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.'"
Stephen Conroy was on the TV talking about this tonight. It looks like they will make a list of sites which "promote violence and distribute child pornography and instruct ISP's to redirect http requests to them.
There is a lot of handwaving in this. Don't mention torrents or proxies. I would be very surprised if they try to block major porn sites which have a mix of content. Conroy has had his photo opportunity. Probably nothing more to see here.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"To be optionally made available to schools and homes that request it, the feed would offer built-in filters of 'pornography and inappropriate content'"
If they really stick to that deal, then maybe there won't be a problem.
However, if the "control" is optional, why is it called regulation? Last time I checked regulation was not optional. Furthermore, why even start in this first place. People can apply their own filters. It's called free will.
Schools already employ filters so either people should be outraged over that (I've yet to hear anyone outraged) or they shouldn't care. While ever its optional for home users, who cares? What next, angry at laws that require cars have a certain level of safety before they're allowed on the road in case the government goes one step further and says no car is safe on the road?
I hope that's sarcasm....
.. The government have only JUST caught on... kinda.
It's called shock value -- the media have done it for years...
It should be clearly stated what is and what isn't to be censored before any bill is even presented. Any politician who says it's not intended to mean X but opposes clarifying the wording should be treated with more than the usual suspicion.
At the bottom of the
Right, because looking at ANY "inappropriate" material (and who decides what "inappropriate" is, anyway?) is the EXACT same as looking at child porn. No difference whatsoever.
Granted, you can opt out of this service, so I'm not 100% incensed that such a thing is being called for (but I'd be much happier if it were opt-in instead of opt-out). However, I am very pissed that people can make statements like the above and not get laughed out of office. When did false equivalency become acceptable? It makes my head asplode sometimes.
I can has sig?
To silence critics. If you are against the proposal you like child pornography and aids terrorists.
How is it false? If your neighbor jacking off in his basement to pictures of 8 year olds really harms you, then so does him jacking off to pictures of women sucking off donkeys, right? But how is that not like him taking pleasure in shooting cops, or watching videos of people shooting cops? What about talking to people about how he likes jacking off to pics of 8 year olds? Or talking to people about how he likes shooting cops on the tv? Doesnt that just reinforce the behavior?
How you folks continue to justify one step down the slippery slope is beyond me. How about the idea "stay the fuck out of my home and I'll stay the fuck out of yours?"
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
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.
And yet again, the Australian government proves how much they never understood the internet or technology in the first place.
Sadly, conroy is the next in a series of ministers in charge of "technology" who just dont get it - they are sadly idiots. Dont get me wrong, i dont have much respect for politicians in the first place. But theres a level of stupidity you always assume when it comes to sections of government and the people that oversee them. And when it comes to tech and comms, the ministers in charge have fallen so far below par (compared to the rest of the rabble) that its really quite sad.
Perhaps to be fair i should "lack of knowledge" rather than "level of stupidity", but conroy is just a moron im surprised he's not blue in most photo's because he's forgotten to breath again. The prior governments plan was more intelligent, and thats a sad state of affairs in itself.
Arguably, there is nothing you couldn't brainwash someone to do, but simply viewing an image, accidentally, isn't going to change you, other than perhaps inducing MORE revulsion at child porn in normal people.
Besides, there are few places on the normal internet where you just "oops, porn!" Racy ads, perhaps, but I was under the impression that the only prude in Australia is John Howard, and he's on his way out.
These are completely uncorrelated psychological conditions...psychologists and sociologists have proven this.