Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government To Mandate Internet Filters
ratzmilk writes "The Australian government is mandating the creation of 'clean' internet feeds. To be optionally made available to schools and homes that request it, the feed would offer built-in filters of 'pornography and inappropriate content'. Said Senator Controy: 'Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road ... If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.'"
This is a good place to employ a whitelist. Allow a very limited number of sites. Everything else is blocked. Blocked sites can be unblocked on request.
Of course, the first blocks should go on lines servicing Government agencies. After all, they shouldn't be surfing pr0n at work.
I figure a week of virtually no internet would turn the heads of the lawmakers.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
At first I was going to write a post saying how this is a pretty decent solution and they're offering an opt-out option, but after thinking about it more:
Why does the government have to require this? If the consumer demand is for filtered access, there are tools already in place to help parents "protect" their children. Many of them are free. If the demand were high enough, an ISP could also offer their own filtered service (it would probably not cost them any extra since those users are less likely to use lots of bandwidth).
This will suck for people who want to access filtered material. They'll either have to call the ISP or register somehow, possibly in writing, which goes in the face of privacy.
The ISP will have a database of users with the "pervert" bit and who knows what might happen with that. Will that data be confidential? Or can the ISP sell the list to its "marketing partners" and send users direct mail offers for porn?
If subpoenaed, can that data be brought up in court? "Your honor, the only evidence we have that this man committed the crime is that he is - pause for effect - an unfiltered user. And you know what that means."
The filtering service needs to be opt-in, not required of the ISPs, and controlled via the market.
-David
This filtering list is supposedly secret, but when it leaked, it contained a lot of non-porn sites, among them one Korean site dedicated to bonsai trees. I suppose the reasoning was that these baby trees were being exploited, or something. Pure madness.
Also, they were going to add The Pirate Bay to the list, but that plan leaked as well, so they had to back down.
Money for nothing, pix for free
It's not optional, that's the thing.
The article clearly says that it will be OPT OUT, not OPT IN service.
"Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service."
"They're simply mandating that ISPs provide a service for the people the government represents."
If there is consumer demand for ISP level censorship, then capitalism dictates that ISP's would offer such services (either that or there isnt sufficient competition to encourage ISP's to change).
Well, according to the AEC 3.95% of the votes were informal. Moreover, in recent years the donkey vote (voting 1-whatever down the list of candidates) seems to have been less than 1%. Of course, one must also take into account that some people actually want to vote in the order the candidates are listed on the paper.
So it would appear that the total number of voters turning up and voting properly might be around the 94% mark.
Cogito, ergo sig.
As a child I've seen porno many times and I wouldn't say it affected me in any way... It just makes you wonder about things you haven't been thinking about before and you're not about to fully comprehend for a while. But I think that's pretty much one of the points of the childhood.
Now excuse me, because I gotta go to the park attack random women (just kidding :-)).
So if I choose to opt-out of these filters, it will be noted as such? If so, there will be lists of Internet users who are opted out and looking at 'dirty' content. Could we this see this group of people targeted by enforcement agencies? I'm weary of anything where government gets more information and/or control over my life where I'm not breaking the law.
While I don't condone the intentions of the Australian government, I'm sick of the overused "censorship" tag on slashdot. The term "optional" and phrase "for those who request it" mean people have a choice. True censorship leaves no choice.
Because it's not optional for anyone else forcibly sharing that connection. Teenagers have a right to porn and uncensored communication. Yes, I'm serious. And if you don't remember your teenage years I feel sorry for you.
So you either think that
* "good" ideas can sway people to behavior while "bad" ideas have absolutely no power over people or
* no ideas have any power-- so why even respond to me since your argument would have no effect on me or others since we are unchangeable in the face of new ideas or arguments.
Either people are changed by the things they see and learn or they are not. You can't logically hold both positions.
No some people who always saw children just as children and then saw a picture of them having sex would now have a new way of thinking of children.
With regard to women you have two competing memes here:
1) A female should be able to go without clothing and those sexually attracted to her will only feel sexual attraction when she desires it. If they act on that sexual desire because they have power and she is vulnerable then it is not her fault that she placed her self in a vulnerable position and acted in a way that lead them to think of her sexually.
2) Females sexuality should be entirely suppressed so everyone is safe.
The reality is somewhere in the middle. You can't entirely suppress sexuality. It is a very powerful drive. You can behave responsibly and, oh, I don't know-- not go to a frat house well known for slipping mickeys to girls and raping them-- not get yourself so drunk or stoned that you black out and then disclaim all responsibility when something bad happens to you.
If you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it, you can be ticketed for creating an attraction to crime. It is just human nature. You tempt people and let them think they can get away with it, and they will do just about anything (including torturing other humans).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I think that instead of all these "filters" that are too easy to turn into Chinese firewalls, that we should sit down as a people( both by nation and as a group) and write some clear definitions as to what is child porn and what isn't, and to work together as a group to remove the "safe havens" that the scum work from. The way things are going now scare the hell out of me, and remind me too much of the insanity that went on during the Mcmartin period.
The US laws have gone insane-Cartoons? adult actresses who some judge decides "looks lolita?", to me this is just insanity like this "child porn infection" crap and just works to deflect our attention from where it ought to be, which is making sure children (Not adults or imaginary cartoons) are protected from those that would do them such harm in the interest of profit and sexual gratification. I apologize if this came off as a bit of a rant, but as someone with a couple of kids it really bugs me that the insanity today does everything BUT actually protect children from those that would abuse them.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.