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.'"

30 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. What? by guardian653 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just who defines "violent" or "pornographic" material? What is "violent" or "pornographic" material? Frankly, people who are smart will eventually get around it anyway...

    1. Re:What? by Jawdy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Precisely - its ludicrous to even do such a thing. And at what point does it become "too difficult" to install content blockers (so to speak). Some people should take a little more responsibility for their actions, rather than try and blame lifes simple pleasures

    2. Re:What? by troll+-1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just who defines "violent" or "pornographic" material?

      Wise people in government. We would never understand, we're not smart enough.

    3. Re:What? by tha_mink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who are smart will of course get around it, but this is not for smart people. It's for the masses and so it'll work just fine. It's also pretty cheap and easy to implement site-specific filtering and most any ISP can do if if they know what a route is and how to make squid work.

      Actually, I couldn't disagree more. It's the content PROVIDERS that will get around the filters. It's too large a job for any body or company to find EVERY site or page with questionable material and filter it. How do you know what a jpeg of a naked person is made of? You don't! There is no way to block porn at the ISP level. It's harder than blocking spam and we know they can't do that.

      Let's not forget, the internet is for porn. Simple supply and demand. All you can do by trying to filter it is make yourself look like a zealot and/or a fascist. Lots have tried, all have failed.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    4. Re:What? by SoloFlyer2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Im an australian and i am Outraged... I dont want to have to try and get around filters like this, i dont want to have to apply for filters to be removed from my internet connection This is australia THIS IS NOT FUCKING CHINA!

      "almost two-thirds of parents don't have internet filters on their family computers," Mr Beazley said. did he stop to think that maybe two-thirds decided that they didnt want their internet access restricted or were already filtering their connection using a method which wasnt included in their "statistics".

      The current opt-in system works well and should be LEFT ALONE!

      "research suggests that the exposure of children and others in the community to this sickening content can lead to aggression towards women and child abuse."

      In fact a quick google returns many opposing views eg

      "Research by Goldstein et al. shows that sex offenders generally had less contact with erotica in their formative years than did non-offenders and typically had a sexually repressed childhood and sexually repressive parents"

      Anyway, Im very upset to even read this and [Insert insults and offensive comment directed at Kim Beazley Here].

      --
      "I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
  2. under suspicion by joe545 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  3. How? by Ice+Wewe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  4. Filtering software is too hard to install? by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Filtering software is too hard to install? by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I want a babysitter I have to pay $

      If I want an internet filter I could, you know, pay someone to provide me with one.

      Still, it is a land where the PM can get web sites closed down if he doesn't like them :

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/20/oz_satire_ site/

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  5. It's about time! by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  6. It won't happen by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. In other news... by SysKoll · · Score: 5, Funny

    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/

  8. Fine. by Osirius · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  9. Australia seems to be more repressive than US by sgant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US by fabs64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's more of a "the government says this" and the public says "yeah try and enforce it" kind of thing really.
      The two major governments are reasonably conservative (although an analogy of the labor party to the democrats is just plain farsical) and so we get crap like this proposed.

      Also, puritanical implies religious, Australia is very secular, and this is more a case of "working class mums and dads don't want their kids looking up porn".

      That said, this is a completely ludicrious proposal by the labor party and needless to say they've lost my vote for the next federal election.

    2. Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US by troll+-1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hosting porn sites in Australia has been banned since 2000 under the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999,

      They have the same restrictions for web content providers as they do for broadcast television producers. More info here.

    3. Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US by spirality · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure how or why you got modded up. Seems like a troll to me, but I'll bite.

      Kids are not free human beings! Parents are the custodians of their kids until the children have been properly trained to become full-fleged members of society with all of the rights and responsibilities that implies. To put it another way, until you are under the law, liable for all of the consequences of your actions you are not truely free because freedom implies a certain amount of responsibility. You are infact subject to your parents' whims to a certain extent. The way they raise you is their responsibility/problem, but make no mistake you are not free. John Locke really does a much better job than me explaining this. You might look at his Second Treatise.

  10. Porn defined by x2A · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Porn is anything you lose interest in after you cum

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    1. Re:Porn defined by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's no way to talk about my wife

    2. Re:Porn defined by bogado · · Score: 3, Funny

      There must be 100s of uninteresting gorgeous people arround the world that would classify as porn by your definition then and for some men almost all womem do fit the definition.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    3. Re:Porn defined by toad3k · · Score: 5, Funny

      Porn is anything you lose interest in after you cum

      I don't think the isp has enough employees to implement that kind of filter.

  11. Filtering could be a service! by happyrabit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  12. Reminds Me Of A Quote by Goo.cc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:Wanted: more babysitters by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Funny

    "protecting" their kids from everything short of bottled water.

    You trust that shit? It could be zebra cum -- you just don't know!

  14. And again... by OverflowingBitBucket · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:And again... by keyne9 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      [...]please, don't judge us based on our "representatives".


      This sounds much like how any country would judge another country: based on who that country allows to stay in power. Regardless of whether or not you approve of your elected officials, they did get there with help from 'yer votes. If you don't like them or want them there, get someone competent to run and vote him/her in instead.
  15. The problem is "opt out." by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
  16. Meanwhile, in Italy... by grand_it · · Score: 5, Informative
    ..Judges are requiring ISPs to restict certain websites by filtering their IP addresses. Child porn, of course, but also sites that aren't doing anything illegal in their place of activity, such as:

    - 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.

  17. The Bible is pornography by CustomDesigned · · Score: 3, Interesting
    (Sorry for the dupe, accidentally posted anonymously.)

    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).

  18. Re:The Bible is pornography by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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???

    Nevertheless, what words or images act as pornography varies with the culture and individual.

    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.

    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.

    How about keeping an open mind (of course, this is impossible for a religious type, because religion is first and foremost about closing minds)???

    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.

    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).

    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