:
Does someone have a list of names of these idiots, so our Australian friends know who to rail against and vote out of office ASAP?
It appears that he's another person who believes in something with which most people would not disagree (filtering in public institutions, like public libraries) but takes it too far by extending it to make adult content 'opt-in' for homes.
If parents want to protect their children at home, they can get opt-in filters. No usable
As a term of reference for you delightful residents of the US of A, Tasmania is like the US 'south' (rednecks, interbreeding et al) and the 'Liberal' party isn't actually a liberal party, but a conservative party (similar to your Republican party).
... and the other three were lying about it.
However, this motion/proposal is unlikely to gain legs as Howard (current Australian Prime Minister) would almost certainly leave it as a 'conscience vote' and I sincerely doubt that it will have the popularity to get through the lower house, let alone the upper house.
And, as I understand it, this sort of 'filtering' would be quite difficult to do and the current upper echelons of politicians *and* public servants switched on enough to listen to those who would advise them on the viability of 'filtering'... so false alarm and ignore the political posturing. The guy is (most likely) in a marginal seat and is trying to buy some credit with the local religious conservatives.
"while two in five boys had deliberately used the net to see sexually explicit material"
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. -- Leo Tolstoy
The Slashdot effect seems to have left the server standing, but expired the content in their ad server, leaving only the weird animated "Default Banner" gif, which actually doesn't fit in the provided space.
- 0/Dbanner.gif
http://ds.serving-sys.com/BurstingRes/Site-0/Type
This is just the opinion of one right-wing senator. It's not going to happen. You have a lot more neo-con nut jobs in your senate or lobbying it who propose the same or worse.
They implemented this rubbish years ago. Hell, search the /. archives, it'll come up with articles about it.
It didn't make 1 iota of difference, and if anything happens this time, things still won't change.
That is all.
I, for one, welcome our new senetorial overlords.
20 years ago I went hitch hiking in Tasmania. Going up the east coast was a pain because all the shithead retirees living there associate carrying a back pack with being a radical greenie. I couldn't get a ride.
An old combee van pulls up. A hand waves me in. Inside that van were six people with extreme facial deformities. Think the bar scene from Star Wars. These people were ugly, but the nicest people I met on the entire east coast of tassie. They were only going 5k up the road and apologised for not taking me further.
I was lucky to make it for my plane from devonport that night. I haven't been back. Lately I had the thought that right wingers in NZ could buy the place from Australia. They would get 300000 right wing voters which should put the NZ nationals back in power for a while...
http://michaelsmith.id.au
AFAIK, Australia is still reeling from the effects of gun control laws. Clearly, they have not learned the lesson that unrealistic attempts at regulation only cause the problem to become worse. I have no sympathy for the politicians that think this will solve anything, even in the remote condition that it manages to work properly. However, I do have sympathy for the people of Australia that will have to deal with this, as well as whatever federal institutions and causes are robbed of money that the Australian government redirects to this misguided endeavor.
Those filters will not be effective by any stretch of the imagination. It's unlikely that pornography can be statistically "filtered out" the way spam is. Also, those who actually have a vested interest in the Australian market for pornography will just start signing up for hosting that's based in another country, like the United States. So the Australian government gets weepy and blows through a large supply of tax money EVERY YEAR on a solution with barely any chance of success and no redeemable returns even if it is a success.
Do these people even stop to think before they open their mouths to speak?
It used to be ozzies had the reputation for being self made, independant, and relatively free thinking individualists. I can sort of understand this stuff here in the US since we screwed up three hundred years ago by not putting those puritans back on the boat from which they came - but lately you people "down under" often make our own fascist government look like sodom in comparison.
Far be it from me to tell the people of another country how to run their own show... I'm just grateful for the contrast. Every time I see another "we must filter porn to protect the children from carnal knowledge" or "me must outlaw cameras at school sports events to protect kids from the evil paedophiles" stories it reminds me just how much more fucked up things really could be here in the US.
This also makes me wonder if they will filter google images, art sites, etc. Who will determine the "vulgarity level"? The line across which art nudes become porno. Looks like it'll be time to fire up squid to help some aussies get their jerk on. ... or off i guess i should say.
I believe the system should default automatically in favor of protecting our rights as adults before we start considering the children.
Big difference...
The adults who wish to protect the children in their custody can then opt-in (and pay for) whatever safe haven/playpen schemes they wish to create.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
She was thrown out after two years when it was obvious what an idiot she was. You re-elected Bush. Who's dumb?
(except that Tasmania is a very cold place and it's population quite tiny)
To start making remarks in which you combine cold with tiny is just not nice. It is always like that when it is cold!
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
I'm going to say this very clearly... because I am getting so very tired of "solutions" based on the "won't someone please think of the children" excuse (followed closely by the terrorism excuse) for every perceived I'll in our world. BE A FUCKING PARENT TO YOUR CHILDREN AND STOP TRYING TO BLAME EVERYONE ELSE! IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. It's that simple. Spend time with them, listen to them and stop the mindless quest for wealth and possessions.
They can filter all the porn they want -- as soon as they can define it: http://www.spectacle.org/296/opt.html (Safe For Work)
... porn?
(Or, even better, tell me why it's immoral.)
More seriously:
There are some fine lines between art and porn...stuff like: http://konzababy.tripod.com/photography.htm
(?Not?Safe?For?work?) Click the tiny image to enlarge. -- Is this art or porn? (I say art 100%)
Even closer still are things like http://www.domai.com (Not Safe For Work)
See this interview (Not Safe For Work) on domai.com for an interesting dialog about nudes/art/porn. -- Is Domai Porn? Difficult to say (I lean more toward yes, but I have reservations)
Any thoughts? What makes porn
Required reading for internet skeptics
First off, could I ask a question? Did a clue train leave the station without me? I once heard of this thing called freedom of speech, is this true? Seriously, censoring the internet is like censoring a friggin library. The material is MEANT TO BE SEEN! Come on people! I can head to my local archives and look at all the pr0n I want and better yet probably be condoned on my appreciation of Renaissance art! Get a friggin grip! If you want to censor something, go after the important stuff, like how to build nuclear bombs in a weekend with spare parts. Stupid people suck!
Bit early for April fools' jokes, isn't it?
Seriously, he can't do that. It's not possible and most likely not legal.
er...p2p anyone?
I always thought of Australians as being a pretty loose bunch. Then "mate" becomes a no-no in parliament, there have been a bunch of nanny laws coming into effect, and all in all, it looks like the nuts that have made such a mockery of what the US Republican party used to pretend to stand for (small government, individual over the state) have been at work down under.
What the heck is going on down there?
Infuriate left and right
Libraries worldwide have been contending (with varying degrees of failure) with this sort of proposal for years now. In the U.S., many states now require library Internet computers to be filtered; the federal government has also made it a requirement for most of the federal funding available to libraries.
... yeesh.
Because of these restrictions, the library where I work is filtered. We staff have to immediately disable the filter for any adult patron who requests unfiltered access (and we're supposed to, but often, er, forget to) restore the filter as soon as that particular patron's session is over.
You wouldn't believe the idiotic stuff that gets blocked -- innocuous, harmless, completely innocent stuff, right alongside the more questionable. One fellow from out of town couldn't log into his own business's web page with the filter on -- presumably because his first name, which appeared in the URL, began with a "D" and rhymed with "ick".
Meanwhile, the patrons blithely find all the porn and violence and four-letter-word-headphone-breaking rap music they like. They learn very quickly which sites the filter isn't catching, and openly share them with one another.
The staff terminals have the filtering turned off full-time (technically illegally, if I understand correctly). Although library policy says we are only to turn off the filter "as needed", it's dadblasted impossible to do our jobs with it on, so it stays off.
So now these Australian senators want to impose this state of affairs on an entire country
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
Be very, very, very watchful when you hear someone saying "we need to protect the children". Those people are using an argument that can be used to defend almost anything. And it makes it hard to say "No".
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
You are attributing far too much intelligence to them. Anyone who would seriously think of filtering the internet obviously has no idea of what it is.
Infuriate left and right
He's from New Zealand, or at least his website is...
I work in a public school in Aus, the net connection is very heavily filtered, even for staff, to the point that trying to do work is a fight.
The system is slow, useless, stupid, retarded, limited, programmed by monkies and those are it's good points!
List of stupid thinks these filters do
Breast Cancer research = fail, students might see some tits, oh noes!
Any reasearch relation to sex = fail, can't let our kids know about sex!
Image searches = fail, sorry we can't filter out just the porn so we'll just block it all!
Yep, just what I want for my kids if I had any, a internet connect that couldn't be used for legit research!
Xix
[1] Well, that seems to be the imaagery we are fearful for
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
perhaps this guy can't kick his porn habit on his own and figure's this is the only way he can stop. reminds me of jim west:
i n?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=851575
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsma
Australia also has new Sedition laws, which ban you from critising the government. You are not allowed to "urge disaffection for the government or either house of parliament." Australia also has laws which let the government arrest people in secret and makes it a crime to report any secret arrests.
0 2970.html
http://blogs.smh.com.au/entertainment/archives//0
Australia has no Bill of Rights in our constitution. The Government can do whatever they want to whoever they want. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Call it what it actually is: totalitarianism
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You know, I'm tired of seeing comments like this in stories of this sort:
You know what? Every democracy on the planet will have some representative somewhere who decides to take up some kooky cause. One of the strengths of a democracy is that the majority can prevent such idiotic ideas from becoming a reality.
Should we be educated about when some moronic public representative decides to take up such a cause? Yes. But do we have to assume that just because one elected/appointed representative professes a bad idea that the entire state is about to go downhill?
Last I checked, Austraila is a democracy, and there is a process that must be followed to go from an idea to a legislative act. The idea, however, is not the act.
If and when an idea gets past the first step of legislation, then is when you have to worry, as it usually means that other elected representatives support the idea. But one bad idea hardly means the downfall of society -- chances are very good that this effort will go into the dustbin of history, like a variety of bad ideas elected officials have professed and later dropped due to lack of support.
Yaz.
Australian's need to write to Guy Barnett and tell him stop the moral grandstanding.
"Ooooh look at me we don't have any narrow minded politicians where I'm from. Australia is, like, so dumb"
... LOL
Get a brain cell muppet before typing.
Damn sheep shagger
Ever since the Fair Trade Agreement went through (and possibly some time prior), we've been effectively the 51st United State of America.
I'm anti-porn, I think it damages peoples minds, but I don't like this either.
Interesting, as I've always felt that porn helps people relax and release tension. Like anything else, it can be addictive and too much can probably hurt you (though, like most things, too mcuh is dependant on the indivdual). It's also certainly good for couples when it's watched together (and is something both enjoy watching).
There is also the old reality/VR argument. Like video games, there is a significant difference between porn and reality. The problem comes when people can't differentiate between the two. In porn's case I'd argue that the lack of sex ed in schools probably contributes to that, as people develope their ideas about sex from pornos without having been taught anything about the reality of it (the "you mean all gals arent completely shaven, enjoy teh buttsecks, and like facials and giving blowjobs?!?!?!?" type mentality).
Porn is at its basic sense fantasy, and can actually sometimes be really funny if you understand that. Hell, my girlfriend and I spent a couple hours laughing at/critiquing some rather unrealistic and amusing porn this past weekend.
To bring this back on topic, regardless of one's views towards porn, filtering it is both impossible and a dangerous move to attempt. This is an area of parental responsibility, it should not be censored by the govt for us.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
I wish I had a smart comeback for that...
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This guy has been mouthing off about this for some time. But unless he comes up with something new, he seems unlikely to sway his party. The anti-sedition laws have been rammed through, but they caused enough of a backbench backlash that I can't see Howard and co wanting to stir things up again. But please join Electronic Frontiers Australia and help us keep an eye on this kind of thing! Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
The only, repeat only way to police what kids see on the net is to have a human in the loop in real time, for every kid. And we could be waiting a while for that to happen.
Well, I guess the developers of Freenet, I2P and other anonymising networks will be grateful, as support, userbase and donations surge.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Er...hmmm...*scratches head*
W-w.... We are?
Except in Oztraya they'd call it the wutamandi state or something.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
From the article:
They have applied to be given access to it. They did so when they signed up for Internet access. Internet access means you are able to connect to any computer on the Internet that you want to, just like when you get a phone and you expect to be able to call anyone you want to.
Something much closer to reasonable, at least for protecting the freedom to communicate as people see fit, would be to require ISPs to implement some sort of filtering capability and require them to ask new customers whether they want the filtering on or off, with no default setting allowed. Then the customer's preferences are made clear from day one. It would be a stupid burden for ISPs, but at least it wouldn't stifle free communication.
Art: suitable for talking too much
:)
Porn: suitable for masturbating too much (or even having too much sex!)
Some people get hot from talking too much hence the blurred lines
My experience of Australians suggest that most of the male population would opt-in pretty sharpish anyway.
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh
Not only did we throw her out. We put her in prison for a bit also.
So if Australia wants to block pr0n, go ahead, adults won't give a sh*t they'll register their names to get access. However, the teenagers who'll be craving for pr0n will also find ways to access it through the internet, but in process will probably learn a lot more shady techniques than if they had access to it like they do now.
Hell they might end up with the same situation as in the States, where adults buy beer for the teenagers who want to drink:
Wow... I'd like to see how that works with any degree of effiacy without also simultaneously censoring a similar percentage of completely innocuous pages on the web.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
After all, that's the only 100% effective way to prevent exposing them to all those evil nasty natural bodily functions!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I am against government-mandated things. However, I am for more consumer choices (but like I said, not government mandated).
Although nothing can replace the watchful eye of a parent, maybe ISPs, on their own accord, could set it up so someone's Internet account can be enabled and disabled for filtering by logging onto the ISP's website, filling in the account's password then filling in a special password which would either enable or disable it.
Just contact the ISP and sign up. Who cares if you look at porn, what's the big deal? It's naked women, how is it "wrong" for us to want to look at it?
People care way to much about what others think of them. If you enjoy something, fuck what others think.
Secretly arrest me for that, bitches! (Damn good thing I don't live in Australia...)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It was a joke!
Everyone got it , except Pauline it seems.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
...the internet censors you!
Australian Senator Wants to Censor the Net
In a separate announcement, he also reported he wanted to get a flying car, a magic wand, a six-leave clover to complete his collection, and an invisible pink unicorn.
Don' forget they gave her a good booting, it's one of their proudest traditions!
I had such an experience with a company I used to work for. They had a filter policy on the firewall. I was researching a problem with a SCSI host adapter under Linux. When I tried viewing the source code on-line I was blocked from doing so. The file was for an Adaptec SCSI adapter, filename "drivers/scsi/AIC7xxx.c" ...
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Good luck. They'll need it.
make sure you understand what Australia is all about before you start judging them: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Australian/
You should be aware that this article was written by the good Guy himself and is in the Opinion section of the paper.
This is only slightly above the 'Letters to the Editor' section and we all know what sort of crazies ideas you get there!
"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'"
--Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
is "The Revolution Will not be Televised" being censored from the American public ?
I've been googling for a place to buy a copy, and it's not coming up for me as a possible purchase item. I can find sound tracks, reviews, and books, but no movies.
Was this never released for purchase ? I haven't seen it in a couple of years, when I caught it at a film festival in San Francisco. I was wanting to show it to some friends.
I'm refering to a documentary movie on Hugo Chevez/Venezuela, a CIA staged coup, and the revolt of the people caught serendipidously by some Irish film makers. It's seemingly not available for purchase on the intraweb from the US.
It is also is known as 'chavez inside the coup' according to google. Anyone ever seen this on DVD or VHS ?
BZZZZT! Disqualified! Argument automatically lost!
(In a perfect world, anyway...)
You must think in Russian.
I wholeheartedly agree that the only sensible course ofg action is to vote them out of office ASAP. If only!
Just yesterday, the Australian govt. passed two contentious laws - one that basically undoes hundreds of years of hard-won freedoms at a stroke in the name of "anti-terrorism" - you're not even allowed to makes jokes at the govt's expense now - in fact this posting breaks this new law. Free speech has gone. The other contentious law effectively removes hundreds of workers' rights in the name of 'streamlining the economy' and 'remaining competitive'. Basically it gives employers carte blanche to demand what the fuck they like of an employee, and if they don't like it, they can always leave. This is modern 'liberalism' though quite frankly it's a total abuse of that term that the current regime use it to describe themselves.
This situation has come about because the Australian people were duped into voting for a totally unevenly balanced parliament, railroaded into this vote by a series of lies and distortions and scare tactics at the last election. (Don't vote for the other lot, they'll take away your right to SHOP!) The resulting majority means that they can currently pass whatever they like and no-one can really fight it. This is NOT what the Australian people thought they were voting for, as neither of these new laws were part of the election manifesto. Just like the USA, who our Prime Minister appears to be in thrall to, we are sleepwalking into a nightmare of Orwellian proportions.
If they so choose, this porn bill (if it becomes one) could well pass, then they'll worry about implementation later, no matter howe impractical it might actually be. However, in the scheme of things, this is nothing compared to what they've ALREADY done.
As an Aussie, let me say : Worst episode ever
The purpose behind this initiative is to give the Government the opportunity to invest in the necessary technology to filter the Internet. Mentioning porn and children is just a way of gathering support for the proposal.
:-(
Of course, once such a system is implemented and the technology issues solved, whats to stop the governtment from using it to filter other content ?
Now if they could find a way to link porn with raising funds for terrorism then they might be able to use it as an excuse to exercise their senate majority and ram it through. It;s not like they lack the funds with the current projected budget surplus of AU$14 Billion to make it happen.
Time to leave town
I'm just asking, what could possibly be the point of this? I'm assuming if this is implemented, they'll first waste ludicruous amount of money on the filtering equipment, then set up a nice little bureau where you can get your filtering neutered in no time at all. Given two weeks, everyone and their dog would be opted out. Current "indecent material" filtering isn't perfect, there's always a large number of false positives, and even dumbest people know how to call their ISP, and after they've nicely explained where to call, they'll get themselves off the list.
So if this is handled in any world with any sanity left at all, this will just be an expensive useless thing.
The other alternative is the Reign of Terror: Make getting off the filter as hard and slow as possible. People will suffer. At least until the next elections.
There's no way anyone could possibly think it's a good idea to make massive investments in something that majority of the people subjected wants to turn off immediately.
(And no, I didn't read the article, I just went on rambling.)
we didn't, though he does run the country through his proxy "Mr" Howard.
Score: -1, New Zealander
Well, we are kinda dumb.
n t=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=% 22di+fingleton%22&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU
Pauliene does little wrong, apart from being shamelessly used by some crooks, and does a jail term, ending her career. (No, I don't agree with her politics, but they only consisted on repeating the ideas of part of the comunity back to them, which is an effective political strategy used by many.)
A cheif magistrate sends a threatening email to a fellow magistrate vowing to retaliate if they don't stop their (probably just) complaints against her, gets convicted, but the conviction is overturned on a technicality (aparently, magistrates can threaten witnesses with impunity!), she is compensated for her imprisonment and reinstated!
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s872203.htm
http://www.google.com.au/search?hs=4jH&hl=en&clie
A cannot believe that anyone coming before her would not try to have here removed from the case.
Yes, sometimes Australians get things wrong.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
I actually support ideas like this. The less crap on the internet, the better. Lets put all the porn on the "freenet" where it belongs.
Good grief, I think most of you mustn't have even read the article.
It's Opt-out. The only people affected by this are the ones who don't have the authority to opt-out... ie: under 18s. While kids are under the protection of their parents, it is up to the parents to decide if they are happy for their children to be able to access pornography.
Sure, some of the smarter kids will bypass it but just because the filters will occasionally be ineffective doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I don't want my kids viewing porn intentionally or unintentionally until I deem it is time to remove those filters. I am responsible for the well being of my children and it is my responsibility that they come to no harm while using the internet.
To opt out, don't.
As an Aussie, let me say : Worst episode ever
As someone from the UK let me second that, truly awful.
I wouldn't mind being one of the guys that has to sift through all the porn to deem what is and what is not suitable for children.
are much the same. Every country who has a democratically elected government, unfortunately has a percentage of nutjobs who speak from their arses. This one has found the nearest convenient bandwagon and jumped aboard, calling for something that is near impossible to implement, but sounds really really good to Mr and Mrs Average and their 2.5 kids, dog and mortgage. Mr and Mrs Average have no idea about how this could be implemented, or even if it is possible, but becasue a senator is crying "Protect the Children! For the love of God, think of the CHILDREN!" then he must be a great guy who is doing a bang-up job an deserves re-election when it comes around again. Here's another fine example of politicians trying to control what they have no idea about - the Australian Spam Act. Oh yes, the amount of spam flowing into my inbox has been dramatically reduced by THOSE laws.
i agree. That simpsons ep has nothing in it remotly like Australia at all. Besides the toilet flushing. :)
Every time someone suggests censorship on this scale the argument goes something like this: 1. We need censorship to protect our children or they will become twisted and evil 2. We need to control the evil urges of our society But last time I checked it was the parent's responsibility to look after their children, not the government's. This seems to be a common failing, for instance parents can understand what to feed their children, how to make them behave etc etc. Perhaps people should stop being so lazy and take RESPONSIBILITY, the malaise and people's lack of ability to actually mind their own children makes me sick. Secondly if people want to get some good 'ol filth then they'll always be able to, just like if they want to write an essay about how the government "sucks donkey balls and should get its act together". If you try and cut off a portion of that Freedom of Speech then you've instantly skewed your viewpoint and lost the ability to say what you actually mean; whether its talking about amazonian plant life, your local politician, or how you're incredibly horny. It's all the same, its all human. laters dudes Belrik
Speaking of which, did anyone catch the cspan or Daily Show coverage of Jack Valenti testifying before Congress about why the FCC should regulate cable TV like they do the airwaves? He and the others testifying sure seem to know an awful lot about the pornography you can find on cable TV. I'm pretty sure my basic cable package doesn't include any of the stuff they were describing. Reckon ol' Jack has the full packages for (*ahem*) research purposes? Maybe if Jack spent less time (*ahem*) researching porn on cable and more time using his vast wealth to attract nubile young bimbos who will be willing to do anything (ANYTHING, Jack, I'm seriosuly here) to an old guy on the verge of death (And I'm not saying you are, Jack) for a shot at being written into the inheritance, well, maybe Jack would be be a lot less of a pain in all our asses than he is today.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If you would RTFA, the guy is a Liberal, i.e. not in Howard's party.
Liberals and Socialists are the ones who typically want to control media saying they want to 'protect the children'. cf Clinton, Hillary; Hitler, Adolf; Stalin, Josef.
The opposite of progress is congress
This issue cropped up several years ago, just before our GST was introduced.
Senator Brian Haradine wanted the Internet Censored. There was a Budding Local Porn industry in Australia, producing lots of tasteful Erotica and lots more non-quite-so-tasteful porn.
The legistlation would prevent people publishing Erotica and Porn in Australia, and Australians from accessing Erotica or Porn.
When the legislation was introduced, it was left up to the ISP to either filter content, or provide Censorship programs to it's customers. If the ISP chose not to filter at their end, customers were not allowed to run any OS without Censorship Software; Linux, *BSD, BeOS and Mac's were theoretically not permitted on the Internet!
IIRC, The Legislation went through and the Independent Haradine voted in favour of the GST. The Local Porn/Erotica industry collapsed (since they couldn't host content locally), ISPs illegally left it to their customers to purchase Censorship Software (no-one did) and Australians had to get their fix of Erotica from Foreign Sites. It was all a big joke.
Ironically, the same existing ineffective legislation can be used in conjunction with the new Anti-Sedition laws (think of a cross between the PATRIOT Act and 1984) to fulfil what this Knob-Jockey is proposing.
I live here, and I advocate non-violent overthrow of the Australian government, next election.
And then on a channel 10 dancing show.
In Australia, the "liberal" party is a conservative party. John Howard is the leader of the liberals, and very much a conservative.
Actually, no. Water in Australian toilets doesn't swirl, it just foams and splashes in a chaotic mess for a few seconds. The episode is partly correct--the American embassy would actually have to import special equipment if they wanted the toilet to flush according to Truth, Justice and the American Way.
I had to have a few extra flushes the first time I used an American style toilet because the whole thing looked so orderly and nice. Ironic really, given what I'd just done to the poor thing.
Cogito, ergo sig.
Please explain?
Cogito, ergo sig.
Alston was a numbers man who was given the Arts portfolio as a sop which was bundled with Communications about which he was embarrassingly clueless.
Harradine was a religious conservative independent from Tasmania who often had the balance of power in the Senate and used it to get the govt to pass laws enshrining his extreme moral position in exchange for his support for their reactionary economic changes.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
The honorable minister looks like an ex-porn star. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/im ages/photos/2m6.jpg
...welcome my nanny-state overlords when it comes to telecom, but reject them when it comes to porn.
I am slashdot. I have multiple personality disorder.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
The Australian House of Representatives has 150 seats; 62 Coalition MPs (of support this so far. It therefore only would need another 14 supporters out of the remaining 88 MPs, of which 25 are part of the Coalition. Assuming the signatories stick with what they have petitioned for, it may well go through the House of Representatives.
The Upper House would be trickier, but in order to keep Family First (Assemblies of God party) happy, there is the chance that it may go through. If 'parents' support the push (as the Guy Barrett, the MP in question, suggests), then don't rule it out.
And, as I understand it, this sort of 'filtering' would be quite difficult to do and the current upper echelons of politicians *and* public servants switched on enough to listen to those who would advise them on the viability of 'filtering'... so false alarm and ignore the political posturing. The guy is (most likely) in a marginal seat and is trying to buy some credit with the local religious conservatives.
Guy Barnett is in the Senate, and was elected in 2004 - third (of six positions) in the state; this means that he easily made it in, and his seat won't come up for election again until the election after next (as late as 2010...).
I wouldn't want to rely on our Parliamentarians to do the right thing without lobbying hard to sway any vote against censorship. Don't forget - Australia already has Internet censorship laws. If it only would cost $33m/year (from the article), then the Government may pass legislation that makes the ISPs pick up the tab (to a certain degree, at least), which would mean that the end user would wear it in the end. Either that, or taxes would pay for it. Either way, the average Internet user would end up paying for the 'privilege' of being censored.
Given the way that there have been pushes to censor politically inappropriate websites in the past (but without success, so far), in light of the new anti-terror legislation, I wouldn't rule out the censorship being extended, if it were introduced. Sites that advocate terrorist activities, or provide bomb making instructions, for instance, could be targeted. After that, anything seditious in nature? Who knows.
Paranoid? Without a doubt. However, in light of the way legislation has passed of late in this country, I wouldn't rule it out completely. I'd much prefer to be slightly paranoid about this than be complacent and suddenly realise too late that the Great Firewall of Oz has been established.
I heard that your library burnt down and destroyed your only two books - and one was not even coloured in yet.
Dear Senator Guy Barnettt,f rom=home). I really think it appears to be a very well thought out proposal. I think it is so good I am writing to you to express my appreciation, please bear with me while I examine some of the finer points your press release.
e /ch1.htm This site about prostate disease is absolutely horrible and is hosted by the government! It's amazing that they think they can get away with sort of thing. This page features a picture of male penis which, to be honest is quite titillating (as I am sure you will agree) I think it should be banned immediately!
I read with interest your proposal to censor the internet in Australia (http://www.guybarnett.com/article.asp?artid=486&
Just for starters your thoughts that there should be a blanket ban on "pornography" is an amazing feat of intellect, I being only a pleb could try for days to think about all the varying forms of "pornography" (and believe me I have tried!) and how to combat it and yet you and your fellow politicians have not only solved this dilemma but have managed to solve that problem but have managed to apply your expert solution to the internet, something which you know nothing about.
Being enthusiastic about your proposed laws that I have found some websites which should be shut down immediately!
http://www.breasthealth.com.au/ This site, masquerading as a "breast cancer" awareness site has pictures of naked women flesh! Those scandals women, possessed by the devil, should suffer all the ills of being a women and if that means that they contract breast cancer and die then so be it!
http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/2001/prostat
You are right to also ban pornography at the government level, after all you seem to quite knowledgeable about the subject and the thought that you could be viewing depraved and dirty pictures of a naked woman (evil creatures though they are) and then kissing babies on your campaign trail is causing me to vomit up my dinner at this very moment.
I found your statistics that people are accessing pictures of people sans clothes on quite horrifying. In my opinion all naked flesh should be covered at all times night and day. I for one am very careful regarding this and keep my wife and children locked away most of the time. Should we need to go out into the daylight I make sure my wife wears a full burqa (muslim head dress) even in the middle of summer (38C here today) even though we are not Muslims just in case anybody should get the wrong idea.
Furthermore I believe you have not gone far enough on your proposed laws, I think you should ban not only pornography but also any description of lewd behavior. You should make it illegal to talk about sex because innocent children may overhear or unwittingly be exposed to things which they should otherwise be kept ignorant about.
Please also pass a law which confines sexually activity, not only away from public eyes (as it is currently), but also at least 100m from the nearest person. I know as a child I accidentally walked in on my mummy and daddy whilst they were in a compromising position one time and it has mentally scared me for life.
I am really glad we have somebody of your intellect helping to run the country, I really do feel safer in my bed at night (my wife and I sleep in separate cities to avoid seeing each others ankles). I look forward to your next proposals.
Yours #1 supporter,
Barnaby Fudge
We elected Howard three times. The Yanks only elected Bush once. Who're the idiots?
If you're an Aussie that finds this offensive, get his worthless ass voted out of office.
This is a proposition that should be saleable to local voters... most people find the Internet far more useful than they find their local politicians.
Tech Public Policy stuff
This set of protocols could allow trusted machines to receive properly licensed and authorized content but still filter out other less useful but more dangerous content/extentions like exe's, zips, tar.gz's, bz2, py, and iso's, and additionally any encrypted content, and the major webserver venders would have to outlaw application/octet mime types to regain control of the internet-turned-piracy haven that the thieves like warez groups and gnu have perverted, not to mention all the pornography and child molesting an open internet produces.
Its time to make the net safe again for our families and businesses.
Australia is already a police state so why not a nanny state too?
I found the American style toilets quite disgusting actually. How do you lay a cable without fouled water splashing back at you?
And on a hot day, how do you prevent your scrotum from hanging in the water?
More needs to be done to protect the citizen from dumb politicans.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
That's a little odd. I mean if I have a subscription to a hard-copy porn magazine (say Hustler), do I have to have to subscribe to a special service of the Postal Office to receive that magazine?
oh nevermind... ;)
That part is not an issue really. Just ban non-backdoored encryption.
Then the content doesnt matter.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's Oceania... in Oceania! Orwell would be proud.
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
Hi Australia, the 90's called, they want their Communication Decency Act back.
c y_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decen
I know retro is "in", but this is fscking ridiculous. I remember writing a paper about this when I was in high school.
I think there is a prevalent belief that it is impossible not to be negatively affected by looking at pornography...
x .asp?PID=606
p hy/prngrphy_ovrvw.html
. html
According to Harris Poll: "No Consensus Among American Public on the Effects of Pornography on Adults or Children or What Government Should Do About It" http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/inde
There was a study done at the University of Hawai`i concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornogra
There was another study done at the University of Pennsylvania concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/porn_effects
How about creating a registry for all the politician's lies and stupid ideas that are told on a daily basis? Wait, that would never work either, it would be impossible to keep track of them all.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
The next thing you know, you got to stand in a line for 3 hours and get a permit to shag in your own house. When a country wants to take advantage of the Information Technlogy as they call it, they should be ready to accept the fact that with good Information, comes the not-so-good-for-kids information too.
I thought they already did that years ago when they passed some law that made Bernadette take her site down.
That turd found the perfect way to exit the political arena.
Immediately reject any argument that is based on saving the children.
Now if we could only shoot these tyrants.
Just because he gets redirected to all the gay pornography sites.....
Just leave censorship to parents. they have the best control over anything.
and ISPs are never going to do that. you know how much that would have to change EVERYTHING.
I have an idea for a better solution.
The problem, as I understand it, basically is that the Australian government is worried about children seeing inappropriate material whilst online.
This concern is legitimate, and there are two solutions. One, which is what they propose, is to attempt to restrict non-family-friendly content to people who explicitly ask for it {and therefore presumably either have no children, or are taking steps of their own to prevent their children from viewing inappropriate material}. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of reality. The internet was designed on purpose to withstand damage by taking advantage of multiple paths -- and censorship of this kind is absolutely indistinguible from damage.
The second solution, and it's much simpler, is to ban children from using the internet altogether. This is primarily an adult world, after all. Children will grow up eventually; and then they can have rights, when and not until they have learned the responsibilities that spring directly from those rights.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
... and see how he feels when he gets "unelected" the next time the voters have their say!
.
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
Just add "political speech" to the categories of items censored. Sauce for the goose is fit for the gander.
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
You re-elected Bush. Who's dumb?
Don't forget: we re-elected Howard.
Australian WCs are mainly washdown, not syphonic. They're noisy as hell, but unconditionally immune to blockage -- the exit hole is full-bore, all the way to the sewer.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Everyone be quiet. We don't want W. to hear about this idea!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Surely just filtering the net of this material will have problems. It would probably slow down all Australian internet and they'd have to hire about a million people to keep up with the traffic and check what's right and what's not. The senator is going to high, to fast. What he should be recommending is to make it obligatory for ISPs to offer a free program with the connection for the choice of the user to download to block unwanted sites. This means people would have a choice and those who were too embarrassed to file for their internet access to fall under the "perverts" section wouldn't have to worry... Seriously, if they want to filter the net in this way then they also need to filter television of advertisement, it's just about as bad - it's everywhere too... But no the corporations are behind advertisement and it is a legal way of brainwashing kids into wanting a certain product or the latest toy, only to buy it and realise it's a hunk of junk and go onto the next one... Well what i'm saying is, i'm completely against this idea and it's a waste of money and time - people will find ways around it too, i'm certain of that. This Tasmanian senator has obviously not thought long and hard enough about the costs and the consequences, I suggest he sits back down at his desk and reads all these comments and refines his motion.
A punishment far, far worse than any prison time.
In this case, the AU Seniltore wants the ISP to have filtering automatically enabled, but disableable at customer's request. It is then nothing more than a required but optional service. Of course the filtering will not work (leaky and false positives) and none of use would use it. But some people might want to protect their kids, and I see no reason in preventing them.
>>> must apply to their ISP to be given access to it.
That's just fine as long as the filtered people are footing the bill for the complexity of the filters. Those who can tolerate the lack of filter should get a discount.
(Of course the ISP's will use this as a way to charge for porn)
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
I'm just waiting for someone to take the bait and invoke Godwin's law... ;-)
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
playboy.com gets filtered for anyone who can't figure out how to use a web proxy outside Australia (i.e. politicians).
HorseAndDogBondageUpTheButtSex.mpg et al is still readily available on eDonkey; in fact, it's now more available than playboy.com to little Bruce and Sheila.
Conclusion: politicians declare a victory, playboy loses some advertising revenue, a few 'technical advisors' buy new Mercedes, and vetinary schools in Australia see a big rise in applications.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
She was thrown out after two years when it was obvious what an idiot she was. You re-elected Bush. Who's dumb?
Well, there is plenty of dumbness to go around, and that one really cuts home, but you should have seen the other guy. Kerry was a retard/lunatic walking free of the asylum.
I always say the system is wrong, no candidates should be picked and then the voting be limited to these candidates. Everyone should just write the name of anyone they please. The winner is the one with the highest number of votes who actually accepts the job.
Ironically, this is just what we do have, though. Anyone can write in anyone's name. We could have elected George Carlin (name picked at random). We have the power. We never use it. So it always comes back to the "who's dumb" thing, sigh.
Here in Australia, it seems that we are rapidly moving from being the lucky country to being the paranoid country. Anti-terrorism laws coupled with sedition laws and shoot to kill for the police. They have tried firewalling Australia a few years ago and it didnt work. Sounds to me like the lovely liberal government of Australia is rapidly turning into a rapid anti human rights government where they are doing everything to protect their power. I am going to be better of living in Europe somewhere...
*** I had a
You re-elected Bush. Who's dumb?
Well, as most experts agree, it wasn't much of a choice. The alternative was so bad that a lot of democrats actually voted for Bush to avoid Kerry. Of course there were also republicans that voted for Kerry to avoid Bush, but the Kerry off-factor combined with the Michael Moore effect ensured that Bush won.
Hopefully next time the democrats picks one that actually has a decent chance of winning and no dark past that can be lied about or otherwise abused. Because with no real choice there's no democracy, and for some reason the democrats chose to run with an unelectable candidate, reducing the election to something eerily like the Saddam regime for instance... Although those not voting for Bush wasn't imprisoned or summarily executed as the norm used to be in Iraq when voting for Saddam.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Blame Britain (for once it's not actually Canada! :)
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Talk about alienating an ENTIRE client base.. Why don't we sign up to Block Porn.. Idiots.
If you've paid attention, even to Slashdot, you'd see that the liberal Democrats are the ones doing it here. Tipper Gore (yes, that Gore), as an example, was the one that was instrumental on getting those stupid "warning" stickers on albums.
NOTE TO SYSOP:
Thanks for the account on your board. I would also like to request warez and adult access if available. I am also a member with ops on the IceCave and Wastelands.
Thanks again.
Marques Johansson
My own solution was to put the main 'net-enabled computer squarely in the middle of my kitchen-dining area, on the end of the counter there. (Those low-footprint iMac-style designs do have an extremely practical side.)
Also, for what it's worth, computers in the bedroom are about like TVs in the bedroom: kind of a bad idea, parenting wise, and just for anyone. My life is a little better for not having either one of them in the bedroom, leaving alone kids. The TV and the computer are in common areas. Yeah, it means I have to listen to the kids playing their games and whatever. I kind of like the noise.
(Since 1981? You have kids who are at least 24 (assuming they were newborn infants in '81) whose 'net access you're actively needing to control? You'd be able to define conditions on which they can live under your roof by then, and treat them like adults over that.)
Kids over 13 or so can stay home alone. Do we lock up the computer room when the adults are out? Computing to the current generation is as pervasive as book reading was the one before. They will have free access to it whatever we think.
There are ISPs that can help with this. As a parent if you want to control access you can, without involving a totalitarian government approach... Speaking of the pervasive reading problem you're referring to. (Which provoked a quite analogous reaction from frightened parents whose kids read the new dime paperbacks.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Except in this case it seems that a few of the Puritans managed to slip into Oz.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
I believe you. Honest.
The Internet, itself, is opt-in.
the alternative was the undead zombie known as Kerry... wasn't much of a choice there, 1u3hr...
-everphilski-
More than mere navel gazing.
Imagine if this is allowed to spread! It would be the death of the driving engine of the Internet!
Now here's an interesting case for a basic statistics class.
Self selecting sample [Y/N]
Accidentally? [Y/N] (Get real. Closer to 50/50, and I might believe that...)
I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone. After all, even the grave yawns for a statistician... ;-)
Yet these are the same people who want the decentralize the internet and let morons like this guy have a say on what DNS servers can/can not do!
He wants to censor the internet, china does, others will... and yet, you want THEM to have a say?
Remember this shit next time another story comes back up about decentralizing the DNS
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Find this great idea and others in the senator's new book: "Things God forgot to do"
An excerpt from the book: "We should also cut out the tongue of all babies off. Those who really wish to speak could have it reattached by request. Speech leads to all sorts of profane language. This measure will assure us that by default, no one can say those naughty words, thereby killing other people in gods eyes."
So a senator is sitting at their desk and they get some mail from an irate mother who found they didn't know enough about their computer to guess that they shouldn't just blindly let their 12 year old kid on it. That said child stumbled upon 120 GB of pr0n (or more) and now the mother is just a little angry.
So she goes and bitches to the senator. The senator gets a lot of these and says, "God, this looks like a problem, perhaps I could win some votes by filtering these bad things on the Internet."
The obvious problem: The senator doesn't understand any of this. It's like walking into Best Buy and having the idiot salesman tell you what kind of a computer you SHOULD be looking at. You're the guy who lives, breathes and eats tech. He's the guy who is a salesman for a megacorporation and doesn't know more about computers than your average 12 year old.
And so finally we understand the senators logic. Completely lacking any understanding of the subject he jumps to the conclusion he would be doing us all a favor by filtering the Internet. And when we tell him it's not feasible, he'll say, "Well let's give consumers the option to have filtered Internet." And it will go on and on. Because the reality is that you can't fix the problem until people understand what their computers can do, how to bolt them down, what steps to take to secure it for their kids, and how to be a proper parent.
I guess the sad part is that it will take the senator a long time to realize this... if ever at all.
Reminds me the last time I was travelling and tried to file a flight plan with the FAA. The hotel's porn filter blocked the site. I have no idea what the FAA was up to that day but it must have been pretty dirty.
they already took the guns. that's always step one, you know...
The Australian government took away guns, they're working on filesharing (not like the rest of the world isn't), and they're going to start on pr0n. What's next, kitchen knives and NIC cards?
abort, retry, fail?
Sounds like somebody needs an Abby Winters subscription.
Go mister senator, sir!!! Everyone in the world, (at least Europe,) is against you, but I'll stand in your corner if you're serious about this. This is a bold move... but I like it! For all you people that are complaining about this...why? He's not taking your "artistic" expressionalism away, or rights to view what you want, just making you sign up to view it! Definitely separates the men from the pervs! Go Australia!!!
"To err is human, doing it again is downright stupidity!"
How about no pornography, period. Pull the plug on any location dealing in or with it. Just say no more. The net would be a lot better place...
Ad Astra Per Asper
I believe that the children are our future.
I lost my virginity at 12 and it was not at all my choice. Now we have two data point. Can we make any correlation on that ? One own experience does not allow any conclusion (isn't that the "post ergo" reasonement ??).
Now if we take STUDY they says us that A quarter of women and nearly a third of men have sex under the age of 16 (the age of sexual consent) but the average age at first sexual intercourse is 16 for both sexes
Quote from Study on sex in UK
This is UK, but I doubt the average US teenie is less interrested by sex so I take it in the US it is the same, since I could not readily find an equivalent study for US very quick.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think this is a pretty good idea, only rather than having said filter on by default, it should be a question asked when signing up with an ISP.
"Would you like adult material filtered?"
"Would you like offensive material filtered?"
I know there are similar services out there, but one that is backed by the government might have more credibility.
Find Escorts, Strippers, Massage Parlours, Swingers
Although I've enjoyed reading about some of the things mentioned such as steganography and back-dooring. Think I would just sign up for the pron if I wanted it
If you're living in Australia, I doubt you'll ever have trouble getting all the porn you can eat. Much more problematic is the sadistic torture and mass murder than you habitually partake of, by supporting brutal war crimes, and the incredible evil of crushing the souls of children in razor-wired desert concentration camps. But then, I suppose all that porn takes your mind off of it. Unless, of course, you happen to be a muslim, in which case it only works until you are sent to Egypt to be electrocuted and pierced with power drills.
Hopefully, one day, an Australian will atone for the crimes of the nation, and in so doing, turn your continent into a vast plain of radioactive glass. Then the souls of your victims can rest in peace, avenged.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
You still up for having the UN control the Internet? Censorship, ho!
Hitler was not a socialist or a leftist.
And the biggest supporters of censorship in the US are the religios right.
A blog about stuff.
And warning stickers equal censorship. Like in China, when they put warning stickers on people's heads so everyone knows they are saying bad things about the government.
A blog about stuff.
Puritan: Someone who is concerned that somebody, somewhere, is enjoying himself.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Yknow....all this stuff about porn and videogames "Damaging" Children doesnt seem to make much sense to me, it just seems like the government is legislating morality, i mean weve had porn, videogames, internet, violence for years, and obviously our society isnt falling apart? Why all the ruckus now? If you ask me, people should explain to their kids what the world is really like, so their kid doesnt fall apart when they realize the world isnt a "super happy smile hello" world. Thats just my take on it, ill probably have somebody telling me that im wacko or something...
"who our Prime Minister appears to be in thrall to"
Do you know what "in thrall to" means? Clearly not, otherwise you never would have posted.
Claiming the PM is "controlled" (that's what it means, in case you haven't looked it up yet) by the US means that his actions are a result of US influence.
They are not, I showed you why, go away now.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Most people in penal colonies are lucky to get unsupervised Internet access anyway!
hah!
*ducks fast before boomerang hits him*
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Why not have the ISPs ask people to sign up for the smut they want, when they sign up for their service? The ISPs already know who surfs to pr0n sights anyway... (this can easily be tracked.) They can sign up with bank accounts, credit cards, etc. to verify the persons age and not feel responsible if an under-ager sees more than he/she should.
"To err is human, doing it again is downright stupidity!"
"The survey found that 93 per cent of parents were in favour of filtering out pornography available on the home computer, let alone those in public buildings. The survey also drew a link between prolonged exposure to this material and tolerance of sexual aggression. Is this why some men see women as a fashion to be used one day and discarded the next?"
Oh yeah, thats the reason. It has nothing to do with thousands and thousands of years of supressing female rights, THE INTERNET DID IT!
Jackass writer
You're saying the head of the "National Socialists" was not a Socialist, eh?
And can you name one political leader on the right who has called for censorship? Not the Pat Robertson wackos, but someone like Al Gore or Hillary Clinton who have called for it. Hint: there's only one dude, I just want to see if you can name him. Meanwhile I've named two Leftists without breaking a sweat.
BTW, have you even heard of Frank Zappa?
The opposite of progress is congress
Sounds like its time for a good ol' fashion book burnin'.
--
The Rhetorical Troll (priest level 60)
"Controlled" is not the actual definition of "in thrall to" (you can look it up, if you wish); your interpretation is no closer to the actual definition than mine. That gives us three definitions, at least; at this stage I see no reason not to posit a fourth (that of the OP).
Only by your interpretation of the OP is the US necessarily the cause of our problems.
And in any case, the definition of "in thrall to" is not relevant to whether the US is the cause of our problems, because—thank god—the Prime Minister is not our supreme dictator. We have a federal system and many things that the are relevant here need to be dealt with by the states, which are all controlled by the federal opposition (the Labor Party). Labor is not considered to be in thrall to the US, and goes to great lengths to ensure in fact it does not come of as anti-American. Also, we have a legislative arm to our federal government, of which the upper house is relatively independent of the executive. The Senate could've prevented this law, and most people wouldn't describe the person most likely to have voted "no" (Sen. Barnaby Joyce) as being controlled by the US/US interests.
A foreigner (I assume you are one, otherwise you do need a better understanding) is not expected to know the ins and outs of the political system of another relatively minor and benign country. Still, if one wishes to comment on the political system (or the implications of a post on it), you should have at least a basic understanding. It's this stuff I was talking about in my first post, and not the definition of "in thrall to".
Look out!
You're saying the head of the "National Socialists" was not a Socialist, eh?
no, he wasn't socialist. the Nazis were fascist (the exact opposite end of the political spectrum) if anything, he was anti-socialist/anti-communist. communists were basically one of the other things on his list of "things to eliminate to make a perfect world" in addition to jews and the physically/mentally disabled.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I may have just gotten home from the pub at 0515 but nevertheless, if I want to surf porn (like I usually do when I come home at 0500 on a friday morning)I should not have to jump through hoops to do so. The article mentions "The survey also drew a link between prolonged exposure to this material and tolerance of sexual aggression". Haha, get fucked, correlation and causation are not one in the same. It may very well be a big bad world out there but if parents wish to protect their kids, it is up to them to do so. Not everybody wants to have their children living in a plastic bubble and not all should be forced to live in same.
:P
Enough rambling, time to check my fav free porn site, www.orsm.net then go to bed
Instead, it is the job of parents to get involved in what their kids are doing, to teach them to have at least a half a braincell's worth of common sense. You don't allow the internet or the television to babysit your children. That's worse than handing them into the care of a random stranger on the street for no better reason than you're too lazy (or too busy) to do your job.
Parenting is hard, time-consuming work. If you're not prepared to do the time, then don't do the crime in the first place. I know what my 12-year old son is into, where he goes on the net, what music he listens to (mostly my old vinyl LP's, strangely enough), and what little TV he watches. I don't shield him from Bad Things. *I* show them to him, and make sure he knows they are bad. The hardest thing in the world is to show or say certain things to a child, but if you don't, they'll never know what those bad things are, and that you specifically disapprove of them (timing here is everything, but that's a discussion for another thread). You're the adult. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and act like one.
The parents have to be the biggest influence in their children's lives. This idea in Australia is worse than bad. It encourages the parents to ignore their kids and let the random stranger babysit them. Filtering that random babysitter doesn't make them any less a stranger.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
I'm sick of people trying to censor information on the internet. I'm going to make my own internet... with hookers and gambling. In fact, forget the internet. IMHO the internet is as popular as it is because of the amount and the freedom of information available to anyone. An uncensored internet is tool for the entire world to use, for what ever their purpose (even *pr0n*). Censoring takes away from the effectiveness of that tool and gives power to what ever body controls it. I believe that I should have access to any information I want (that someone else has made available) regardless of any body (government or otherwise).
Of course stopping porn is just the camel's nose under the tent.
Once the principle of mandatory filtering is in place, laws will be passed to stop "hate" web sites, the definition of which will of course be expanded to mean any political views, bloggers, or news sites the government hates.
"Controlled" is not the actual definition of "in thrall to" "
"thrall Pronunciation (thrôl)
n.
1.
a. One, such as a slave or serf, who is held in bondage.
b. One who is intellectually or morally enslaved.
2. Servitude; bondage: "a people in thrall to the miracles of commerce" Lewis H. Lapham.
tr.v. thralled, thralling, thralls Archaic
To enslave."
Is it really necessary to continue, or do you care to continue making yourself look like a raging idiot?
"Still, if one wishes to comment on the political system (or the implications of a post on it), you should have at least a basic understanding."
I wasn't commenting on a political system, I was commenting on a comment. Stop with the fucking straw men, please, they're easily spotted and just as eaily dismissed.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
They might do something crazy and start making their own:
http://sask.sasktelwebsite.net/wordporn.html
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
BULLSHIT! PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!
The fact is - the reason people want pornography, is because it is "taboo". People would not want pornography of any sort if it wasn't seen as taboo and naughty. We have no problem with people of any race, sex, or sexual orientation (ok, apparently some dumb fuckers have problems with that last one, but they are idiots) wandering around and - "GASP!" - letting our children see them - "URP!" - ...
!!!! CLOTHED !!!!
Horrors! Why is this though? Why do we not find clothed individuals "pornographic"? Furthermore - if nudity and other similar depictions were seen as "non-taboo" and perfectly acceptable by society - would clothed displays be seen as the new "pornography"? In other words, in bizzaro world, are clothed people taboo?
We are so stupid, and the cycle repeats, because we are too stupid to see the answer to our problems is clear. Those damn trees getting in the way of my forest.
You want to stop pornography? You want it to go away? Then quit making it a taboo subject! Quit making nudity and sex, and everything that revolves around those topics or are based on those topics, something that is only talked about in whispers or side glances. Quit making it taboo - and it will cease to be an issue!
This will never happen, though - IT IS TOO FUCKING LOGICAL AND REASONED TO OCCUR.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Good idea. Protect Australians from the pornographic speeches by the leaders of rogue terror & torture states like the United States, and pornographic speeches by their propaganda ministers (like Condi Rice, the Secretary of Propaganda for the US).
When I subscribe to DSL,Cable, dialup or something else I am purchasing Internet access.
including port 25 TCP, 6666-6669, FTP, P2P ports, access to warez sites (wheter I use them or not) and access to "THE WEB", not just a selection of sites my government, ISP or grandma thinks is good for me.
IF I choose filtering (e.g. I have kids and I cannot install a filter) thant put the damn thing on.
It is really sickening.
Actually transparent proxies are also unacceptable practices and should be mentioned if used in your ISP contract.
Sorry, that's the way I like it: Public IP, no filter on ISP side - all ports without proxies.
Wrong. Dead wrong.
...'
...'
. aspx?id=2220537&table=HANSARDS
m
The Senator you are refering to is (ex) Senator Brian Harridine [0]. You can read here an interview on ABC Radio, AM (22 June, 2005) [1] on his Senate retirement. Harridine was a independent hardliner from Tasmania. The Senator you refer to is Richard Alston, Liberal Party Hack & now gracing the powers of London as Australia's High Comissioner in the UK.
'... Thankfully Alston lost his powerseat during following elections
No it has to do with fixed terms in the senate. You can read this in reference 1.
'... Alston was exposed as the luddite nutjob he trully was and the sun once again shone.
No (unfortunately). He was among other things appointed 'Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Information Technology at Bond University in Queensland'.
Reference
[0] Australian Parliament Hansard, 'Validictory, Senate Hansard, 21 June, 2005':
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document
[1] ABC AM, 'Brian Harradine bids farewell to the Senate':
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1397805.ht
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, 'Richard Alston
Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom':
http://www.dfat.gov.au/homs/uk.html
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Since 1981? News flash: I was a kid once too. I guess forgot to explicitly state that. I began being one in mid 1974, so I have a perspective on their view and how their mind works :)
Only big ligs use sigs.
Well, anyone over 18 can write in any native born American over 35. But George Carlin would probably have been marginally better for international diplomacy... he usually can keep people smiling while he's being insanely rude to them.
Perhaps Dennis Leary as VP?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
The underlying issue here, really, is that "children should not have access to porn, all that sex is bad for them."
Oh-ho. Seeing people have sex is horrible for the development of children, is it? Procreation is evil! Gawd, I thought that this line of thinking went out with Victorian times.
Right now, extreme conservatives look back to the "good old days" and see perfection. Children weren't exposed to sex as much in the old days as now, right?
Yet in most countries in the world until about 100 years ago (and some countries much more recently), all but the rich were living in one- and two-room houses, and people bred like bloody rabbits. How in the world were children not exposed to sex from a young age? Were all children deaf and blind until they were sent to marriages arranged by their aprents? Not to mention whores on city streetcorners, Daddy's mistress, and print pornography. No, no, no, the "good old days" were a haven of morality and conscience.
But now, any exposure of children to sex is seen as a horrible, horrible thing. Mostly this comes from the people who think that their teenagers couldn't possibly be experimenting with sex (or booze or drugs, for that matter), despite the fact that most adults have fond memories of doing so when they were teens! As long as adults desire sex, in all of its many forms (which, btw, is a biological, not a cultural, desire), teenagers will desire sex as well, and pre-pubescent children will be curious and imitate what they see (although they don't often really understand it).
And what gets me is that people make all the wrong arguments about pornography. Politicians are all about "saving the children" from exposure to sex, because sex at a young age is bad. (Not just unprotected sex and, of course, rape, but all sex.) But they never talk about the idea that pornography can objectify women, lead to unrealistic expectations about the human body and self-image, etc. Whether these arguments have weight or not in the public eye, the fact is that they are rarely brought up in the first place. No, because that would hint at some knowledge of the subject matter!
Give me a freaking break. People are killing each other in new and inventive ways on the 7-oclock news, but show a piece of flesh on prime time -- won't someone think of the children???????
Funny, I knew before I read the article that the bloke had to come from 'Tasfobia', either that or the ghost of Joh Bjelke Petersen being channeled.
You never catch me alive
Assuming the cable is still to be laid, I quite like the cooling effect. With the ensuing shrinkage and all it's a good example of dynamic equilibrium. Don't know how that'd go in chemistry class, though.
Cogito, ergo sig.
As a PhD student and casual lecturer at the University of Tasmania's Computing deptartment Launceston campus (Launceston is where Guy Barnett has his office), I would like to clearly state for the record that nobody asked us for a comment on this before he started writing press releases!
:-)
Its rather funny actually, we have in the past been asked for help with expert advice in court cases etc, where technology has played a part in the crime. I don't think we've ever been asked anything on political party policy though... Why don't they make similar, unsupported claims about other scientific endeavors? Are the public only "politically gullible" about computer science? Might be a paper in that...
Why would you treat a poor little donkey so?
Oh! I think I get it, Americans can't spell ARSE!
Ok, the christian right backbenchers and the "family first" (a front for a local charismatic christian cult) senators support this.
:)
:)
However there is ALREADY legislation in place where it was decided quite equivocally NOT to filter the net (when the minister responsible was actually a fairly psychotic christian too) for such nastiness and focus of a code of practice for local ISPs and Web hosts for managing tricks like domain hijacking and focus on education of parents on how to restric access to such material should they choose.
Once again, our Slashdot editors are the staunch bastion of reason, filtering the noise to present us with meaningless tripe
Singapore is Grandma the state, all others are pretenders
err!
jak.
From TFA:
Who the hell is this guy to tell me what is and is not "inappropriate"???
I thought in a liberal democracy our politicians were our servants, not our masters! I think Mr Barnett should consider resigning from the Liberal Party and join Family First or one of the other cooky authoritarian Christian extremists, as his "liberal" values seem to be somewhat lacking.
I wonder how they are going to get ISPs to censor the "NET" (not just the WWW)? Are they going to create special filters for every known and future unknown protocol or encryption?
All this in the country that owns the ".cx" domain - Christmas Island is an Australian territory. We don't go mad over a nipple being exposed on TV, but we still have our loonies.
The extra cost doesn't matter to the single issue loonies that push this line - anything and everything should be done "for the children" - apart from educating and feeding the poor ones of course, because their version of God only likes rich people.
Tipper Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman are the republican wing of the democratic party. They're not "liberal" by any stretch, and their awful attempts to censor Americans are pandering to the middle, not the left.
The "free love" leftists aren't be in favor of this sort of thing.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Unfortunately, this is just another example of a technically illiterate pollitician thinking with their special interest groups and not with thier brain.
They are becoming increasingly common and more impossible with thier demands as the years roll by. One day they will get someone in a position of power with a genuine appreaciation of the technical issues involved and they will marvel at how much crud got through parliment
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
None of those definitions say "in thrall to" means "is controlled by"; do you know what control is? You might interpret the difference to be so minor as to be irrelevant, but that's your own fault.
No, it is not necessary to continue. I certainly won't bother.
The point about the political system is hardly a straw man. If you think it is, you should perhaps look up the definition of "straw man". And you were commenting on a comment that was commenting on our political system, in such a way that you needed to have at least a basic understanding unless you wanted to look a fool (the thing in brackets). You didn't have an understanding, or at least you didn't use it...
Look out!
Australia isn't becoming a nanny state, it is a nanny state looking to become a police state. You can tell the world's completely off kilter when the First World nations that seem to be making the most sense at the moment are the Germans who can't even elect a leader and the French who don't bother to respond to massive riots for two weeks.
Personally I've noticed a serious bent towards totalitarianism in all the major players in the "Coalition of the Willing". Australia, Britain and America all keep passing these scary laws restricting free speech and removing rights from citizens and conferring them on corporations. It's a pity too, couldn't happen to nicer people, pretty much every single one of the ordinary citizens I've met from your countries I've liked and respected.
Here's some rules I learned from growing up in an oppressive society that eventually became free. I know it seems unlikely that an Aussie could learn anything from a South African, but they proved true here, watch out:
If you do ignore this list, please at least just be Australians. Toss some meat on the barbie, knock
Australia has always had a tradition of repressive, authoritarian government and arbitrary authority. After all, it was a penal colony, and a military outpost of the British Empire, holding the line, and standards had to be enforced. Up until the 1960s or 1970s, a lot of things which would be OK in London or New York were strictly beyond the pale in the big cities of Australia. Australian puritanism (or "wowserism") doesn't have the evangelical, light-on-a-hill idealism of the American variety, but tends to be more of a what-will-the-neighbours-think conservatism.
Mind you, Australia also has an equally old opposite tradition of borderline contempt for authority and propriety; commonly called "larrikinism". This is a country where an armed robber is a national hero, an unofficial (and by far more popular) national anthem is about a sheep thief, and more recently, there were (unofficial) national moments of silence and memorials held for an Australian executed in Singapore for smuggling a huge quantity of heroin. The larrikin streak has made an impression on Australian culture in a number of areas, from an old an ongoing tradition of political mischief to highly-developed scenes for activities such as stencil graffiti and urban exploration.
The downside of the larrikin-wowser dynamic is that there is not much of a centre, and not much of a tradition of liberalism and civil society. Since the 1970s, Australia has become more liberal and cosmopolitan, though that was never enshrined into anything like a bill of rights. Consequently, as soon as a hard-right government got into power, all the de facto institutions of liberalism are being swept away like so many sandcastles on a beach, and the old authoritarianism is showing through.
The ghost of Joh Bjelke-Petersen appears to be possessing the government in Canberra. With increasingly tightening censorship laws, crackdowns on peaceful protest and now the new sedition laws, Australia as a whole is looking like Bjelke-Petersen's Queensland did.
Let's start by censoring Australian Senators. For that matter, let's ban then from all media outlets. If I can't hear them from atop their soap box then they obviously have nothing worth saying.
Why can't one of these cretins suggest the bleeding obvious. Prohibit the unsupervised use of the 'net by minors. Cheap: Cost to taxpayer/ISP/end user - nil (possible revenue source with fines). Simple: onus on the parents to actually be parents - zero administration and maintenance. Effective: its not our fault if you can't control your brats - so don't blame us. Frrrp - more ashamed to be Australian by the day.
smilies are for reetards
"...but if the family includes children then the parents must acknowledge their responsibility and duty of care to ensure their children do not become victims."
Dumb question, but... as a general rule, aren't parents supposed to be responsible and take care to ensure their children do not become victims anyway?
This reminds me of the classic American stereotype (I believe coined by Chris Rock): "I take care of MY kids!" You're supposed to! That's what being a parent means! What, you want an award for taking care of your kids?
Geez.
The postman hits! The postman hits! You have mail.
The user that wants the filter should have to go through the trouble of getting it setup for their account and pay for any extra fees (which is likely to happen).
Filtering is a service that will cost the ISPs time, work, and money to maintain, & I don't see how they deserve to be held responsible. Nor should law-abiding citizens be denied a lack of service for which they pay.
Porn is not the problem - under-aged/illegal access to porn and paedophilia/child porn are the issues. It will evolve as it needs to regardless of the technology... so stop passing the buck & give the police the funding they need!