Slashdot Mirror
Australia to Offer Widespread ISP-level Filtering
Phurge writes "According to a Sydney Morning Herald article, the Australia government has decided to take the controversial step of having internet service providers filter web content at the request of parents, in a crackdown on online bad language, pornography and child sex predators. 'The more efficient compulsory filtering of internet service providers (ISPs) was proposed in March last year by the then Labor leader, Kim Beazley. At the time, the Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, and ISPs criticised his idea as expensive. Three months later Senator Coonan announced the Government's Net Alert policy, which promised free filtering software for every home that wanted it. She also announced an ISP filtering trial to be conducted in Tasmania. That trial was scrapped. Today Mr Howard will hail the ISP filtering measure as a world first by any Government, and is expected to offer funding to help cover the cost. Parents will be able to request the ISP filter option when they sign up with an ISP. It will be compulsory to provide it. The measures will come into effect by the end of this month.'"
"The bloody thing is just a money sucking hole in the water! How come no one told me!" Commented Mr Howard on his 12m power boat ownership.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ Almighty, it's only goddammed fucking words.
... implementing a government-controlled mandatory filtering infrastructure for the web in Australia. All it will take would be the change of a config file or two, and the government can censor whatever it pleases.
Today Mr Howard will hail the ISP filtering measure as a world first by any Government...
I don't think that's something I'd be proud to admit.
Maybe it will go some way to shutting up the people who constantly cry "think of the children" and complain about "teh dangers of teh intarweb", and it's not like it's being forced upon those who don't want to use it.
The ISP is just being forced to provide filtering software at your request.
It's censorship... if you want it.
What's the big deal?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Or, alternatively - $162 Million to Stop Aussies Looking at Porn.
Considered part of the campaigning for this year's Federal election in Australia, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, announced a $162 million USD plan to protect Australian Internet users against various Internet nasties, including porn, during a web video address to a number of Australian churches. The address was also joined by the leader of the Opposition, which suggests that the proposed plan will be left in place if they succeed in taking power later this year.
With plans to provide free internet filtering software for families, more funds for online predator detection, opportunities to lean on ISPs to stop allowing access to objectionable content, and a working group to work out ways around the privacy protection enjoyed by predators (but apparently not by the people they are supposed to protect), it is likely to become a $162 million dollar black hole, for a number of reasons.
It is important to consider who the presentation was pitched to, and who supported it. Unfortunately most of the dissenting voices from within parliament seem to be based on lines of religion (i.e. die-hard atheists complaining that Christian representatives spoke to Christian gatherings), and not on the technological shortfalls of the plan.
InfoSec that matters, when it counts.
You know of course, that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions?
This sounds so nice and sweet on the surface: the government is going to protect your children by filtering the Internet content to which they have access. What could be wrong with that?
Of course, once you have an official filtering mechanism in place, it can be used to filter other "anti-social" content. And it will. It's just a matter of time. The next step will be the restriction of some universally loathed faction, like the Nazis. Neo-fascist sites will be banned as will sites from other "extremist" groups, terrorists, etc. Then illegal drug related sites will be banned, and later hard alcohol sites.
Eventually, you can be expect to be protected from Twinkies and Ding-dongs. But not the Ding-dongs that you voted into office. Somehow they will always be exempt from filtering.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
...between the ISPs doing the filtering and software doing the filtering? Wouldn't it ultimately end up being that the ISPs will use software to filter? Therefore won't it have the same pitfalls as individual filters (ie: blocking sites with info on 'breast cancer' etc.)? And won't people eventually find a way around it if they really wanted to? When I was younger, if I was restricted access to something, usually that only made me want it more and go to greater lengths to get it. When will people just trust kids. Tell them they shouldn't, but give them the choice to actually listen. If they get caught, make it known your disappointed in them. I find that if the kid was being raised properly with emphasis on integrity and responsibility, usually they'll feel guilty and enforce the restrictions on themselves. And I know this will be stately repeated... Why do ISPs have to fill in for parents anyway? Can't they just keep an eye on their own kids?
In modern society, we have a thing called "decency." Part of it is that we have enough self-respect so as not to debase ourselves with needless profanity. It's pretty much the same reason that we tend to use more formal language in formal writing - we similarly don't consider our everyday conversation so uncouth as to warrant whatever curses we can think of.
We choose not to profane our conversation.
I hate it enough when my ISP decides to filter e-mail at the source. I don't get spam regardless, and sometimes actual people sending me actual attachments don't make it through because it "could be a dangerous file". It's yet another one of those things that keep stupid people "safe" (and stupid forever).
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
So they're basically making a V-Chip for the internet? The real reason why teenagers are sexually abused by predators online is, essentially, bad education. http://www.apa.org/releases/online_sexabuse.html Though my favorite is this: http://rotten.com/about/obscene.html "Certain people (including parents and schoolteachers) have complained to us and stated that rotten.com should not be "allowed" on the net, since children can view images on our site. One US schoolteacher wrote us a very angry email that complained some of her students had bookmarked images on this site, that our site shouldn't be on the net, and other claptrap. This is our response. The net is not a babysitter! Children should not be roaming the Internet unsupervised any more than they should be roaming the streets of New York City unsupervised. We cannot dumb the Internet down to the level of playground. Rotten dot com serves as a beacon to demonstrate that censorship of the Internet is impractical, unethical, and wrong. To censor this site, it is necessary to censor medical texts, history texts, evidence rooms, courtrooms, art museums, libraries, and other sources of information vital to functioning of free society. "
;d
There seems to be an election in the wind (I think I saw Nov mentioned), and Howard is on a downslide at the moment. I see this stunt as the Liberals (and that is the conservative party) playing the "think of the kiddies" card to drum up support.
.. ie a little bush.
Previously Howard has played the "OMG the illeagal immigrants" card (google for Tampa and babies overboard).
Hopefully this time the Oz public won't fall for it, bu then again we re-elected Howard in the election after the Tampa incident even though it had been shown that that was all a stunt.
Of course my opinion of Howard has been coloured ever since I listened to "How green was my cactus" many years ago, and he was always referred to as "Little Johnny Howard" (this was before he became supreme ruler).
I also liked it when a Japanese (I think) paper referred to him as "Shrub"
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
You lying sack of shit. You are filtering for the same reason as this common thug: to
suppress political dissent.
Go for a swim on the Gold Coast with the white sharks, Mr. Howard.
Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout, Political ACTIVIST
Reduce, reuse, cycle
It should be individual parents who want this service that pay for it. Furthermore, parents should have the ability to choose an alternative censorship system without paying for the default one.
http://outcampaign.org/
The big deal is the step taken by the government to force ISPs to provide filtering. Unheard of so far in a western democracy.
I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
I used to think Australia would be a great place to live, maybe even better than the US. A former British colony, lots of frontier and low population density, laid back. But now it is making up for lost time and trying to exceed Britain in being a nanny state and the US in privacy invasions.
Thank God they have liberal gun laws and a lot of folks are armed, so as to defend their rights - oh, wait, the Austrailian gov't confiscated everyone's guns in a "think of the children" ploy. And the gun owners just gave them up with nary a whimper.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
A similar thing is going on in Sweden. The government is forcing all major ISP:s to filter out sites that are known to provide child pornography. Recently, the popular bit-torrent tracker http://www.piratebay.org/ was threatened to be added to this filter because rumour had it "there where child porn available from the site". This is of course just an excuse used by the Swedish government, which is controlled by the American government, which is controlled by the record and movie industry. I understand that it's in the record companies interests but it bugs me that governments don't want to confess that they're being used these ways.
Choose is the correct word here. I choose what profanity I use. I choose what profanity I find offensive and ignore it. Others should not be able to decide for me what is profane.
However the article did say that the filters was upon request. However, I think people need to be educated about filtering. They need to know that it is far from perfect and no substitute for good judgment.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Australia only had one internet policy over the past 10 years:
How can we filter it?
Please join or donate to Electronic Frontiers Australia
http://www.efa.org.au/
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Profanity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.
The web is not a uniform medium when it comes to discourse, and people should not expect it to be that way. Even a 6 year old surfing the web knows there is a difference between CNN.com and MySpace.com when it comes to community discourse. Unless you like to live in a walled garden, filtering profanity does nothing but shelter kids from the real world. Do these parents actually think their kids don't hear this kind of stuff every day at recess?
No, YOU choose not to let THE REST OF US profane OUR conversations. Whether we want to or not.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Well, we don't actually. We did sorta four decades ago. It had its pluses and minuses. It was nice to be able to let your kids watch network programming without too much risk of having to explain homosexuality to an eight year old or having your six year old inform you that her first grade teacher is a bitch.
But those days are gone and their demise is not the fault of the Internet in any way shape or form. IMO, the enemy is us, not our institutions.
===
It is kind of refreshing to see someplace other than the US experimenting with something that is probably a really bad idea.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
In modern society, we also have two things called "prudishness" and "abject terror of anything not spoon-fed to us." These are the reasons we give governments absolute power over us; we need someone to protect us at all times. Even if our protector is only watching over us like crops for the harvest, our fear of the unknown runs so deep that we'll gladly accept subservience to a known agent over the uncertainty of the alternatives.
We choose to subjugate and censor ourselves.
It's got more to do with superstition than decency. Saying "fuck" is considered much worse than saying "intercourse", even when they're used the same way with the same meaning.
... but sir, in all honesty, it's not the job of the fucking government to fucking tell me what words are fine for me to use.
Fuck my government, fuck it right in its collective neck. This pandering to the extreme christian right by our Prime Minister is completely sickening.
Hmm... dunno. Even with those words having the same meaning, somehow "What the intercourse are you talking about" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
How do you disrespect yourself and debase yourself with language? How do you measure that? Do you have any studies that show people who swear more are prone to lower self-respect?
Are you trying to say that people tend to swear less in the 21st century compared to the 20th century? How did you quantify that?
Only pedophiles think about the children :D
Is the intent not worse than the choice?
What is the difference between fuck, frig and shag?
If I said I was going to cabbage your sister... knowing the context of my phrase, would it matter what word I used?
As far as I am aware, people usually swear because they are annoyed or upset. The very harshness of the word expresses and releases built up energy, regardless of the actual word used.
I do agree that the people using these words to compensate for a lack of vocabulary should go back to school and that business use of the word is ill advised. BUT, the majority of what we consider profane words today were perfectly appropriate many years ago. How about 'Bastard' for example?
Personally I find 'belly' barely better than 'stomach' and makes my hair stand on end everytime I hear it. Should that make it profane?
I think it goes back to what is or is not politically correct. 50 years ago if I called someone a nigger (with the best intent possible) then I was addressing a black person. I can't even call them black any more I have to call them 'coloured' or even afro American if I don't want to be considered a racist. The black lab in 'The Dam Busters' was called 'nigger' and nobody gave it a second thought. How about Golliwogs?
Have people stopped calling me white? should I be hurt because they called me what I am? But then my heritage does not go back to slavery.
It is the same Politically correct crap with disabilities. Spastic, mongo, retard etcetera used to be perfectly acceptable general terms to refer to someone that had a mental handicap. Due to the **intent** of the said words they have become profane and now we call them 'special'.
As our language continues to evolve for better, or worse. These words will pass in and out of general use. No offence to the Americans but considering how much you butchered the kings English over the years I'd suggest that 'text speak' is a far greater danger to our vocabulary than the use of profane or indecent phrases in every day use.
All in all... it does not really matter. In the grand scheme of things, we'll likely all be speaking Indian or Chinese within a hundred years or so, no?
Even more bizarre are those who choose to become offended by those words, and who decide to post high-handed, holier-than-thou comments on public forums in order to castigate a guy who's just telling a joke.
Like much that has been mentioned, it does seem like a good idea if you just glance at it and don't think too hard.....(think of the children....) When I really look at it, I see a little more clearly.
What I see is another tool that, just like the V-chip (or other things along the same line), could "take away" some of the responsibility of being a parent; something that could give a false sense of security that children aren't coming into contact with these things. Now I'm not saying it's a "bad" thing as such. The intentions are good (at least initially), but what I see is that it could make the parents feel like there's less (or no) need to monitor what their children are seeing/doing. It is the responsibility of the parents to educate their children as to what they should or should not be seeing and to be "good parents". Of course, that education isn't fail-safe or foolproof, but neither is a filter, and the education is worth quite a bit more in the long run, I should think.
And often, profanity is the proper way to express oneself. Strong situations require strong words. Sometimes, you just have to say fuck.
We choose not to profane our conversation. You're assuming the existence of an absolute morality. Clearly, certain words tend to be associated with negatives or insults, but it always takes two parties for this to happen. Namely, one person to say a word (which at this point is devoid of meaning) and another person to place some value on this word.
The perfect example is "taking the Lord's name in vain." When I say, "Jesus fucking Christ", "Goddamnit!" or "Holy shit" these words pack about as much punch as "Oh man!", at least to me. This is because Jesus/God is not my Lord, and so of course to me to suggest I'm taking a non-entity's name in vain is somewhat silly. The true-believer, however, will hear these words and attach some offensive qualities to them.
Censoring of any sort always boils down to one party imposing their morals on a myriad other parties that do not share their beliefs. Sure, these groups (anti-abortionists, creation scientist, and those of their ilk) tend to argue that their position is no different than anyone else's, and ergo you just have to choose your poison, so to speak. This is patently absurd with a moment's thought, because it takes a positive belief in order for something to be offensive, and ergo the baseline will always rest with those who do not find something offensive.
Unless, of course, you always for absolute moralities. This is why groups who have no real ground to stand on always turn to this antiquated idea.
>>> ...without too much risk of having to explain homosexuality to an eight year old
Yes, the enemy is us. For those that think its a 'risk' to tell a child about same sex relationships the adult is the one with the issue. At what age do you tell a child they're adopted? At what age do you tell a child that in some families a man/woman and another man/woman can be together. If they grow up with it, there wont even be an issue. The wider generation behind us are going to grow up with it as acceptable, except for those homeschooled and only learn about it in college - along with a fear of many other things.... those of our generation who cannot get their heads around it will have to live with it.
In Samoa, they may raise a boy child as a girl (see here, where some might call that Transgendered and 'unnatural' it is actually normal in their society. So this boils back the the OP's comment: "In modern society, we have a thing called "decency." It depends who defines "society" and its usually the aristocracy that are calling things indecent, not the general public.
Aussies are well known for using bad language, and are pretty open about sex, un-married sex, wet t-shirt competitions, male strippers, Dame Edna and the guy who entered Australian Idol as a girl.
Come to think of it - knowing the number of Aussies I do, if wider society of Australia was setting the filter parameters of their entire internet they'd probably only ban Goatse and tubgirl.... or they'd only let it through if it had Johnny Howards, or Warwick Cappa's face on it..
Once ISP's prove they can filter what is being transmitted over their wire, they no longer have any excuse not to filter ANYTHING.
Second it is being forced upon those who don't want to use it, read the law carefully and try to ask yourselve what will happen to hardcore ISPs who only want to provide bandwidth and not censor anything at all, the dutch xs4all for instance.
No, this is a very bad thing.
You've never been to the North-East/ Eastern Sea-board of the U.S., have you? Try going to New York, or Boston and actually listen to people's conversations.
People need to lighten up, and grow some thick skin for a change. Life is to short to go around nitpicking every damn thing that might offend you.
If thats too much for someone, I suggest they move to Pennsylvania and become Amish.
Hmm, I didn't realize it was the governments job to enforce decency. I don't see that part anywhere in the US constitution... can someone point out where it is in the Australian one?
However, assuming that child pornography is manufactured purely because it makes someone rich, if that material is sold over the Internet then it's pretty safe to assume that a bank or credit card company is involved when someone buys that material.
So how about forcing those profiteering banks and credit card companies to police this? Name and shame the banks that provide money transfer facilities for the purchase of illicit material. If you take away the means for someone to collect money for it, surely that goes a hell of a long way to killing off the reasons to make it in the first place.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Speaking of that, English is not my first language. So "motherfucker" doesn't carry weight with me, it's just funny. It reminds me of black thugs in bad Hollywood movies saying "I otta bust a cap in yo ass, motherfucker." Hilarious. I could use it all day around my friends and nobody would mind other than if I got carried away and the joke got stale.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
So succint and just perfect
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Add to this the hypocrites who gives themselves a veneer of respectability all the while being total fuckwads who really fuck-up society and you have the explanation why some motherfucking assholes get all in their high horses when someone says something as benign as "shit" all the while driving a Hummer to the convenience store to pick some unethical cheap coffee.
There.
unsigned int question = 0x2B | ~(0x2B)
You're welcome to profane your conversation all you like. This is about whether Aussies have to listen to it, and it seems that they don't. Tough shit.
Anyone who has played WOW knows that filtering is worthless.
You just get people cursing in misspellings and haxor looking garbage.
.. how much for the unfiltered internet? ROTFLOL.. can you really successfully filter the bad stuff on the internet without filtering out some of the good too? I don't think anyone has done that successfully so far.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
We're just the same here in Australia as in any western country like England or America. I've lived in England, and I've heard we're more similar to America than England.
So some of us don't care about profanity or perverts, and just trust that kids will understand what's appropriate/dangerous by themselves, others are paranoid and scared about this dangerous "internet" thing.
And, just like elsewhere in the world, if you're paranoid then an official easing your fear is a big incentive to vote, if you're not paranoid an official acting paranoid isn't likely to affect your vote, so officials will err on the side of paranoia. (And right now Howard is scrambling to keep his place like never before. God knows what people see in Rudd..)
The easygoing beer and BBQ lifestyle is a quaint stereotype, but realistically we share practically the same culture so it always gets on my nerves a bit to hear what we Aussies should do because we're Aussies, by crockey!
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Did any one else think of China when they read this claim?
anyone who hasn't requested the filter must be a pervert.
Slippery slope.
Who cares what they do besides parents and those who run porn sites? Does it personally affect you? No? Then move on and live your hedonistic lives as you see fit. If a mother adds sunscreen onto her baby's skin, do you freak out? OMG!
If you know your audience and they know you, all say anything that you want any way you want. If you don't, why not use neutral words? It is possible to provide emphasis without profanity, if that's your intent.
Once again from the country with the highest alcohol related brain damage comes a solution that won't work, and...is it me or does Australia seem to be moving towards the harshest big brother state in the world? Apparantly parents are so detached from the actual process of raising a child that this seems like a good solution.
Pathetic.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Is this another V-chip fiasco? The government is convinced everybody needs it. Almost nobody wants their access to information filtered or restricted. And the costs and complications go up for everybody regardless of whether they ever wanted or need it in the first place.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But of course this scheme does not allow the parents to decide what is profane; the parents' only role in this is to sign up for it (after being told that it is "for the sake of the children"); the censorship is then done by the government.
This really needs to be parsed in some detail, because it's a wonderful example of marketing techniques applied to social debate.
What It Says
This is a declaration that asserts three things: that there is a thing called "modern society"; that we are part of it; and that "decency" is a mandatory characteristic of "modern society".
What It Literally Means
Since it is written in the present tense, for any of it to be true "modern society" must mean the collection of all people in the modern age who are alive right now. It must be that generalized, because of the further assertion that "we" are part of it, and "we" could well be people from anywhere, living in any circumstance.
This group of people has a defining characteristic called decency.
Its Marketing Purpose
Modern marketing has a few crude tools that get used over and over again. One of them is what I like to call "The Boss". The Boss tells you things with presumed authority so they sound axiomatic while in reality they are no more than unsubstantiated statements. This is popular amongst amateur marketing enthusiasts who have read "How to Win Friends and Influence People", and various books on how to pick up women. Those types of books tell you to give people orders in such a way the targets don't realize they are being pushed around. For example, have you ever heard a person start a pitch to you like this..."Listen, I have something to tell you..." The word "listen" is a command. You are being ordered to listen to that person.
In this case we are presented with three declarations that, objectively, are various degrees of wrong. Any definition of "modern society" that is so general as to include anyone who might read this can only share the most basic of characteristics. Any property as nebulous as "decency" can't possibly be uniformly defined. But the Boss tells us it can.
What It Says
"We" are members of "modern society" who share a new property called "self respect". This property is responsible for making use feel like "needless profanity" reduces our self worth.
What It Literally Means
All members of modern society are now presumed to share two characteristics: decency and self respect. A further characteristic is implied, the ability to tell the difference between "needless profanity" and (presumably) "mandatory profanity".
What's more, we members of "modern society" agree that "needless profanity" is debasing.
Its Marketing Purpose
This is more Boss talk. The purpose here is to inject the words "self-respect", "debase" and "needless profanity" into the text. The implied meaning is that we must share these properties since we are necessarily part of modern society.
We start to see the emergence of a second age-old marketing bludgeon here: Exile. Don't be left out. Don't be left behind. Don't be a loser. This second use of the meme "we are part of modern society" starts to sound like a threat: if you don't act this way you won't be a member.
The problem with The Boss is that if you hit people over the head too hard for too long they start to notice. This second sentence starts to sound a little preachy, reducing the overall effect of the spot. The Boss is completely useless if the target catches on.
What It Says
Formal language is to formal communication as lack of profanity is to everyday conversation. We consider it uncouth to use profanity in e
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Will they get to compile their own copy?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Well, it should be up to the individual sets of parents as to when they think their kids are ready for that information...and at what levels to deal out the 'fact of life'.
And not everyone thinks homosexuality is natural or something to be 'embraced'. Frankly, I don't care what two people do behind locked doors, but, I do have my opinions as to what may or may not be 'right' about it morally or otherwise. I don't have any kids that I know of....but, if I did, I'd want to be in as much control as possible on how and what information was given to them on certain topics on an age appropriate basis.
I don't believe in censorship....I believe a parent should be responsible for the tv/internet exposure for their kids. But, in general public....not everything needs to be exposed or flouted. I use profanity like there is no tomorrow...however, I've learned to curtail that around friend's who have kids around. I think 99.9% of the world accepts that man/woman pairing is a part of nature, mostly meant for procreation. I would put forth that homosexuality, bondage, fetishism, bestiality, incest or other sexual preference....do not have that high of an acceptance as natural, and would prefer it not to be displayed casually in public. They'd rather address those issues at a more appropriate time and age.
In the past, there was a more prevalent shared sense of decency for a lack of a better term, where at least in public, people had respect more for others, and a more common display of behavior that was acceptable for everyone....which does at least in public, mean going for the lower common denominator. Again..in public, whatever you want to do that is more out there is great for behind closed doors and private gatherings..etc.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I think better yet is that crap is acceptable, yet shit isn't.
That has always confused the hell out of me.
Errrm, Mr. Howard allow me introduce you to the fabulous communist country called The Peoples Republic of CHINA that has been filtering for years now. They are your neighbors just a wee bit north of you.
Nothing new here, just a reaffirmation. True democratic societies leave it to the parents and individuals to determine their own fate, good or bad. Chase the wind if you must, the only affect is yet another nail in Democracy's coffin.
PS. Bad Fuckin policy Mr. Howard, bad bloody fucking policy.
Hope is the currency of fools
"Choose is the correct word here. I choose what profanity I use. I choose what profanity I find offensive and ignore it. Others should not be able to decide for me what is profane."
Not for long. Soon enough, you won't be able to choose anynmore. Other will do it for you and you will COMPLY, willing or not. Your computer will belong to the Authorities. The Internet will be brought to heel. There's NOTHING you can do.
And if you will ever try to protest, we'll label you as a terrorist/pedophile/whatever. A private security guard will smash your face with a baton, and you won't be able to fight him because he'll be strong, trained and armed while you won't be.
Civilians will be barred access to any weaponry or training. Learn to live as a corporate slave, OR YOU WILL BE PUNISHED! Hang your head down or I WILL HAVE IT BASHED IN!
Anyone who cannot handle words should put a gun to there head and pull the trigger because they life will only be one of disappointment and unhandleable situations that might make you hurt others.
I saw a program on our local community TV station that was made by high school kids (I'm guessing they had an average age of 14 years old). This show had a voxpop style segment where kids spoke about issues arising from the Internet.
It was amazing to see how mature they were about the evils that they had found on the net. Sure, they said, they had come across some "creepy guys". Sometimes they string them along a bit, but mostly they just ignore them. They had seen porn, and they spoke of how it was a pain how much porn-spam they received. We can talk about this stuff without sniggering behind our hands - and kids can do that too.
I really wish that the hysterical parents and politicians would actually spend some time listening to the kids. They are not fools. Talk to them about the potential dangers that they may face before they start surfing by themselves so they know what to expect and how to avoid problems. Don't be sensationalist; just be straight forward and mature about it. Do this so they know they can come to you to get advice on more mature situations.
Key point there is that it effects how they perceive the speaker, therefore it's the speakers choice how he wants to be perceived. If you self censor what you say because you're afraid of what others will think of you, fine, that's you're right. Likewise it's my right to say whatever I want to say at any time I want to say it to anyone I want to (with the exceptions that have snuck in recently that I can't make "threatening" statements, and I can't make certain statements while in the employ of a company).
When are people going to learn that words are just words, they are there to convey meaning, if you have issue with what someone says, it's not the words you have a problem with, it's the meaning the person puts behind those words. The world has gotten far too sensitive, and takes offense at every little thing. There is no country in this world that has as one of its founding principle the right to not be offended, because pretty soon, everything would be labeled offensive. I for one find plaid to be somewhat offensive to the eyes, should a ban be issued on all things plaid? How about custom filtering software to find all instances of plaid colors and references to the word plaid and block them?
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Well, you better get used to talking that way if you want to communicate with Australians in a few years.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said, and it boils back to a comment I made earlier which supports your view; that I believe it is up to the parents to understand the content that is available on these things we give our kids access to, so WE determine whether or not it is appropriate for our children. i.e Many parents want their kids to have cell-phones and (I believe) are then responsible for ensuring the services available are appropriate for that child - say a phone that offers Texting and calls, with no Internet access.
Same with HBO or Internet access. Parents are responsible for allowing their kids to use the internet or watch HBO, and should be the ones monitoring/educating/limiting access to that content as appropriate. If it is not appropriate, then they don't have it - no matter how much they kick and scream 'cos their friends have it! With Internet you can get filters that let you filter it to the level appropriate to your child, rather than a 'one filter fits all' approach for the entire country (thank you very much, I'm looking at you, Australia)
We can not contract out our responsibility as parents, (and should not - let alone to the Government or their lowest cost bidder.)
I personally believe TV commercials aimed at children are harmful, so all (our kids) shows are pre-recorded and commercials removed (praise Mythtv). Sure, I could ask the Govt to remove the commercials, but I somehow don't think that is going to happen.
Profanity is like high volume in music. Mozart uses it to great effect. There are lots of musicians who don't use it well... they just play at full volume constantly. Profanity is very powerfull and if used well it can be an important part of great writing.
But will it be backwards compatible with web 1.0?
Howard's intention to examine ways in which to circumvent privacy laws that (in his words) "protect sexual predators." This reeks of the same invocation used to trample on privacy laws that "protect terrorists".
How many more evils can the government identify to convince the 'mum and dad' voters that privacy laws are a bad thing, and only protect those that have something to hide?
As pointed out in an earlier post, Howard has form for scaremongering before elections ( Children Overboard affair ).
It is no surprise that this latest attack on privacy laws was unveiled on a webcast to 700 churches and "thousands of churchgoers" (so says The Australian newspaper), as the government tries to shore up support from the Australian Christian Lobby, a lobby who has begun a campaign to get Christians to make their vote count.
Who will think of the children, indeed.
There are numerous tenders out for organizations to review the effectiveness of ISP level filters, one of which my company looked at (and I believe opted not to apply for). As far as I know, the tenders haven't even been decided, and there would be at least a 6 month trial / research period before a recommendation could be prepared.
Anyone who remembers the previous elections remembers that the government made similar promises and allocation of funds for the exact same thing. Back then people did the same thing, complained about censorship and whatever, and what happened? A whole lot of nothing. It is one of those things that get pulled out in election years, a type of 'think of the children' idea that looks good, sounds good, and even can get the opposition to say "yeah, we like this too" - but it is, as it was in the past, a load of crap.
Being of Scottish descent, I take offense to your offense at plaid! I demand an apology! =P
On a more serious note, I have to agree it's my job to censor myself. If I want people to think I'm an asshole, that's my right to do so. But they then have the right to snub me for it.
I will admit I tend to censor myself around kids and around my own family (I'd never hear the end of it if I failed to to the latter). But if it's just me and a group of friends, I'll curse up a storm. For the most part none of us care.
And sure, I understand parents wanting to keep their kids away from the less pleasant aspects of the internet until they're able to handle it/have the sense not to do something stupid. But for one, you can only filter so much (in other words, it's not an excuse for not parenting - gasp! who knew?). For another, the fact that this is being mandated on a government level is what reeks to me. Unless you're out in the middle of nowhere like I am (in which case if I had kids and wanted filters, I could just buy some software myself instead of relying on my ISP), usually you can choose between companies. And if companies find that parents are flocking to places that offer those filters, guess what, the market's going to dictate that everybody else offer those filters too. No government action needed.
But then, I always thought internet filtering was silly to begin with. My parents never had filters. They just taught me not to be an idiot by giving out my personal info to some stranger, they generally knew where I was all the time (hey wow they paid attention if I wanted to leave the house for something) and, probably the thing that would make most kids groan but you learn to live with it - our computer was in the kitchen. None of this every kid having their own machine in their bedroom thing. But then, my folks and I got along pretty well anyway. It was only AFTER I turned 18 that they would have been horrified by some of the things I do online, and by then I was out of the house. And I'll tell you, I don't like the thought of my porn getting blocked. I mean, I'm glad for now the government has decided this is an opt-in thing, but once they have their fingers in something it doesn't take much more to tighten it. How long before they decide that the kids still aren't protected enough, and find some more intrusive step to move in? I've noticed that people have this lovely tendency to lose their ability to think independently when somebody starts crying "think of the children".
Not saying that protecting kids is a BAD thing, just that people have a tendency to go about it in the wrong way, and lean toward paranoia more than anything. I think a big part of the problem right now is that the older generation is still not used to this technology, they didn't grow up with it, so it freaks them out or something. I mean, I guess it has come a long way in a relatively short amount of time. So they hear about something happening to some kid on the news, assume that's the norm, and start calling for a ban on MySpace or YouTube or whatever the latest online scapegoat is (nevermind blaming the creeps that just happen to be there, or the parents who obviously were paying attention when little Jessie or Jennie or whatever the cool thing to name your kids is now decided to hop a plane to see her 35 year old boyfriend - we blame the site instead!).
But as far as protecting the kids goes... seems to me like they're pretty out there before they ever hit the net. Man, the amount of kids I've seen online cussing like sailors and talking about porn and movies my folks would NEVER have let me watch... it's amazing. Heck the half of them claim to have already HAD sex (we're talking like preteens even, which is kinda creepy to me somehow). Where's mom and dad's filter for THAT, eh? I've had frigging ten-year-olds tell me to go fuck myself for kicking him out of some adult-only chatroom (what he was even doing there is utterly beyond me). Sorry folks, but your kids are already about as "damaged" as they're g
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.
Looks like Australia will have to censor its own ads. Time for a new slogan I guess.
Do you decide when your child is ready to be exposed to quantum physics or the history of medieval Europe? More likely, you restrict your censorship to areas you want to lie your ass off about.
Well the Mountain dew I had been drinking is now at the end of the office. Thats pretty good through my nose. Thanks for giving me the best laugh I have had all week.
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
In modern society, we have a thing called "decency." Part of it is that we have enough self-respect so as not to debase ourselves with needless profanity. It's pretty much the same reason that we tend to use more formal language in formal writing - we similarly don't consider our everyday conversation so uncouth as to warrant whatever curses we can think of.
Fuck that!We choose not to profane our conversation.
Were it for the fact that Slashdot's friend/foe feature is broken (or at least it is for me) I would certainly be more than inclined to mark you as a foe simply for being an arrogant ass. Your definition of "decency" is not my definition of decency, nor it is everyone elses' definition of decency. Likewise your morals are not my morals. What you believe to be immoral is not what I believe to be immoral. Walk away if you don't like what I have to say.
Your 'filtered' channels don't have commercials.
You pay for the PREMIUM of not having commercials NOT to have them uncensored.
"Oh...oh..oh..!"
*CUT*
"We'll be back after these messages!"
for a worthless feel-good campaign.
$40 million increasing for police funding which might actually work.
Yup.... there must be an election in the wind....
Logically, this made me think of J F C.
This is like all ISPs now offering spam filtered email. I love it. It cuts down on an enourmnous amount of junk from my inbox. But, I could untick that box, and I will happily receive spam to my heart's content.
The same principle will apply to "filtering". The ISP will offer it as an option. Currently they only offer windows based client software. In the new plan (according to the PM, he's worked it out with the major ISPs) the filtering will also be optional at the ISP side.
The simplest way this could be done, is for the ISPs to offer a special proxy server which will filter a fair bit of nasties. They will then instruct the parents to go through the proxy. Any other way will require that the connections be routed separately, which is unlikely.
At the end of the day, I don't think it's such a bad idea.
it's election time. The money won't be enough to cover the cost for the ISPs, it may only just cover the cost of monitoring and admin. It also adds a level of complexity so that parents can watch porn but kids can't, yer, right! kid will use parent access 'cause it's easier for the parents. It also puts in place a mechanism to censor other material.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
The opposition has announced Mandatory opt-out ISP-level filtering. That is, the ISP would be required to give you 'naughty-free' internet access by default unless you asked them to give you the good stuff.
Don't believe me? Here's what the EFA thinks. No doubt this policy will be rehashed as the election nears.
Free client-side filtering software for those who want it seems incredibly appealing in comparison.
Not that either, It's just pure election year hypocracy. The *.cx domain is under the control of the Australian government since it is the domain for the the territory of Christmas Island.
What we are seeing here is an election stunt appealing mostly to a cult called the "Exclusive Bretheren" which has recently started putting a lot of money into Australian politics. There is also a mob called the Hillsong Church which is an almost purely commercial local copy of the worst of US tent evangalism - slime that take taxpayers money given to them to pass on to the homeless and instead spend it on parties for those at the top of their pyramid scheme - they like to pretend to do stuff for the kiddies too.
Enough venom from me - the worst thing of it all is the software does not have to work, unfortunately it is just so they can say they spent money for the kiddies and if it doesn't work they can say something about IT people being evil and obstructive people that want to spread child porn.
Well, speaking as a 2nd generation Australian of Lebanese origin (parents born overseas), I can say that Australia is well and truly on the road to good multiculturalism. Sure, there are bigoted pockets here and there, but they are simply the slowly decreasing minority that always seem to grab media attention.
I was born in Australia over 30 years ago, and have never experienced any racial prejudice during that time. I have good friends from all sorts of backgrounds: Scottish, Chinese, English, Dutch, South African, Sri Lankan, Finnish, Indian, Spanish. And they're just the people I'm good friends with. There are plenty more people from many other backgrounds that I know of. We all get on well. Living next to all these nationalities, going to school with them, learning about their culture and family life, I've learnt to truly understand and respect the wide diversity that this world has.
It's a generational thing. Each subsequent generation growing up with such close cultural diversity at hand, without hate and prejudice marring their upbringing, makes for almost habitual cultural tolerance. My generation often laugh at some of the things our parents say, realising that they're being unintentionally racist. We try to educate them, and I think they're understanding. They're a bit slow, but what can you do
Not everything is perfect, of course. I hear of stories of Lebanese youths doing stupid things, and giving the rest of us a bad name. I don't know 'em, and have never run into them, so I can only assume that they're a minority. Still, I cringe every time I hear such stories. Many Lebanese youths do have an extrovert manner, which is great when done in fun, but can turn belligerent when attacked. That's just their nature, and maturity on their part, coupled with understanding from others, I believe it will help tremendously.
Anyway, I hope that this post has given you an insight into my slice of Australia. That's all I can give. I can't speak for the rest of the country. It doesn't make for an exciting news story; people getting on well, tolerance abounds. Boring stuff. I can see the TV ratings dropping already. But, this is reality for me in Australia, and I'm pretty happy with it.
I wish a gay son upon you. have fun trying to keep that from him
Very postmodern -- deconstruction of Slashdot comments. I like. :)
But if you had lived in America instead, don't you think they would have told you you were kind of english?
This man does not in any way represent the values of the majority of 35 and under people in Australia, I do not know a single person who respects the man and he's running scared right now because his time (much like Bush's) is UP, it's over and it's out, it's only a matter of time before he's gone.
I can not wait, shifty, greedy little prick and this filtering move? More stupidity from government, no surprise here.
relax. it's just a pre-election stunt (and recycling of old, abandoned policies from previous pre-election stunts) from a PM who is decidedly on the nose with voters (finally!) and looking increasingly desperate.
it'll blow over soon enough and be ignored and forgotten, just like all the other times the ironically-named Liberals (i.e. australia's proto-fascist party) have brought out this stupid policy.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/11/australia_ gov_internet_protection/, 22218715-15306,00.html1 244.htm
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/10/200
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
I'm not exactly sure what it is about that comment that relates to Foucault and Derrida, but then again maybe I was missing the exposing of binary oppositions and the subsequent destruction of textual integrity.
I'm just a lowly engineer who reads sometimes, so so my main knowledge of Foucault relates to physics. Which is to say, I might be wrong. But my thinking about deconstructionism is along these lines.
In my own words: analysis that attempts to extract the fundamental meaning from text.Bound to fail in the strict sense, but I find it useful to expose those who exploit the natural fuzziness of language to manipulate people. Which includes anyone who has something to sell, economically or politically.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
... is that Australia, unlike the US, does not have the right to free speech enshrined in its constitution. We have no Bill of Rights. Aside from a few things that have been explicitly spelt out - freedom of religion, right to trial by jury, just compensation and a few others, essentially our rights in Australia are whatever the government says they are.