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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Jesus. This has been discussed so many times under so many different permutations and yet this type of opinion still exists.
Ok. So you want the ISP to filter for you to keep the "baddies" of the internet away from your children.
Great. Who decides what sites the ISP should filter? What is the criteria? Who develops the criteria? Who oversees that the ISP are filtering only to the criteria mandated? And so on...and so on...
Yes, ISPs can filter. It won't work. Some "bad" sites will get through the filter and many perfectly legitimate sites will get blocked. The current market of PC-based filtering software clearly proves this.
Here's an idea. Supervise your children when they are on the internet instead of relying on your ISP or (god forbid) the government to do it for you.
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.
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
If there's a difference it's this:
The first time round, the Howard government passed the law banning porn on the internet in exchange for getting independant Senator Brian Harradine's support for the partial privatization of Telstra (Govt owned Telco). So what happened was they spent a couple of million on setting up an agency to do it, then never enforced the laws.
The difference this time is that it comes from within the government itself, which means that we'd likely get more than just the laws this time, they may actually try to enforce them (and just because they can't get rid of net porn doesn't mean they can screw things up trying).
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
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!
>If you want to censor something, go after the important stuff, like how to build nuclear bombs in a weekend with spare parts.
You wouldn't happend to have a link do you? Been itching for something to do during the holidays...
Is this any different from hotels or cable companies blocking adult channels by default?
Are they required to do so by law? Or do they choose to?
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.
"I'm anti-porn, I think it damages peoples minds. . ."
Well yeah, having your mind damaged by morality'll do that to ya.
KFG
Australian's need to write to Guy Barnett and tell him stop the moral grandstanding.
The best bit is:
Suggesting that only boys go out of their way to look for porn. I am sure there is one or two girls that actively look for porn. Of course, maybe guys are a touch more obcessive about it.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie...."
Nimheil
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
No, it's not even good in theory! It's extremely bad in theory! It's opressive and totalitarian, and is a policy better suited for those "towel-head" theocracies that the US and Australian government are -- allegedly -- enemies of. In fact, it's the kind of idea that in a sane world would get this senator kicked out off office almost immediately, because it's dangerously close to treason for any allegedly "free" society.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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...
Hmmm, but without pr0n, it looks like one develops quite bad spelling.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
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:
Could one assume then, that 93% of parents are therefore using some form of filtering currently available to achieve that goal?
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
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.
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.
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
"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 ?
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.
Freedom of Speech is very much an American concept, one that the rest of the world simply does not have.
In Australia, for example, the current is in the position to mandate what does and does not constitute "acceptable" speech, and is doing so with abandon.
Their main opponent is not HM Opposition as you might expect, but News Ltd. When the Government's main opponent on freedom of speech issues is Rupert Murdoch, you know things are bad.
In Australia, unfortunately, we do not have anything like your First Amendment speech protections. I wish it were otherwise, but here the government is able to restrict speech as it sees fit. Most Australian governments have left this wisely alone, but the current government seems to view the electorate as an anthill and they are poking us with stick after stick, just to see what happens.
The tactic of having a member of the government express his "private" views publicly in this way is their established method of testing the water on things they would like to introduce. The Health Minister made similar noises a while back about banning abortion. He was raised by monks.
More interesting is the article fails completely in explaining why children should be protected from sexual explicit materials. If they are not interested they will just skip it as some rubbish. I have never seen any research proving children are harmed in any way when they are accidentally exposed to sexual explicit materials. However, children will be harmed if they won't be educated about sex and it's sexual consequences.
Nyh
This is and attempt at mandating filters that any parent can put in place by themselves. And nobody would be complaining if an ISP offered this as an opt-in service. Or for that matter if they were required to offer it as an opt-in service.
That raises the question of the motive. Why not just mandate it as an opt-in service? Or require ISP's to inform about the availability of filtering software? People can already filter - people who would like a filtered internet connection but don't have one is in that situation either because of cost, ignorance, or not being able to figure out how to install the software. Mandating ISP's to inform and to offer a server side opt-in alternative would solve those concerns.
So why opt-out?
The only reasonable explanation is that this guy doesn't trust parents to do what he thinks is right, so he wants to do it for them, but since he know he'd never get through a mandatory service, he's going for the next best thing: An opt-out solution that requires people to actively contact their ISP and ask for something that most will find embarrassing.
And as for your "protecting your kids against harm", even putting aside the discussion about whether or not porn is harmful: Kids who wants porn will get hold of it, it's that easy. Ever since my C64 days I remember how kids then would exchange floppy disks with badly pixelated, badly dithered, badly colored porn, a few pics per disk. The only thing filtering will do if your kids wants porn is drive them to either exchange CD's or USB keys, or into chatrooms or web forums that have avoided filtering, but where people will happily exchange files in private.
The only thing filtering will do is give you a false sense of security and teach your kids that they certainly can't come to you to talk about stuff they see that worries them, seeing as what they'd come across would be something they'd gotten hold off behind your back.
No, I'm not advocating shoving it in their faces or recommending it to them - I'm advocating sitting down with them and telling them about how there's stuff online they might find disturbing and how you'd prefer if they'd close it down and tell you about it if they see something that troubles them. Kids don't usually act like idiots unless you treat them as idiots.
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.
And then on a channel 10 dancing show.
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.
That part is not an issue really. Just ban non-backdoored encryption.
Then the content doesnt matter.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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