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.'"
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.
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?
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/
Profanity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.
Right now, my TV is "filtered" - even my cable TV. I can call the cable company and unblock the "filtering" (e.g. get access to channels that are not "filtered") - as long as I'm willing to pay $19.95 a month extra per unfiltered channel. ISP's are salivating over the prospect of applying this "business model" to their service. "Unfiltered" internet (that is, paying them to stop doing something you didn't ask or want them to do in the first place) will CERTAINLY end up being more expensive that "filtered" internet. I give it one year, tops.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
>>> ....knows there is a difference between CNN.com and MySpace.com when it comes to community discourse
Let me guess: One is full of sexy pictures, trash, lies and people manipulating the truth, the other is myspace?
Only pedophiles think about the children :D
>>> ...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..
After 40 odd years, I still vividly remeber getting a slipper thrown at me the first time I said "oh fuck" in front of my mum, I had no idea what it meant I was just parroting the "big kids".
And you don't think that is ridiculous? All you were doing was making sounds come out of your mouth. Without knowing the meaning behind the words, it is not profanity, it is just language.
If I sit there and swear at you in Japanese (assuming you don't speak Japanese), is it going to offend you? Of course not cause you have no idea what I am saying. So those words would not be profanity then.
The proper response should have been for your mother to sit down with you and explain what that word means, why some consider it offensive, and how it should only be used in the presence of people who find it acceptable - and if you do not obey those rules then you will be punished.
Kids are not as stupid and ignorant as some lawmakers and parents make them out to be. In actual fact they're usually ahead of the curve.
There.
Insurance companies charge smokers or drunk drivers, or speeders more for coverage because they impose undue burden on the system. Why should smut users be any different? First, there's the possibility that they'll filter out more than porn. (See the already existing debates on other threads.)
Second, if they want to charge by the amount of data transfered, then they should just charge by the amount of data transfered. If I want unfiltered access to essays on dissident website X, why should I have to pay more than the guy who watches YouTube all day?
Even if they never filter out anything other than porn, are you going charge people who look at still image porn more than the YouTube guy on the grounds that he must be using more resources?
[sarcasm]Better lump the Linux geeks in there, always downloading packages instead of getting their software on CDs like "normal" people. Charge 'em double.[/sarcasm]
This is not a signature.
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
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.