Slashdot Mirror
Australian Labor Party Proposes ISP Level Filter
An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Labor Party (much the same as the Democrats in the US) are claiming they will force ISPs to block violent and pornographic content if elected. From the article: 'Mr Beazley said all households would be included in the policy unless there was a specific request for access to such material. It was "too hard" for many parents to install internet blockers on their computers to prevent offensive material being downloaded.'"
Just who defines "violent" or "pornographic" material? What is "violent" or "pornographic" material? Frankly, people who are smart will eventually get around it anyway...
I wonder if anyone who "opts-out" of the ISP filter will be more likely to have their internet usage monitored and their home raided?
How would adults contact their ISPs to re-enable the content? Also, if adults did request to have the conent put through, they could be descriminated against. This sounds like a bad idea!
Cry me a fucking river.
Can't install filtering software? How about sitting down with your kids and keeping an eye on what they're doing instead? Move the PC out to a communal area - the front room or dining room, somewhere you can see it from. Hell, you could even end up taking an actual interest in what they're doing, discussing things with them and perhaps even taking a part in their education (dangerous, I know). You never know, they might even learn a few limits of their own.
God forbid that parents should have to take some personal responsibility for what their children are exposed to. I know parenting isn't easy, but this trend of shoving responsibility and effort off to third parties is sickening.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Without something like this, parents would have to do things like be responsible, or supervise their children!!!
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Who is to censor the internet? By what criteria?
..so, nothing to see here, all just pre-election strong words, nothing that'll ever be formulated as a new law.
Can one service that's bordering on the fringe of being censored - but really OK - call for competitors to be censored? Can I call for microsoft.au to be censored (that would be possible under a "censor first, unblock later"-policy that would be needed for fast-changing domains...
The Australian Labor Party (much the same as the Democrats in the US)
What the fuck? The Democrats aren't the bible-thumping fundie idiots. Hell, I doubt even the Republicans would be so stupid as to try to take away people's porn.
You can take away people's constitutional rights and they won't bat an eye... but I don't think people have gotten quite so pussified that you could ban porn without at the very least massive riots.
Unfortunately, It is rapidly becoming Soviet Australia.. Just ask any gun owner. :(
The earth is 98% full, please delete anyone you can!
The ALP is currently in unelectable self-destruct mode, and appears to show no real signs of getting that fixed before the next election. Which is unfortunate, as the incumbents are a bunch of equally obnoxious nazis, though for other reasons. I doubt that having such nanny-state type policies is likely to help them in any way. What I can't figure out is why they don't just hand over the leadership to Julia Gillard and start working towards making themselves actually attractive to voters. None of this stuff is relevant to that goal, or will help them in any way shape or form. And I speak as a parent.
I'm sure most people here will have a first reaction of bitching about the injustice, but this seems not only reasonable but good. he's right about it being too hard for client-side blocking (an article on a similar topic recently had about a kabillion "d'uh ubuntu CD!11" threads).
it's like the issue of people bitching about ISPs not allowing all ports open by default. sure it helps againt spam and is a non-issue for 99.999999% of users, but what about the poor linux guy with his own mail server that has to go to all the effort of making a phone call to a real person to get the port opened!
analogy: when you buy a basic TV package you don't automatically have porn channels enabled.
A study just released by the Labor Party shows that 99.9% of the other parties's web site are considered violent, pornographic or both. "So if we block them after we are elected, it won't be censorship, it will be because we need to protect those poor, hapless households", says Mr Weazley, head of the Internet Content Tagging Office at the Labor Party HQ.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
There isn't much Australian pr0n to begin with, and none of it is violent Australian pr0n.
Austrailian porn , though, there's quite a bit of, and there's even a tiny bit of violent Australian porn, if you look hard.
I'll go set up my own ISP. With blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the ISP and the blackjack.
"I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring."
- Feynman's last words.
Censoring can never stop someone who would like to watch porn. One or the other, there will be ways to access, and all of them might not be legal as well. What if someone posts porn in his orkut page or geocities. Who will keep track of that? Also, who defines what constitutes porn and what not, the govt, the church or social agencies?
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Tomrrow, dissident speech and knowledge.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just your average nothing policy that is the hallmark of the modern Labour party. Vote Greens!
Is he proposing to block all encrypted traffic? What about Rot 13? And every time a new protocol is created the network will have to be reprogrammed to detect whatever portion of the traffic Mr Beazley is objecting to? Will URLs be whitelisted or blacklisted? How long before Australian's leave Mr Beazley all alone in "his" corner of the Internet?
I suspect the average 15 year old is far more Internet savvy than Mr Beazley and his clueless advisers. We're fast running out of people to vote for in Australia. (Choose between a liar and an idiot.)
It's just begging for someone to write one of those cute flash games with Mr Beazley running around trying to wack naked moles as they pop up from their holes.
...on the upside, at least Kim Beazley is more or less unelectable.
It seems just about every week we're hearing more and more censoring and blocking and "You can't do that here" talk from Australia. I always thought this was a free-wheeling, "come and say g'day" kinda place. But it sounds like it's more puritanical than the US, something I didn't think was possible.
What is up with this country?
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
what'dya expect? Australians are one of the very few countries actually rivalling the US when it comes to being hung up on sex issues. I mean, the wear swimsuits when they take showers.
Thenagain, I come from the other extreme, so I guess I'm sort of biased here.. (the other being Scandinavia).. I remember once seeing a late night show in the US, the whole idea of which was to show commercials that could never have been aired in the US.. like that was the whole point of it.
Blew my mind, that one..
Nyhetsankaret.com -- det bÃsta av Sveriges Nyhetssido
It is not that hard to install an internet filter, or if they are that inept, pay someone to assist them. So don't give me that crap about how kids today are smarter than their parents, that is just a copot. All it takes is the time most people invest in a few TV episodes, maybe a book or two, and some ironfisted discipline.
Since when did the democratic party want to censor internet access? I usually here proposals like this from the other side of the isle.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Beazley is a loudmouth and has no idea what he's on about.
I've traded a few emails with various members of the labor party and none of them actually think this will work (or is even remotely useful), it's a way to grab favour from the "Will somebody think of the children!" crowd.
That said, just to make sure how I feel about it, I'll be regurgitating my previous emails to all appropriate party members, I'd suggest all Australians do the same, just in case.
Why their elected officials have such a hard-on for filtering the net? Every story on /. about .AU is related to this subject, in one way or another. Are your politicians as intrusive as this in other aspects of your life... can you buy dirty magazines from a store? you buy porno tapes right? I always thought you guys were a bit more liberal and easy-going than what the news makes you out to be..
Basically, got it in one. The Centre-Right party in Australia (the current incumbents) are known as the Liberal Party . The other major party, more left-leaning, are known as the Labor Party (they formed out of the trade union movement ages ago, hence the name). Note that they aren't dominated by crazy-leftists at the moment like the American Democrats seem to be, and the most common complaint here is that they don't really provide a point of difference to the incumbents.
To avoid any confusion, there is also a minor party in Australia called the Democrats.
"trying to force a state religion"
Ya know, I was just thinking that the other day as I was driving past the synagogue, the mosque, the temple, and the cathedral... damn those pinheads for trying to force their state religion on me!
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Porn is anything you lose interest in after you cum
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
'Europe is smarter, but it's not nearly as free.' Try coming to The Republic of Ireland, I think you'll find that we're much freer than the US of A and most other countries on this earth. Oh and we've got better economic growth :op
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
If I would run an ISP, I would offer 'adult content filtering' as a service, their is obviously a big market for this.
Where I live, there are not that much differences between ISP's, I'am pretty sure a lot of parents would take such a service into account when choosing for an ISP.
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
Is that this now opens the door for the Libs to propose the same thing (an idea they've floated before) *and* get it implemented with nary a peep of dissention from politicians.
Ask any gun owner? Ask any person who objects to the current government about our new sedition laws. Ask most judges about the new law where anyone can be locked up in secret for knowing someone who is suspected of planning a terrorist act. I just hope these laws get removed before some bastard gets elected and decides to abuse them.
They seem to be intent on losing elections. Howard is such a complete dingbat the Australian opposition would have to go out of their way to continue to lose elections - and here they are doing just that.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
... "We can basically choose between two parties: One is evil, and the other is incompetent".
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
My 2 cents:
Filtering is fine, if its *your* choice not to view, not someone else imposing their filtering on you. This is why the British model is not a good one.
Opt-in would be better, it should be a regular purchased service like any other net service. Parents should also have the option of decided WHO defines their filter list. So that they could choose the filtering according to their own religious/Moral beliefs. If you're Islamic you might want to block Danish cartoons for example. If you're a Google fanboy, you should be able to order the Google safe filter. The *parent* should get to decide who they want to do the blocking, the ISP should simply offer the service of routing it.
ISP should *sell* the service, then there is a commercial incentive to offer a market in good filtering choices, rather than a reluctant half assed service.
Governments should be kept at barge pole length, because they have a tendency to censor views they disagree with.
Parents should be able to change the preferences on a website with their login/password they get when they order net connections, so that as their children grow they can turn the filtering down, or when they want to supervise their kids internet usage they can turn it off.
Finally, some filtering services should be whitelisted services rather than blacklisted, i.e. a whitelist of known good sites, for parents that are particularly sensitive to porn/violence issues.
Somebody should start a country somewhere where the average citizen isn't, you know, a dumbass.
I wonder which department of your government would take charge of filtering the dumbasses...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Well if China has a Great Wall
The boss of the ISP I work for is simply going to add a "pervert" tag to all customers.
Want to view something Fat Kim doesn't like, you are marked as a pervert.
At least the boss has a sense of humour.
The geek shall inherit the earth
You might want to take a look at the Scandinavian countries and Finland. (And I'm not sure where the "Europe is [...] not nearly as free" part comes from, either - if you check the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index, for instance, you'll find that many European countries rank higher than the USA. In particular, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland are tied for the first rank, and the first four of these have consistently been at the top in the past, too.)
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
What would be the cost comparison between implementing this filter vs. mailing each household (that requests it) a free copy of NetNanny (or other blocking) software?
Blocking everything will just make people search harder for it.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Here in the the U.S. I have never heard that it is a Democrat position to force ISPs to block pornographic and violent content. What sort of rubbish is that bit in this article? Sure you will get the politician here or there that wants to do things like this, or install sex and violence chips in TV sets, or punish someone for Janet Jackson's bare breast shown during Superbowl halftime. This politician could be Democrat or Republican or other.
Labour won't win the next election so none of this is going to happen. I think they are probing for policies. If they get a good reaction they may continue pushing it, otherwise it will be quietly forgotten.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
It seems that half the parental population of the US wants the world to be their babysitters for them.
If parents would take more interest in their children and watch over them like they expect the government, their neighbors, and Mrs. Fitzgerald down the block to, there would be no need for these silly ideas of "protecting" their kids from everything short of bottled water. If the parents could be bothered to spend even 5 more minutes of every day with their kids, that would completely eliminate this need for filtering internet content. The only things I can attribute this "need" to are parental disinterest and laziness.
Parents of 30 years ago should be appalled if they looked at today's parents and their apparent total lack of parenting skills and dedication.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The labor party is closer to a socialist party.
They are not anything like democrat.
US parties both are capitalist oriented, but distinguish on where control is... (FOR vs BY, INTERNAL vs EXTERNAL, CENTRAL vs DECENTRAL).
In Australia, that issue isn't a divider, the divider is capitalist (liberal) vs socialist (labor) models.
I don't think there is a socialist party in the US.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
I think we can rest easy in the confidence both this policy and Beazley will be long gone and forgotten by the time the ALP win government. Have you seen the polls lately?
Mark Twain once said that "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it". Evidently, people have been using children as a means of taking things away from adults for a long time now.
Pol Pot knew it, and today's politicians learn from him. Well, not all of it, but at least the key message: Don't let your smart people get into positions where they're listened to. They might tell the dumb ones that you, their leader, is ripping 'em. Best way is to keep most of your voters dumb enough to swallow your propaganda. Just enough to ensure majority, since you need trained people to run your economy. Make them rich and shut them up that way.
Unlike Pol Pot, today's leaders don't simply oppress their people and "force" them to be dumb, they suggest it and reward stupidity. Aside from frivolous lawsuits that force inane safety stickers onto everyday items ("items in rear view mirror might seem smaller than they are" Well, duh, really?), the best example is the 'net and computer software altogether. You're pretty much not liable for any damage your (infected) computer causes to the 'net as long as you can claim you couldn't know it does damage.
You're only liable for damage done by your computer when you have the skill and training to prevent it.
Winner: Dumbass without a clue.
Loser: Trained IT security person.
Same applies to many other laws where you're out of liability if you can credibly claim that you couldn't know that something you did (or didn't do) caused damage.
You're being rewarded for staying stupid. If you knew, if you used your brains, if you were smart enough that you could have foreseen the damage and thus prevent it, you're liable for it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
-1 Flamebait.
I can't see how this article could promote thoughtful, 2 sided discussion. A quick breeze through the comments confirms this, with the exception of one or two responses pointing out how the Australian Democrats can't get elected.
Think someone needs to add a few more tags to the article... maybe "slownewsday", "troll", or "flamebait".
If you cannot monitor your kids, don't allow them Internet access. No school can really force your student to use the Internet out of school hours. Sure, a computer is different, which can be used for typing up reports, but they cannot really force you to use the Internet for homework.
There are worse problems than kids coming across pornography. Kids putting too much information out on the Net. Do you realize how easy it can be to find out information about a given individual?
"We will control what you think, see and hear.
Oh Yes WE WILL!"
Of course, you can say that you need the gun to protect yourself against the government, but that's just bullshit. If the government wants you dead, no gun will protect you.
The idea is that during a revolution, an armed populace vastly outnumbers the army. They might kill you, yes, but not everyone.
Try Antarctica. All inhabitants are scientists and have high education, no state religion (in fact no state at all), no police nor laws to restrain your freedom, and no one is checking who's coming in or out.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
American liberals are not liberal either, you want to find American liberals you have to go to the Libertarian party. But then, what is liberal nowadays? It is not a concept handled well by the gradeschool dictionaries available on the net.
Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem.-Thomas Szasz
I know AOL UK offers parental filters as part oftheir package. Surely AOL Australia, and various other ISPs offer the same. So if local filtering software is too much hassle, Change ISP, morons!
Welcome to Australian politics, everyone. *rolls eyes*
For those not familiar with Australian politics, let me help out a little. In Australia, we have a healthy disrespect for our politicos. Your average Australian will happily diss both major parties, even if they actually voted them in. Occasionally, one of our politicos will say something that is so out there, so backwards, so poorly thought-out that it causes many of us to hang or heads in shame.
And when it comes to IT, our politicos are famous for coming up with poorly thought-out schemes that can make people from even the most backwater of country towns sadly shake their heads, thinking "luddites". So please, don't judge us based on our "representatives". Please look at us as the designated driver who is ashamed of their drunken friend who is making a fool out of himself but still needs someone to drive them home at the end of the evening. This is a shameless attempt at grabbing support from the "think of the children" voter demographic by a party that has been getting spanked in the federal elections for many years by a party that isn't that much better. Hopefully this attempt (not the first) will die the death it deserves and we won't have to hear about it again. Fear not, there isn't any significant grassroots desire for this sort of censorship. Not that I know about anyway! I'd say that the bulk of informed people find the whole proposal to be ridiculous.
My god!! Kim (pork roll) Beazley has topped his own stupidity this time. But don't worry in the extremely remote, and I mean fucking remote possibility that the ALP actually get in next election it will quickly be dumped. To be honest the country will probally get into so much economic strife that porn will barely rate a mention.
Yep, really free. Provided your catholic.
In freedom of the press perhaps, but what about freedom involving personal choice? In socialist countries, many such choices are made by the government.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
All of this assumes that the internet is an appropriate medium for children. Its not. So lets not turn the Internet into a baby sitter.
I'm all for a white listed kiddy ISP service. Even then its only for supervised educational purposes.
As for Mr Beastly... he's just worked out this idea of censornet is an old idea popular amongst luddites that might win votes. It means there struggling really hard to find an idea for an election campaign.... and obviously hasnt got a clue.
OK so the right to kill an unborn human being counts as a freedom?
Glad to see you've got your priorities straight.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
...or just plain too difficult to teach your kids right from wrong.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
It works the same way with women as well.
If you're deliberatle going around trying to get as much tail as possible - you're a player and no woman will talk to you. You're smart enough to know that is not a good thing to do.
If you're a dumb drunken jerk with problems and chase women around, then you are forgiven for being "uneducated", not smart enought to know better, and have "problems" which "aren't your fault". So women will love you and try and change your bad behaviour... which inevitably never happens.
This gentlemen, is why geeks can't get laid.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
This is the latest fad, thanks to George W.
The job of any government is to enact that countries law. That is all. They should leave their leader's personal notion of morality out of their business.
Umm what about target shooting. That is a valid, legal and socially valid use of a gun. Your blanket comment about guns and the people that own them is the exact point. Just because you don't want them doesn't mean you have any right to stop others having them.
As expected, the filters block very benign content.
One morning I found I couldn't access my.yahoo.com, google.com., ebay.com. My guess is that this is because several of my co-workers had earlier accessed these web sites and popped up a web page with an evil keyword like "erotic". For example, someones yahoo email accout had spam offering penis enlargement and this showed up in the my.yahoo.com page for the user.
Now, the Labour Party says they will allow ISP customers to opt out, that is exactly what will happen the first time well meaning parents try to access a web page describing say a Louis Malle film.
All this will do is raise the cost of ISP services, which is consistent with a left wing political party (but in fairness, nanny protectionism isn't limited to the left; the Sarbanes Oxley law in the USA is one of the worst forms of nanny protectionism [one which indirectly requires my employer have content filters] that the right wing party has ever produced).
If it is criminal for Australians to view violence and porn
Nobody mentioned viewing violent or pornographic media to be criminal. No politician, it's not in the story, just you, flying off into la la land.
The government would not provide an "opt in" to criminal activity. That would be a crime in itself, by the government. Maybe you should read the story.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
And will the list of people who "opt out" be kept confidential? How confidential? How do people know that by opting to receive porn, they won't end up on a list somewhere -- since obviously by definition there has to be a list at their ISP -- of "Social Deviants who Like Violence and Pornography"? Just the fact that such a list could or might exist, could easily cause people to not want to opt out. Everyone has a price; how long before some overzealous investigative reporter or tabloid journalist bribes someone at an ISP for the list, just to see what interesting people are on there? I can't think of a better story than revealing which government officals are on the "Porn List."
The way to do it is to make the system opt-in, not opt-out. If people have kids, all they need to do is make a phone call to their ISP; various ISPs can even market the feature as a selling point of their service if they wanted to. But any scheme that automatically filters everything and requires you to put yourself on a list in order to get uncensored access is inherently a bad idea.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Yup, I'll judge your definition of free as I judge your definition on human being. You might find America to be more in line with your beliefs then you think. Just don't look up the Constitution or anything, that was done by them crazies. If you look up New Century America I'm sure you'll find America is everything you would hope for.
From what I've heard New Zealand seems to be the only sane country left.
Kim Beazley is a reminder to all us Australians that he is not fit to govern and control our land.
He is so out of touch with the people that he will do anything to grab votes to bump up a "rescue" a sunken campaign.
His politics and opinion poll tells the story, and with the 2007 federal election looming he is desperate to win some points.
The Labour party have clearly lost their identity, they don't know what to do or who to support anymore.
Watch the news, his party has no innovation, his sole mission is to put down reasonable ideas put forward by other parties.
Of course "the idea" dates from a time and place when the firepower available to the populace was roughly equivalent to that available to the government. Outdated since the arrival of the gatling gun - let alone the vast, vast gap between the semi automatic rifle or shotgun (legal for Aussie citizen) and the kind of stuff the RAAF or Australian Army has (eg Metal Storm)
They might kill you, yes, but not everyone.
The same principle can be applied with more effect using a strategy of unarmed, peaceful revolution. Shooting an armed revolutionary can be seen as a valid thing for a government to do. Shooting an unarmed civilian is not - shoot a few and you'll have no support, and no army to do your bidding.
- chinese Web-TVs that stream sport events whose broadcasting rights in Italy are owned by satellite operator SKY;
- Gambling/sport betting/online casinos, that are required to pay a royalty/tax to operate in Italy;
The worst part of the deal is that no formal trial is done before the order is given to ISPs, so websites don't have any chance to defend their rights. Oh, and citizens don't have the right to know the full list of restricted websites.
Leave my snuff films out of this!
Unfortunately we have the same sort of thing to look forward to in the US.
This isn't really about porn, violence, or protecting children. It is about one thing and one thing only: Government control of information; period. If you believe otherwise you are being fooled.
I realize that there are a lot of people and lobbyist groups who would love to block porn and violence, and I am sure that is what this is about for those groups and I have no problem if these people wish to undertake these sort of solutions themselves as responsible parents etc - but as far as western governments are concerned this is about censorship.
Even if the reason they wanted to do this really was to "protect children" - forcing the entire country to conform to the lowest common denominator of what some consider to be decency is backwards as hell.
These are the same sorts of people who always talk about "morality," - note, to them "morality" is about whatever dogmatic belief they would like to impose on others; rather than being about truth, honesty, valor - trating others as you would like to be treated, the best parts of human nature and kindness etc.
We all need to pinch the shit out of the world and wake everyone up from this growing orwellian nightmare.
My initial reaction to this was much the same as that of many slashdotters - That it will never work and that it was too much in the way of big brother tactics to try.
Then fatherhood instints kicked in and I started to feel like this level of protection should be there and should have been there since day one of the internet being available to the general public.
It is wrong to expose people to offensive material unless they specifically choose to view it and it is very wrong for ISPs to sell the internet into family homes without a good mechanism for restricting content to minors.
Liberal, conservative, democratic, socialist, left-wing, right-wing and probably most of these political labels widely differ amongst countries to the point of them being useless to hold any significant meaning in comparisons amongst countries.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Then we'd get a full shadow government term of someone intelligent leading the party (i.e. Latham). Is he trying to get the Family First vote or something?
I think it would be way more powerful if an ISP offered a service to block porn, drugs, sex, etc, for different services. That would allow people to opt in, rather than requiring to opt out of censorship.
If you think it's wrong for a company to act a certain way, write them a letter, and cancel your service. And 'offensive' is so subjective, I think I was just offended. Which means you, Slashdot, the major US backbones, and tampabay.rr.com are big fat weenies.
I agree that kids should be protected from porn. I also think that kids should be protected from TV, but the laws governing what marketers can shove into the minds of children are ineffective. There is no law governing how long kids can watch TV.
The internet is a dangerous place, and I realize it's not as easy as just not ordering the Playboy channel, but as a simple rule, don't put your new set if Ginsu knives in the playpen.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Looking at satellite TV receiver
Marge: Isn't it expensive?
Homer: Marge, we can't skimp on the thing that's going to be raising our children!
(Paraphrased because I can't find it written anywhere. It's from "Bart vs. Lisa vs. Third Grade".)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
My leftist friends keep telling me George Bush is going to do something like this but, when it actually happens, it's a leftist government that is the driving force...
I'm sorry, did I say there IS a state religion, or did I say that there are people trying to create one? Which one is it, because it seems like maybe you're confusing the two in a rather weak attempt to discredit me.
From now on, I buy only Intel.
Congratulations, you're a blubbering zealot. By immediately leaping to a hysterical appeal to emotion, you have completely discredited anything you have to say on the issue in the future in my eyes.
That'll help the ol' cause, good job.
From now on, I buy only Intel.
Secure by default, just like Unix and Linux, open it up as you need, when you need. The principle is sound, unlike the M$ way of doing things. It is not censorship because it would take a single phone call or email to turn it off, or even a web page.. No problem at all, for an adult. Using the existing Australian system for content rating is a good idea too, who wants your filters configured by some company from another country! The claims of a performance hit is bullshit, it is just a routing issue and most web traffic is going through ISP proxies anyway. i.e. if you are on the filtered list you are sent to a group of proxies that have pace holders for blocked content. The existing transparent proxies are forced onto users now, for reasons of profit, so stop f'n telling lies about this issue! If people are running PC based filters their kids can turn them off or worse a virus can be designed to do it. The centralised and professional managment of content streams based on official rating systems and opt-out lists is a good idea, unless you have a vested intrest in profiting from porn/violent content being served up to children.
I mean, kids just aren't interested in porn. If they happen on an iffy site that has porn ads they'll just go EWW! and move on to something more interesting.
If on the other hand they're old enough to actually be looking for porn I don't see how making porn harder to access for them is going to make them Better People (TM) when they grow up.
And if you wanted to censor violence you would first have to shutdown all tv channels basically, and bomb hollywood.
So exactly how is this different to US politicians pushing for a TLD for all "sex" stuff. The only reason you would want to do that is for filtering/blocking.
Do not confuse defining a fertilised human egg as a human being, which is all I do, with the New Century American bullshit of Bush's puppetmasters.
I'm sad but unsurprised to see that my view on a single definition gets me branded with the same mark as Bush and the people pulling his strings. Did you ask about my opinions on healthcare & education, capital punishment, the environment, foreign trade and aid to the third world? Nope, cause you automatically label me for one opinion- but then what's new there?
My views are probably a bit further left than most of the american population, and they're a far cry from what the republicans are doing, so don't judge me on one carefully considered opinion that it has taken me years to form.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
I fail to see which part of my appeal was hysterical. I was merely pointing out that in the Irish constitution, the unborn child has as much right to life as the mother does. This declaration changes the definition of killing, and does not opress the freedom of any member of society, it merely makes it unlawful for them to kill another person.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
The Australian Democrats are traditionally a left of centre party and probably have more in common with the Libertarians than the US Democrats, who are far more right wing.
How about sitting down with your kids and keeping an eye on what they're doing instead?
Do you realize that most parents have to work during the day and can't constantly keep an eye on what their kids are doing?
Move the PC out to a communal area - the front room or dining room, somewhere you can see it from
I don't know about you but I, for one, can't see the dining room from my office. I don't see what good moving the PC there would do.
So your post was anything but insightful.
I would mod it informative. It pretty clearly conveyed the information that you don't have children and have no clue of what parenting is about.
So please do us all a favor. Have some kids. Try and raise them decently. And come back to tell us all about your magic recipes. Thank you.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
This keeps coming up because nobody on the internet botherws with self-governance. Yet it is those same people who complain every time a politician proopses something like this. There is already a standard content-rating system that allows sites to rate themselves. Internet Explorer has supported filtering based on that at least as far back as IE 4.0. It's too bad that Mozilla does not, especially because it is becoming popular amongs the Mom & Pops who are trying to avoid spyware.
Censorship of the internet is inevitable, and it is going to be a pain since every government is going to have a different set of rules. If everybody just stuck the RSAC or ICRA tags on their pages then we would have a strong argument about why this isn't necessary. Or at least, we could make the laws uniformly require that sites use the standard, rather than enforcing their own regulation. It would put the power back in the hands of the parents.
One possible scenario is this: 1) All such content will be banned. 2) A few sanctioned portals will be approved for content signup. 3) After signup, the company will notify the ISP on the users behalf. 4) User will have access to pay-per-view content.
I'm concerned that this type of regulation and cencorship will be the downfall of many freedoms we take for granted. If this is the case, I'll have to call or email someone and announce that I wish to look at porn. Will the news websites be banned also? There's plenty or violence there. This all reminds me (please excuse these references) of the movies Fatherland and Action Man. If you haven't seen them please find them and watch them or look them up and read the synopsis. Action Man shows us the kind of society we'll be living in should we allow the government to dictate what we see and hear. Fatherland is a crude reminder of past mistakes made by tyrants that wish to control everything around them. Allowing this kind of censorship is more like turning in your brain for a computer. That way they can simply upload your thoughts and you won't have to bother with thinking.
Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apart from the fact that it will never be very effective, everyone is being forced to cover the financial burden of the filtering systems, even if they dont want it.
Why dont we do the propper thing and engourage parents to be responsible and perhaps supervise their childrens internet surfing habits. Alternatively, let the parents pay extra for an ISP that provides a filtered experience.
We shouldnt have to legislate crap like this.
You think that's the reason why it seems like the world gets dumber and dumber?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Greens are the only sensible party in Australia. Despite their name, they're not focused on JUST environmental issues. They're very concerned about civil rights, they're against our invasion of Iraq, and they seem to be the only party full of people who are in politics because they are genuinely concerned about the state of our country.
We can vote for The Greens, or we can wait and see what John Howard/Philip Ruddock come up with next after having re-introduced sedition laws along with other anti-freedom (aka "anti-terrorism") laws aimed at secretly locking people up, started introducing more censorship (the graffiti game and the John Howard parody site), and having further stripped workers of rights. (IR legislation)
It seems like they've done everything, but you know there's more coming. National ID card is obviously next, but what about after that?
What excuse do we have for voting these people in, even if we know that they are bloody morons? There is more than two political parties in Australia. The Australian population is stupid for not researching the alternatives.
(P.S. I am an Australian, and was proud to be one before September 11 hysteria)
Are you a parent? Be honest! If not, are you qualified to comment on this issue? As for your comments, the REALITY of modern life sees kids at home after school on their own, changing that would be great, but would cost billions. The issue of equity in careers for people with children is an entirely separate matter and one that will not get fixed easily or quickly. My wife is a MD, but she needs to take years out of her career for each child we have, yet if smart women don't have kids the population, on average, will have a lower IQ. How do you fix that!
This was the legal basis for the old USSR to criminalize Bible smugglers. It is often helpful to remind Christians of this when debating ill conceived government censorship programs. I am a Christian, and I despise pornography. It destroys the viewers sex life, and in cases of violent addiction those of many others around him (it is usually a male). I have read heart wrenching letters from women, one of them I know personally, who have no sex life because their husband would rather do himself in front of a picture. Nevertheless, what words or images act as pornography varies with the culture and individual.
Machines might be able to recognize images containing bare skin, but bare skin is not pornography. It might be possible to create a bayesian like filter that could be trained to block text and images offensive to an individual. Or an individual can hire a service that shares his/her values to do the filtering. The government (US or AU) does *not* share my values.
For my own family, I check authentication and do bayesian content filtering using pymilter for email. I use squid with a "safesites" list for kids and a "bannedsites" list (obtained from the browsing habits of porn addicted employees of my clients who couldn't stop on their own during working hours) for adults. I use pine to screen my personal email (no images) and lynx to screen websites before adding to safesites.
Some of the students in a beginning programming class I teach were unable to browse web pages on group theory, klein bottles, and other topics which I really doubt acted as porn for anyone alive now or throughout history. They were blocked by a porn filter installed by the parents. I guess those 3D projections of 4 dimensional surfaces do have a rather sensuous look to them. Third party filters are very frustrating. I sympathize with those advocate them in their desire to fight porn. However, they simply do not understand computer technology (and those I know personally invariably run Windows on their PC).
We don't have a two party system. If you actually *VOTE* for other parties, then it won't seem so binary anymore!
On the contrary, I was very clear about what you said (hell, I even quoted you in my reply).
And I see your original post has been (appropriately) modded down to troll.
I have nothing more to add.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Whoah!
:S
This Government has added unneeded sedition laws, reamed our IP laws to match the US, and sat on it's hands while Telstra has hampered broadband in Australia.
And let's not get started on Iraq (war/AWB/BHP/DFAT), Slave labour (sorry "Industrial Relations reform"), and racial divisiveness and fear-mongering.
I'll admit that we boohoo'd this when the Liberal's floated the idea, and we'll boohoo it this time as well - but choosing to waste votes because of this is a travesty.
OK. Personally, I wouldn't mind having the Liberals as a majority in the upper house, but at the moment the "we wont vote for Labour" attitude has given a double-majority to an egocentric drunk-with-power Party whose line is "Australian People's Mandate"
They are obviously thinking more of the Australian People's "Man-Date"
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
Maybe the Slashdot crowd thinks that just because Hillary Clinton crusades for enforcing her moral code with legislation despite the constitutional restraints on such a course, that it represents the policy or desire of all Democrats to do so. That is definitely not the case. Party members on both sides of the aisle are prone to moralistic crusading, especially when it suits them, but it seems that Republicans are more likely to do so because they are driven by their religious fervor or that of their constituents.
1) ISPs must provide a filtering service for free.
2) Require them to inform about it at sign-up
3) DCMA-esque paragraph to update filters within X hours
I don't have kids. Frankly, I don't give a shit about ISP filtering. I wouldn't mind if they did the above, even on my dime. But leave my connection alone. Not that it is a tech issue, I could dance circles around it if I wanted to. You just don't start out with a "limited line" and apply for "free line" any more than you start with "limited speech" and apply for "free speech". You just send whatever bits I request down the line, and if I want that to change I'll tell YOU, not the other way around.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"A sleepy idiot such as much self can read that sentence and think "umm, since when did the US Democratic party want to force ISPs to block violent and pornographic content if elected?"
c y_Act
i on_Act
Are you unaware of the CDA, and after that COPA?
Educate yourself. Keep in mind, both were signed by a Democratic president and given wide bi-partisan support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protect
Democrats do it too, don't delude yourself.
And please, don't respond with your assessment of congress at the time, many Democrats voted for these provisions as well, and Clinton didn't use his veto.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
I can't believe my post is marked insightful!!
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
You know, in the US, there is a very strong correllation between how socially conservative an area is and how thinly populated the area is. More population density, more liberal.
Australia is one of the few industrialized nations that is more thinly populated than the United States.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I doubt this is about "dogmatic belief". Instead, I believe that this is really about "inner shame", or some other inner fear, that these people aren't even willing to express to themselves, let alone to others.
Instead, these people seek to impose a level of control on others, in the belief that "if this controls them, it will control me too, and I won't feel this way - or at least there will be less temptation". Unfortunately, because they never explore whatever dark feelings they have, in order to understand them and what has motivated them to feel this way, they don't realize that imposing such rules as a whole on the society will ultimately do nothing to assuage the skeletons in their own closets.
Seriously: How many times in the history of the planet have there been those on their high horses who have fallen, due to the very "blasphemy" they have preached against? Need we look further than Catholic priests who molest children? There are other similar instances of such hypocrisy out there - all one has to do is pay attention to the news, and compare today's stories with yesterday's.
I am certain that some of these people are supposedly "pure souls" who seek to "enlighten the rest of us". I am not trying to paint them all with the same large brush. However, I bet the majority of them are as I described above. If not that, then these people are simply on a power grab, saying to themselves "no hedonism for you, but for me - well, I have the power to get around the laws I help create, of course". Either way, these two groups of people scare me...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." --George Washington
Thus, we should censor government above all if we censor violence.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
This is the problem: there are some people out there who, when they view the image of a woman in high heels stepping on a wine glass, or an image of an automobile accident, damn near cream themselves in excitement (some of them might be reading this RIGHT NOW - SHOCK!).
True, these are obscure fetishes, but they exist. Most people would see such images and shrug their shoulders. To these people, those images aren't porn. However, to the fetishist, such images could be porn of high caliber!
Thus, it can't hold true that a single person "knows porn when he sees it" - because each of us might have a totally different perception of what porn is. So, how can a single person decide what porn is for the rest of is? The truth is, they can't. Furthermore, if they try, they won't be successful, because as long as there are images of broken wine glasses, women in high heels, and automobile accidents, there will be porn out there for someone, somewhere...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
The reason children get used so effectively is because they make a phenomenal psychological tool.
A salesman wants to find some irrational point that his customers have that he can exploit, and wants to have uninformed customers for the same reason -- so that he can have a better assessment of the situation than those customers. That places him in a position where he can make money playing off the lack of knowledge and irrationality of his customers.
Children fit this bill perfectly. First-time parents are uninformed about children and have a strong emotional attachment ("Oh, what if we screw up little Billy forever?!")
"What about the children" just plain works.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
By the standards of most of the world, both the Republicans and the Democrats would qualify as right of center.
Like the Dems in the US?
Is that why the FCC head (appointed by the current admin) is pushing to get the power to force the same decency standards on cable TV as it has on regular publicly accessible broadcasts?
Why every show on Fox News this past Dec. was about "The War on Christmas!!" or maybe thats why everything Bush does now is a mandate from God.
Only Dem I can think of that is that bad is Hillary....
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
It destroys the viewers sex life
Huh?
I teach were unable to browse web pages on group theory, klein bottles, and other topics which I really doubt acted as porn for anyone alive now or throughout history.
Don't knock it until you've tried it. Once you go Klein bottle, you never go back!
And you've got to be kidding... Group theory not being related to pr0n?
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
"because their husband would rather do himself in front of a picture."
The problem is the guy, not the entertainment. If he'd choose that over making love with his wife, he has other, more pressing mental issues.
I think any slashdotter wouldn't hesitate to to mate with someone 1/10 the attractiveness of a pornstar if given the chance.
I don't get it.
Is it true you have to show up to a polling station, but you can choose not to vote, because that's what I've heard. Sounds like an interesting idea, how popular is it?
So, therefore, you see nothing wrong in shoving your views down every one else's throats. Just because you were too stupid to find naked pictures in order to facilitate your masturbation sessions as a kid doesn't mean that you should make life harder on those people who don't...
For a change, let me shove my views down your throat. I believe that your addiction of bullshit stories (the bible) is very bad for society, because it promotes superstition, it let people be bullshitted by control-freaks so they lose their self-control of their lifes.
So, you are not allowed to show a bible to children, and teach them religion, as this can adversely affect their minds, and render them into helpless psychologically-dependent people who cannot run their own life.
Has it occured to you that, perhaps, the bitch is a bit stuck-up, is a religious hag, or is a dog and is unable to sexually satisfy her husband who cannot therefore be blamed for using pornography to masturbate???
Yeah, so you're perfectly free to despise pr0n, but just make sure you keep your social dictates off my face. Otherwise, it will be a pleasure for me to shove that fucking bible in your asshole page by page, without vaseline.
How about keeping an open mind (of course, this is impossible for a religious type, because religion is first and foremost about closing minds)???
So, just because you're afraid of seeing the bodies of fellow human beings, you deprive yourself of technology... How about learning morse code? Your technological whereabouts would be even more painful this way... With smoke signals, you can also have tear in your eyes, and, if you're careful enough, burn your fingers for more pain.
Tell me, by inflicting all that pain on yourself and on others, what is your ultimate goal? Do you seriously expect that there will be a "great suffering reckoning" some day which will bring you goodies just because you sufferred and made other people suffer?
If so, this is the greatest testimonial to the terminally assinine stupidity of religious people (I lump together christians, jews and muslims, but feel free to include other assholes in there).
Or animals threatening your livestock or property. Or livestock that is injured.
Please, there are plenty of reasons to use a gun that don't involve killing people.
Cogito, ergo sig.
This is just confirmation of what we already know here in the USA - liberals are knuckleheads
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
This post slows the effect of pornography!
Notice the poor reading comprehension, caused by impaired eyesight and dulled wits. Impatience with human contact, caused by an addiction to quick fix sexual imagery. Typos caused by hairy hands connected to grossly overdeveloped forearms on a spindly body. A quick resort to crude, sexual insults.
NB - the grandparent post was from a Christian who seems to be against the mandatory ISP level filter.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
He was making a point that (government) censorship is not a good idea. Hence, *not* shoving down his views everybodys throats.
Did it ever occur to you that sex is about *love*? With that attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if you're not finding much love.
Right, because you are *such* an open minded person. Here's a christian guy, who explains his own values and how *he* sticks to his values, and why - and all you do is give him a good flaming? Way to go for the open-minded department.
This is one of the most disgusting posts I read in a long time. I'm an agnostic myself, and I have plenty of issues with the religious fundamentalists - but you are living proof that there are enough people on the non-religious fringe who are about as Taliban as any religious guy could get.
Can't say I really agree with the 2nd Amendment to be honest, but then I'm Tory rather than a Republican.
At the moment, I don't fundamentally disagree with the sort of people who get to be the UK government. They do some dumb things of course, but they have the right sort of values. The sort of people who want to replace it with something different via some sort violent of revolution are the scum of the Earth - communists, fascists, Islamic extremists and so on. Now if we had more liberal gun laws it would give these people a slight advantage in the short term, but I suspect the main effect would be to give the UK a murder rate closer to the US. Also, if the people you agree with are in control of the state, it's no bad thing that they have an extreme advantage if things turn violent.
And if one of the violent alternatives actually took power, they would have to kill or expel most of the existing armed forces to do so. Plus they would be ruthless enough to put down any protest from the civillians that were left, peaceful or otherwise. It's hard to believe that liberal gun laws would be particularly helpful in that case, and in any case they'd repeal them as soon as they could and collect the weapons. I suspect the only way to get rid of them would be to ask the ever helpful USAF to bomb the shit out of what remains of the government buildings and infrastructure.
So I can't say, in the UK case that I'm in favour of liberal guns laws. Maybe it's different in the US though, since the system has to be completely self sufficient - there is no real chance that the US's allies would be able to topple a totalitarian government that took over. It would certainly be politically impossible for any democratic US government to take away the 2nd Amendment. And I can certianly see that at the time it was enacted it made sense. My argument is that modern totalitarianism has a much higher level of control of people, and that changes the calculation.
Actually if you look at Iraq pre-invasion, they had a fairly high level of gun ownership, didn't they? So it looks that an armed citizenry is not really a limit on tyranny, because an efficient dictatorship can keep people scared enough that they won't step out of line, and the fact that they have access to firearms doesn't really change this.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I have no hairy hands, yet I already have masturbated twice to date today: once while taking my shower this morning, and a second time at work before lunch (yes, I masturbate at work whenever I take a jerk-off break). I plan to further masturbate at least twice more today, or maybe three if I'm exceptionally horny (on a good day, I can masturbate as much as seven times).
People here need to read the actual artical. the proposed filters arn't for all porn and all violence its for material that is over the R18+ rating. Thus material that is technically illegal in Australia anyway. The main problem currently isn't that parents don't know how to install filters but that the children know how to disable them. Don't get me wrong i love porn as much as the next guy.
... this party, which currently sits with an embarassingly small majority against a government with control of both houses, are almost certainly unable to win government with their current front bench; especially when you consider they failed to beat the sitting government who won with a platform of unpopular industrial relations reform.
Therefore, harebrained schemes like this are the fantasy of the minority side of the Lower House. Nothing to see here.
The are currently trying to disintegrate through public factional bloodletting and they have a dire need to distract the public; the fact that this article made it to slashdot suggests their spin doctors are still effective.
Just my $0.02.
err!
jak.
The statement 'much the same as the Democrats in the US' says it all.
... attacking civil liberties, selling out to the moral right, corrupt deals with big business ( Sydney tunnel ), etc.
The Labor party has no connection to the working class. It's more interested in seducing big business and the Christian fundamentalists than taking on real issues that actually affect people.
Take their comment on 'violence'. They showed NO such opposition to the violent ( not to mention ILLEGAL ) invasion of Iraq. Then they claim that violence on the internet is the problem? I don't fucking think so!
Others here will be quick to point out that content filters are as effective as pissing into the wind. Clearly labor has no-one of a technical nature in their entire party, or someone would have shot this idea down when it first started. But of course this last statement assumes that Labor is a democratic organisation. It isn't. The in-fighting over Crean vs Bomber Beazley touched on the issue, but they predictably 'burried the hatched' and it's back to business as usual
In conclusion, Labor is fucked. Try a REAL working class party: http://www.iso.org.au
the biggest mistake anyone can make when talking about politics is to think that "liberal" is a point of view.
It's not, it's an attitude towards the status-quo, and a desire to not be limited by established thinking.
In a communist society, capitalism would be a liberal idea.
In a capitalist society, communism would be a liberal idea.
However, like pretty much everything else it does not imply a dichotomy - "take all your money and plant it in the ground to see if it grows" would also be a liberal idea in both a communist and capitalist society, and pretty much every society except for one ruled by the "money tree party", where it would be a view held by arch conservatives.
Republicanism is a liberal idea in most monarchies and heredetary rule would be a liberal idea in a democratic society.
The stupidest thing you can do in a political discussion is start talking about "liberal" and "conservative" as if they actually described a policy. The second stupidest thing you can do is use the words "left" or "right".
Advanced users are users too!
"People always get the kind of local government they deserve." E.E. "Doc" Smith
Tech Public Policy stuff
I'm all for a .xxx domain - it will encourage content providers to put all their porn in one easy to filter (or search) domain - so that concerned parents can easily filter it without having a heap of false positive hits that block educational sites.
This is different from mandatory filtering, which removes end-user choice in the matter.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
this is akin to saying lets filter news papers by making the people that deliver them do the editing.
It's slow, and frankly not the right way to tackle the problem.
lets instead have software vendors address the problem by making decent spam filters more usable to people that think they are too hard... filtering at the terminal is the correct place for this activity.
It is time Australia passed a law allowing freedom of speech! That is something worth campaigning for, and something the Labor government could be doing to get real political support.
At the moment the Labor and Liberal party just seem to be squabbling over who is more conservative.
It is time the went back to their roots. it is time they got the support of the socialists again - who currently have no true choice - unless they want to go green....but that also has social consequences not in line with socialism.
If Gogh Whitlam were still in charge, Australia would be much more progressive, and mindless dribble like this would not make australia look like a backwards militant regime.
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
Now, I could see the opt-out being a huge problem. ISPs could easily publish lists of those who chose to opt out, or choose to charge those who opt-out more in "Content Delivery" charges. I mean, why wouldn't they choose to charge more for those who want to view porn, or "Violent" Movies.
Final thing, here. What exactly are we calling "Pornographic"? Would this include medical photos, paintings as well as your hardcore jailhouse porno flick? There's just too much her e to be left open for interpretation. If the austrailian people have any type of collective common sense whatsoever, they'll say no to this.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
Never in the history of mankind has the acronym "TMI" been more appropriate. eeewww.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Easy.
1) Dont let your kids have unsupervised internet access
2) Pay for and install your own filtering software or join an ISP that provides it.
Dont tell me I'm not qualified to comment. What gives lazy parents the right to impose filtering legislation on other adults?
Christian women are NOT good at sex.
Too. Much. Information. Unless you're female... nope, I see a 'jerk-off' in there, damn. :p
--- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
I didn't tell you that you are anything, I asked a question! Are you trying to censor my right to ask questions? Care to answer my question?
Think of the Children! Our Children Need Protection!
(We now return to our re-run special of Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
That's a problem with a lot of girls, they just lie there and expect the guy to do all the work. They are boring, that's why a lot of guys will choose the pics, because the girls look like they have a pulse and they are alive. Who wants to shag a corpse?
Since I didn't know you were referring to the Child Online Protection Act and the Communications Decency Act I figured I'd share.
(soapbox)
And before you set up all of the Democratic Party as being "regulation friendly," excuse me while I point out that Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore are often found trying to pander to the religious right and the Republican Party in an effort to shed the image of being "crazy leftists." Which they fail at pretty poorly - they look like they're sucking up to the "wrong crowd" in the Republicans, and then can't turn around and look like they have the backbone to stand up for the admirable causes of the left (universal healthcare, anti-war, insert-your-favorite-leftist-cause-here).
(/soapbox)
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
The reason I laugh is the coniditon of this comming into being is the Labor party being elected. Considering they have been out of power for the past 10 years and in that time have not presented a single decent leadership team and barely any decent policies I'm not overly worried about them getting back in any time soon, I don't like the current government but I really doubt the labor party will win any federal election in the near future.
Having said that I 100% disagree with the government wanting to censor anything and I would rather see my tax payer dollars spent on important things and not this drivel. If parents are concerned about their children looking at porn they should monitor their childrens use of the computer, buy filtering software/service and take some responsibility, easier said than done I know but its not impossible.
If such a system does eventuate it should certainly be opt-in so only those that actually want it are subjected to it.
Everyone is stupid, it is just the degree that varies
So obviously, every example of insurgent warfare in history is rendered invalid, because governments naturally have better technology and ergo are bound to win?
Seriously, haven't you looked at the news from Iraq? All they have are some full-auto AKs, a bunch of RPG-7s, and some unexploded ordnance they snagged off the ground. And yet it's effective enough when applied properly.
By the way, the Australian armed forces are not using the Metal Storm weaponry. That stuff is still extremely experimental, and I strongly suspect will never be adopted in a small arms format. No, they're using rifles of essentially the same design and capabilities of those of insurgents worldwide. What any modern military has going for it is size, communication/coordination, training, and the capacity to drop very large bombs most anywhere they want.
Is that your best argument?
Here's my question - what part of taking an active role in protecting your child from porn is beyond reality?
Just because you grew up as a latchkey kid with your parents coming home only to eat, sleep and fuck doesn't mean your kids have to. Besides, if you're old enough to have a family, you probably have the kind of job experience that with a little job hunting you could name your own hours and still bring home the bacon. Failing that, just because you don't want to parent your kids doesn't mean I want to pay to have people do it for you: Hire a nanny, don't have kids, put the fear of the Wrath of [mom|dad] in them without abusing them or don't complain that they turn out screwed up because you don't take the time to care for them and expect "the village" to raise your kids. It doesn't take a village, the village doesn't give a flying fuck. It takes you, the parent. If my mom managed to do that by her self on a single income with my father having run off to go get married to some drunk floozie he met way back in high school (yes, I think that highly of his new wife, and I know her), I would hope those among the slashdot crowd with enough social aptitude to procreate would have the same sense to know that kids don't raise themselves and total strangers shouldn't and probably won't do it for you.
They're your kids after all: We don't have an obligation to do jack shit other than make sure they attend school for you, and please stop pretending otherwise. We're not their parents, you need to be there for them or have a plan for their care for the other 17-24 hours they're not at school every day. Don't want to do that? You should have thought about that before you procreated. Have the guts to put your kids up for adoption and give them a better life. Otherwise, until they all turn 18 or get emancipated, it is your legal and moral obligation to raise them to be productive, thoughtful human beings that aren't going to be a burden on those around them or society at large. How dare you think we should do that for you.
Help us build a better map!
Meanwhile, we know this about bottled water
So which would you rather have? Known trustable water on a convieneint tap in at least three rooms of most buildings purchased wholesale on the cheap, or sodacan reject water priced more expensively than gasoline in almost any country's gas prices?
Help us build a better map!
Why not use deivce that simluate guns in target shooting? Do you really need the real thing? Sounds like a very lame excuse to me....
My best argument was my initial post and it has already answered your questions.
PC based systems can be deactivated both locally and remotely, it would seem that you know as little about the realities of being a modern parent as you do about IT security.
Malware can deactivate content filters as easily as it can knock out virus filters and with the likes of Sony spreading root kits the job for the porn sellers has just got a lot easier.
I suggest you read what I have already posted, and think about it for a while, currently you are going in loops and ignoring key points that I have already made.
The entire issue is not a problem for me, I know how to build Linux based routers and filtering web caches, but 99% of PC users do not and their Windows based systems are already full of spyware, adware and malware. Even a lot of companies have trouble keeping their Windows systems clean and secure.
That is the REALITY of the situation. I suggest you go out into the big room for a while and stop getting high off your own emissions. Get back to me when you are in touch with reality again.
No special 'blockers' are needed. Your computer doesnt download porn unless the person using it TELL it to. If you want to prevent your children from doing so, you either need to monitor their use, or instill the 'blocker' directly in your children (eg, teach them whatever version of morals you feel is appropriate). Oh, its also good to avoid software that actually does do things you dont tell it to (MSIE being the most renowned, anything from MS in general as well). Also, there is NO way to programmatically or automatically identify 'porn' - only an actual human can do that.
Except for pastors' daughters...