Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government Censorship 'Worse Than Iran'
An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Government's plan to Censor the Internet is producing problems for ISPs, with filters causing speeds to drop by up to 86% and falsely blocking 10% of safe sites. The Government Minister in charge of the censorship plan, Conservative Stephen Conroy, has been accused of bullying ISP employees critical of his plan: 'If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree.'" Read on for more, including an interesting approach to demonstrating the inevitable collision of automated censorship with common sense.
The same reader continues: "Conroy's plan involves censoring at the ISP level to product 'Child-safe' Internet feeds. Initially he said that adults would be able to opt out. He since reversed that position, saying instead they can only go onto an 'Adult-safe' feed censoring 'illegal material', which another senator warned could include 'euthanasia material, politically related material, material about anorexia.' Colin Jacobs of Electronic Frontiers Australia said 'I'm not exaggerating when I say that this model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure [note: forum membership required] than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world.'"
Another anonymous reader suggests this answer to the proposed clone of China's great firewall: "Some of the tested systems use md5 hashes to find illegal content. As proof of concept, how long will it take Slashdot users to create an image with the md5 hash of 5ff742a58529efa02ba00ec8fa2e89bf? This md5 was picked because it is the hash of the current picture of the Prime Minister on his party's web site. A couple of points: The created image should be a jpg. It must be safe for work. It needs the correct MD5. It shouldn't break modern browsers. Its copyright should be free." Any takers?
Another anonymous reader suggests this answer to the proposed clone of China's great firewall: "Some of the tested systems use md5 hashes to find illegal content. As proof of concept, how long will it take Slashdot users to create an image with the md5 hash of 5ff742a58529efa02ba00ec8fa2e89bf? This md5 was picked because it is the hash of the current picture of the Prime Minister on his party's web site. A couple of points: The created image should be a jpg. It must be safe for work. It needs the correct MD5. It shouldn't break modern browsers. Its copyright should be free." Any takers?
Pretty much everyone in Australia knows this is not actually going to get implemented. The Australian EFF are just enjoying having their moment in the sun. There's no reason to have another story on the exact same topic every few days.
It's time to pick up stakes and move to Iran, that fabled land of freedom and tolerance--a shining country upon a hill.
It is an absolute. Either you have it 100%, or you don't have it at all. And the idiots who think that censorship stops child pornography neither understand pedophiles nor censorship. It is akin to DRM, where you don't stop the problem (pirates/pedophiles/whatever) and instead punish everyone else.
If you're upset by kiddie porn, then treat the problem. Don't shut off the internet.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
The real story here is not that the government wants to censor the internet, but that the government has moved to gag a critic of the plan.
I think the anonymous reader in the final paragraph of the summary needs to read up a little on the MD5 vulnerability. It's possible to generate two files with the same hash containing a 16-byte block of differing code (where you have no control over the contents of that block in either file), but the rest of the file needs to be identical to the original. That's fine for dynamically generated HTML or even executables where a decision could be made on the contents of the varying block, but doing anything useful with jpeg is a pretty tough ask. Or are they suggesting we brute force it?
Athy, athier, athiest.
In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
The idea of censoring the internet, especially for the laughable justification that its "for the children" simply indicates to me that the people of Australia need to start taking responsibility for their government and elect candidates who will not pull this kind of crap.
Don't get fooled into thinking that "the government" did this. It was the people of Australia who elected politicians who are doing it. It is up to the people of Australia to un-elect those politicians, by force if necessary.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Hi,
First time posting a reply so be kind :)
The Australian Federal Election last year was the first one I had actually voted in (I'm 21).
I am now sad to say that after watching what has occurred in australia in relation to the NBN (National Broadband Network) and this...filter, I am seriously believing that I made the wrong choice in voting for Labor.
This is an absolute disaster...I was always under the impression that no matter who got into power here, neither side would actually attempt such a radical censorship let alone be completely willing to implement it.
Does anyone have any ideas on what little me can do to perhaps turn this around? Writing / calling Conroy or my local MP perhaps?
Kind Regards,
Eliminatrix
We're talking about Australia here. You know, the country that rides along every time the Americans 'go it alone.' But not to worry, we're well ahead of you. We invaded ourselves a couple of years ago to save America the trouble.
After reading the article, it seems like the entire point of this law is to prohibit users from accessing child pornography.
Here's what I don't understand: why should the overwhelming majority suffer because of a few perpetrators? And ultimately, blocking child pornography accessibility doesn't help the root of the problem. The offenders will still be there. It's like blocking conventional pornography to fight the sex addicts, but people won't stop being horny just because of that.
Full Tilt
It'll be coming to the UK within a month or two and it will be here in the US not too long after that. Don't get too smug:/
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Anything outside of Australia I'll route over a VPN to a VPS in the states.
Somehow, I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.
Two fundamental design features of the multiple networks that make up the internet are "transparent encapsulation", and "path redundancy". The upshot of this design is that no filtering mechanism can prevent *simple* circumvention. None. It is simply not possible given the way in which the technology is implemented.
For the case of parents attempting to stop children looking at pornography this is not a drastic issue, as children likely will not know how this circumvention can be achieved.
Once you are attempting to filter out "illegal content" however, you have entered a whole new realm of pointlessness. If someone is attempting to access illegal material on the internet, they are presumably already technically savvy enough to find such material, and so will have no problems at all circumventing any filtering mechanism.
The point being, the government is currently opening itself up to vocal criticism over the implementation of a filter that will not actually do anything. That does not seem particularly clever.
Presumably it will get worse once the money has been wasted on the filter and videos explaining how to circumvent it start popping up on youtube.
I sincerely urge you to rethink this technologically naive and fundamentally flawed plan.
end
I realise some of this is mostly just magical handwaving. But I was trying to get my point across.
Barring a major advance in cryptography theory, at least a millenium. While the MD5 hash function has been broken, in the sense that you can generate two files which collide with eachother, this only works when you generate both files; generating a file to match a particular hash is still infeasible, and if it were feasible, MD5 would be completely abandoned overnight.
The parent post is caustic, but on-topic, and even insightful. The title of this story is, "Australian government censorship worse than Iran." That is a strong -- and odd -- claim indeed. Why would the story compair censorship based on a religion against the arbitrary censorship of a fear-mongering government? Apples and oranges.
Furthermore, I disagree with the title. Forced filtering of the internet is nothing like government control of political speach. If the Australian government were forbidding discussion of certain key political figures, or of certain religions, the claim world hold. As it stands, this is pure FUD.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
This is deeply worrying. Not only is it insane, it's, ultimately, Kevin Rudd (the Prime Minister) being a damn hypocrite. Just before the federal election the news media made a big deal of "catching" him visiting an adult bar (strip joint) in Japan or something. His response was something along the lines of he is an adult and can make choices and it was harmless. Now that he is in government there is this insane vendetta to censor the internet. Further, censor anyone who is critical of the plan. The Minister in charge of this (Stephen Conroy) is clueless. Unfortunately the rest of the elected government seems just as clueless and agrees with his recommendations. I don't think that it's been said, but I would guess that circumventing the draconian filters may also be made illegal (or at least the attempt might be made). We already have shitty broadband; what the fuck is mandatory filtering going to do to our already inflated prices and absurd monthly download limits? /rant
Who the hell modded this interesting? This is an absolute and complete fabrication. Nothing but pure slanderous bullshit.
Yes, nobody argued when we went to war because Bush _lied to us_. They knew Saddam had nothing to do with it. In fact, if you go back and look at their speeches and documents, they were _extremely_ careful to never specifically say that Saddam was responsible - they just implied it. Something like 80% of the soldiers in Iraq _still_ think they're there because Saddam was behind 9/11.
And speaking of Clinton, Bush knew 9/11 was coming. Clinton's administration warned him and his administration about it. So what was one of the first things he did when he got in office? Severely downsized our counter-terrorism forces. He knew it was coming, and he actively worked to make it easier for them to do it. And then, when it happened, he lied to the American people and to Congress to get them to approve what he wanted. Bush never pushed for diplomacy, Bush used the attacks to get what he wanted - and he still is. He pushed for diplomacy and intel? Really? He booted the UN out! How is that pushing for diplomacy and intel? He did just enough that he could say he tried. He did just enough so that people like you would be able to say he did something.
And yes, Clinton did some bad things too. I'm not a huge fan of him either. But nothing he did even begins to compare to Bush.
The issue here is to stop people access child porn. While I hate to be a black sheep, if you take speed away from a speed addict, they turn to meth or cocaine. You take ecstasy away from an addict and they turn to heroin.
What will pedophiles turn to if you take child porn away from their browsers at home?
Personally, if something like this ever went through, I would become more worried about kids on the street.
Put offenders into rehabilitation, or stop their contact or do something with a little common sense. This sort of knee jerk reaction solves nothing and generally creates more trouble than anything.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
I can't stand to see such blatant deception moderated so highly. Bush and his cabinet pushed for war, and manipulated intelligence to make it look more desirable. No one ever suggested that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11; rather, Bush's administration manipulated evidence to falsely suggest that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He most certainly did not push for diplomacy.
People didn't complain because he had a legitimate reason to attack in those cases. That's the difference.
"People seem to forget that polls showed that US citizens, as well as many of the world supported going into Iraq immediately after 9/11 on a false premise that Saddam had ties to 9/11."
Whoa whoa. Maybe US citizens did want to go to war. But I distinctly remember *world* citizens - even the ones from countries that did send troops - being overwhelmingly against the war.
Here's what Europeans thought for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm
Where's your proof? And you accuse someone else of being an ignorant troll and fo spreading FUD.
You assume the plan was to benefit Americans by invading Irak. It was quite the opposite, the plan was to use tax money to finance operations while profits went to private companies, this is not a new concept.
Understand that modern warfare is ultimately governed by profit of the few at the expense of the masses, the economy was artificially inflated to mask the cost of the war.
Sadly, it is only when personal pockets of comfort are affected that the public at large start to question their government, when is too late.
And even then excuses will be made to defend the mental image that the exploited cling to, it was not my country that did this to me, it was something else.
Plus we illegally invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The Americans need to punish us.
I also really hate the notion that Americans are war-mongers.
Perhaps not the American people, but the American government (with the consent of the people) certainly seem to be war mongers.
Look how much money they US spends on war compared to the rest of the world (more than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined!)
Have a look at the number of countries with a US army base (willing hosts or otherwise).
These is not really the actions of a peaceful country.
My pics.
We haven't financially gained from invading Iraq.
Define we. I heard quite a few companies friendly with the Bush administration profited quite well.
People seem to forget that polls showed that US citizens, as well as many of the world supported going into Iraq immediately after 9/11 on a false premise that Saddam had ties to 9/11.
Which Bush didn't do. Unless your definition of immediately means waiting 2 years.
Clinton while in office bombed 4 different countries without pursuing diplomacy in any of those cases.
Did he do so under false pretences?
You're quite incorrect.
The Australian Labor Party was founded in 1891 as a centre-left, social democratic party representing the trade union movement. The Communist Party of Australia was founded in 1920, never found electoral success and disbanded in 1991.
Conroy has to get with the times and to stop using the 'nothing to hide' argument (in another light here: if you don't agree with us, they you are a pedo). That itself is a completley flawed argument because of the way child porn is distributed. The internet is used to move porn yes, but its largely not through HTTP/HTTPS, and there is no kiddyporn.com webserver to be blocked. ISP WEB filtering won't work. With services like SFTP, Tor, DC++, bit torrent and other encrypted forms of transmission and private networks, these filters will make no difference at all. I've written to Stephen Conroy and his office by letter and email at least a half a dozen times and received nothing but silence on the issue, even my local member doesn't respond on this issue. I also don't understand why this is such an issue, the previous government launched an internet saftey awareness campaign and offered FREE content filtering applications for every Australian if they wanted it, and this program was not well received, highlighting the fact that really most Australians don't care or are satisfied they can control their children's access without them. To me this appears to be nothing more then a government initiated campaign to restrict our access to information, and if it passes, this will be a very sad day for Australia.
Not in the weeks immediately following 9/11. On September 13th, the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution against Iraq, even though Iraq hadn't done anything new, but members of the council were drawing conclusions because Saddam publicly praised the terrorists. Many suggested the security council was immediately ready to approve military action against Iraq if the US wanted to pursue it.
Your article suggests people were against the war in 2003, which is true. What I'm suggesting is that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, several leaders were vocally drawing links to Iraq, even though they had no proof.
The sentiments changed greatly because we pursued diplomacy instead of immediately charging in on trumped up charges when support was higher.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
What percentage of the population supports this, anyway? Anyone have any figures?
Based on an extensive statistically sound survey I have conducted, I would say this percentage is zero, with a 95% confidence interval of between zero and zero.
More seriously, I don't think any non-politicians actively support _this_ plan. I think you can split them into two camps: those who are against, and those who don't have a sufficiently good understanding of the internet to be qualified to comment. Anyone qualified will quickly see that despite your views on child pornography, this is not an achievable goal.
"Why are you watching the washing machine?"
"I love entertainment, as long as it's clean"
The original poster claimed we wanted to invade nations with oil.
That is a fallacy as we didn't get the oil, nor do we go around invading everyone with oil.
Those private corporations are still worse off today with the war, since the economy was worsened to the point that their stock values have plummeted.
Money does often motivate war, but not always. WWI was inspired by overall greed since the old empires were breaking up, and everyone saw an opportunity to redraw the map, which pretty much has happened in the entire recorded history of Europe. One could contend it was more about ego than direct wealth, since occupying new land didn't mean one would personally profit from it. Many empires in fact have been bankrupt by over-expansion.
One could even contend that the US is running the risk of bankrupting itself by getting into wars it can't afford.
If the entire ship sinks, even the wealthy drown.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You have completely lost your grip on reality.
This is an absolute and complete fabrication. Nothing but pure slanderous bullshit.
Bullshit? On the internet? Are you SURE? Wow. I'm shocked.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What drugs are you on mate? Obviously not from the great southern land, thats for sure. For starters, Kevin Rudd served the Department of Foreign Affairs and was stationed in China back in the 80's. Hence him speaking Chinese. He also had business dealings with China.
The ALP (Australian Labour Party), as already stated was founded in 1891 NOT 1991 (kinda 100 years difference mate) and is the OLDEST active political party in Australia.
Should I be looking for commies under my bed? OH NO! GOSH! The ALP has close ties with the Unions!!!! That MUST mean they are communist and maybe they will lock up foreign immigrents in desert prisons! Wait - that was the last government (Liberal).
You, my sir, should crawl back under the rock you came out from and stop your FUD.
According to reports: http://forums.mactalk.com.au/20/56127-coming-soon-censored-internet-15.html#post668070
The list of excluded sites used in testing includes sites like: "The Pirate Bay, demonoid, mininova, Erowid (the web's best known haven of drug info) and 4chan"
Australia's 3 commercial tv stations are struggling under the load of huge debts and poor revenue, time to throw them a bone I guess.
Well, mostly Australia is filled with vast areas that remain empty because of the harsh environment. The places that have an easy going environment, and regular rain, fringe the coastlines. The interior is harsh and brutal but, at the same time, beautiful. Along Australia's eastern coastline there is subtropical rainforest (both temperate and cool-temperate). Further north there is true tropical rainforest. Along the coasts there are huge areas of coastal heath. In the mountains and in place where rainforest is absent (mostly on rhyolitic soils) there is montane heath. Further south there is the montane snow fields. In Western Australia there is vast plains of heath like vegetation. In the centre where it is HOT and very dry, plants still thrive.
Every inch is inhabited by fauna that adapted and diversified over time to deal with the diverse conditions. Along the north-eastern coast there is the Great Barrier Reef which caused Captain Cook no end of grief--living "rocks".
So to answer your question: I think that Australia is full of life. Hope that helps.
We're talking about Australia here. You know, the country that rides along every time the Americans 'go it alone.'
And in all seriousness, we do appreciate it. You Brits, too. I think, in part, that's also why we're concerned when we hear about some of these Orwellian schemes your governments are scheming up. Er, not that ours is so shining and pure, of course.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Those private defense contractors are still making a boat load of cash off the Iraq invasion. Good luck claiming nobody made money off Iraq.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
America is a peaceful country. As long as you do what it tells you to do and don't get in its way. Then, nobody gets hurt!
Actually Bill Clinton came to Bush's defense saying that for years first hand he saw plenty of intel proving the WMD existed.
Don't you mean he saw plenty of Intel proving that *AMD* existed?
And apologies for straying on-topic, but... you know it's time to move countries when your supposedly liberal (but in reality, only barely left of central) government starts introducing socially conservative policies such as this. Can we please have the Greens in power now? Thanks.
~
~
~
-- INSERT --
That shows just how stupid the Bush administration is. They didn't even get the oil they went to war over. Fucking useless twats.
And, through their fucked-up policies, they completely lost to the Western market the greatest reserve of oil in the world, in the Caspian Basin.
Thanks a lot Bush!
You'll notice I said "more technical interference", even our communications minister isn't as bad as the Ayatollah. :)
The quote appeared in the paper here.
For anyone interested check out, our (Electronic Frontiers Australia) campaign site.
Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
When you next have something to say, attach proof or it shall be given the attention it earns -- namely none.
Sorry you use a different dictionary. We don't all live in your hole. Get used to it.
E
Then where is it? That's right, it got away so no evidence is required!
We can be really thankful that Iraq had already been bombed into the third world over the course of a decade and that there were was no nerve gas to use on the troops. The reasons to go in were many, complicated and in IMHO mostly stupid but the WMD bullshit was a big PR campaign masquerading as intelligence information. Powell's presentation to the UN on the subject probably put back international trust about twenty years.
WMD did exist.
Yep, they know they existed! They kept the receipts!
I am not stubborn. I am right!
I would really like to know what U.S troops are supposedly stationed here in Finland (my home country). AFAIK they come here for the occasional multilateral military exercise but that in my opinion does not mean a permanent presence.
"There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
This is what the Opposition Broadband Minister said:
"Like anything in life it's about finding the right balance between the basic freedoms we all expect to have in a democracy like ours while at the same time wanting to protect minors from exposure to material we prefer they didn't see. We think the arrangements that we had in place when we left office struck that balance. We'll watch the government's trials of this and we are prepared to consider what comes out of those trials. But our presumption is this cannot and will not work, it's very heavy-handed." http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;879301684;fp;4194304;fpid;1;pf;1
As for Conrad, I can't believe this guy. This is his testimony at a senate estimates hearing:
Senator Conroy: I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child p-rnography.
Senator Ludlam: No. That is why I was interested in asking about the law enforcement side of it as well.
Good lord, you don't actually believe any of the crap you just spewed do you?
WMD did exist. Talk about old rhetoric.
Of course they existed -- past tense. That was never at question. That's why we had the UN inspectors there. But as the inspectors told us, and we later found to to be the case, most of those WMDS were either destroyed or not in any condition to where they could actually be used.
Two weeks before we went into Iraq, Bush held a speech saying that we'd go into Iraq in two weeks. Immediately after that, we watched caravans of vehicles leave Baghdad heading for Syria and Colin Powell immediately said that we'd likely never find the huge stockpiles now as they were leaving the country.
That never happened. The announcement that we were going into Iraq was 48 hours before we did, not 2 weeks.
Despite that we still found missiles filled with Sarin gas, documentation for WMD, storage facilities for WMD, training manuals for WMD, etc.
We found chopped up missiles with sarin gas residue in the warheads. That is not the same as what you are suggesting. We found defunct, destroyed, and useless old chemical weapons. We never found ANYTHING that could have been used against us. Ever. That's a fact -- look it up.
And in fact, those destroyed warheads we did find were, right where we were TOLD they would be. It's not like it took any great detective work to find them -- we demanded documentation of all of Iraq's WMD programs before we invaded and amazingly -- they complied. Remember the footage of a table full of thick files, books, and covered in cd-roms that Iraq said was all of the information on all of their WMD programs? Remember how, just hours later, without even taking the necessary time to be able to pretend they had actually read all of that information (even with a team of a hundred people they would have needed a few days to process all of that) the Bush Administration immediately announced to the press that it was incomplete and false?
Yeah, we found documentation on WMDS -- they gave it us when we asked for it. We barked. They rolled over. That was the whole idea behind the resolution giving Bush the authority to go to war. We wanted to show Iraq we were serious so that they could capitulate and we could *avoid* war. Guess what? It worked. And, despite that, we went in anyways because the Bush wanted the war. He said from day 1 he was going into Iraq and he found a way to make it acceptable to the public -- he just had to lie a lot.
Bush won the war without ever going into Iraq, then somehow snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory. Whether this was due to some sort of "democracy will flourish in the middle east" naivete or just "daddy issues" as others have suggested, I have no idea and won't guess -- but the facts are the facts: We won the war in Iraq before it was a war -- and we threw that victory away when we went in.
We never found any documentation on WMDs that suggested the programs were still active. We never found any sort of weapon of mass destruction that wasn't just some rusted old hunk of metal in a scrap yard. We killed far, far more civilians (accidentally, of course -- don't suggest I am suggesting otherwise) than Saddam could have killed if we let him live out the rest of his life (he was clearly already knocking on Deaths door anyways). We've spent nearly a trillion dollars on the war. I won't even tell you all the ridiculous things we could do with that much money. It's 25 times the ammount we spend on education per year, and we spend more than anyone else. Don't even get me started on the cost to our troops. There's simply no metric by which you can look at this war, or the Bush administration by extension, and not conclude that it has been an unmitigated disaster for this country. It disgusts me, as does your willful ignorance and gleeful repetition of republican talking points and right-wing radio misinformation.
Well, in this particular instance, its just complete and utter garbage.
There's about 1 million people living in detroit and about 400 murders per year. That's fairly bad.
Here's a link to 2006's muder rate: http://detroit.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm -- it was actually less than 400 in 2007. So we'll just say, about 400.
Now what someone is saying, when they make up a bullshit statistic like this one, is that there were fewer than 400 SOLDIERS killed. This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. This would be like comparing the number of police killed in Detroit to soldiers dead in Iraq, not civilians to soldiers. But moreover, there are about 8 times more people in Detroit than soldiers in ALL OF IRAQ -- and far fewer than that in just Baghdad. So of course, on a per capita basis, its just nonsense to say its "more dangerous" in detroit. Complete nonsense.
There have been over 29 civilians CONFIRMED as killed in the past WEEK (from last friday to this thursday) in baghdad. Just one week. At that rate, we're looking at about 1500 per year. Way higher than Detroit in a city with a much smaller population.
It turns out, that's a *GOOD* week. Check this out
From April 14th to 31st August, 2,846 violent deaths were recorded by the Baghdad city morgue. When corrected for pre-war death rates in the city a total of at least 1,519 excess violent deaths in Baghdad emerges from reports based on the morgue's records.
And last year? Try over 20 thousand confirmed civilian deaths. It's no wonder the fighting has died down since the surge -- there's hardly anyone left to kill. All the neighborhoods are now completely segregated because anyone who didn't flee is dead. That's one way to put an end to ethnic infighting -- not the one I would have chosen.
Nevertheless, suggesting the murder rate in Baghdad is less than Detriot for any period of time in the last 50 years is just a ridiculous joke. Like I said, the only way you could come even close to such a ridiculous number is if you ONLY COUNT American troop deaths in Baghdad. The most up to date information I could find suggests that we have roughly about 13,500 of our troops in Iraq in Baghdad. This falls WAY short of the 1 million people in Detroit. So saying that fewer of those 1 million people were shot than of the 13,500 troops is saying very, very, very little. It's per capita that matters here and that clearly has been ignored.
That's how easy it is to make a statistic lie -- thus explaining your Twain quote.
Not in the weeks immediately following 9/11. On September 13th, the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution against Iraq, even though Iraq hadn't done anything new, but members of the council were drawing conclusions because Saddam publicly praised the terrorists.
I'm just curious, which resolution are we talking about? This site lists all U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iraq prior to 2004. I don't see anything on September 13, except one drafted in 1990 regarding foodstuffs.
Perhaps this link doesn't have everything, but it seems comprehensive.
Many suggested the security council was immediately ready to approve military action against Iraq if the US wanted to pursue it.
Many? MANY?? Who would this 'many' be? Think tanks? Newspaper Op-Eds? National Security experts?
Your article suggests people were against the war in 2003, which is true. What I'm suggesting is that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, several leaders were vocally drawing links to Iraq, even though they had no proof.
Cool, I agree with this. Several "leaders" were drawing links to Iraq and they were wrong because they had zero proof.
The sentiments changed greatly because we pursued diplomacy instead of immediately charging in on trumped up charges when support was higher.
We pursued diplomacy? When? As far as I can recall, the U.S. kicked out the weapons inspectors in 2003 before the bombs dropped, because they weren't finding anything. The fact that they were on the verge of announcing that there were no WMD's in Iraq scared the crap out of the Bush administration, as it destroyed any case they had for war. This is further shown when the Bush administration changed their reasoning for war, going from finding WMD's to "ridding the world of a tyrant."
Also, while the 9/11 Panel, President Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz have publicly denied or questioned that there was any link between Iraq and 9/11, Dick Cheney is still TO THIS DAY spreading this lie in some shape or form.
The Bush Administration tried their hardest to make it seem like they exhausted all of their options, but in reality, they sent in a group of weapons inspectors, Saddam let them in, they couldn't find anything, and so Bush immediately called them ineffective and declared war.
Best "String" Ever!
If you can get enough of the ISPs to do it, a day or a week without internet connectivity might knock some sense into their legislators.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Maybe we can get some bullshit filters with our cp filters?
Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
Despite that we still found missiles filled with Sarin gas, documentation for WMD, storage facilities for WMD, training manuals for WMD, etc.
Could you please provide a citation? Also most importantly those weren't the WMDs you were looking for ("But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.").
Also note that the U.S. actually supplied or played a significant role in acquiring these weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and from what I know the leftover weapon caches that were found weren't actually usable any more (also there was no clear intent on the part of the Iraqi regime to use them).
Though obviously we should not forget about the role others, such as Singapore, France and Germany and many many others, played in supplying Saddam (the obvious aggressor) with weapons.
Here's an interesting statement from Iraqgate: Confession and Cover-Up, though these aren't the weapons you mentioned.
The Wikipedia article is a good start, follow the sources given.
Perfect is the enemy of done.
WMD did exist. Talk about old rhetoric.
You should tell W. before he leaves office. Last we checked, he was still looking for them under his desk.
Most of thoses bases or post are for things like the US Marines who guard US Embassies, you have US Navy personnal assigned to counties where we have ships that stop for refueling, suppies,etc to make sure the paperwork is completed and do the papwerwork to allow them access to local water, and you have military post for the US Air Force that do the same thing for allowing access to local country air space.
Except for the marines the others usally dressed in business suits and work out of local government offices or rent local office space the US does consider them military assignments if only for the paperwork.
A serious shortfalling of Western democracies is that if the government (and associated media) manage to misinform the majority of the public to believe a lie, they are allowed and expected to act on that lie.
If I hadn't wasted all my modpoints on a debate of the finer points of copyright yesterday, you would certainly be getting a +10 True.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Ok bear with me here.... but, suppose they actually succeed in filtering out all the child porn on the net (its not going to happen, but lets just pretend)
What do the child molesters and pedophiles do when they cant get there fix, I mean I dont think that we should be condoning what they do, but surly someone who gets his rocks off at home under the glow of an LCD is better than someone doing it in front of a primary school or worse.
Anyway thats my two cents.
That depends. If you insist Bush lied to go to war, then Clinton must have lied about it first since two of the countries he bombed were on the grounds that Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
Alright, what the hell? The presence of WMDs in Iraq is not some sort of unchangeable, eternal quality.
Just because Saddam had the weapons 15 years ago doesn't mean that he still had them when the US invaded recently. In the same way, the current absence of WMDs has no bearing on whether or not the weapons were present in the past.
This isn't some weirdo time paradox feedback loop that makes everyone in history a liar on a given subject just because someone lied about it recently. This is the real world, and things actually do change.
Modern warfare is motivated by profit?
When was there ever non-profit motivated warfare?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
'If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree.'
I suppose if you think you can agree or disagree about what falls under freedom of speech you have not understood the concept. I thought it basically meant that you not only let people have that freedom that agree with you, but also people that you disagree with. I certainly disagree with people watching child pornography. And I do think that people that hurt children need to be punished (really really hard), but I always thought that reading or watching something (as an aldult) does not hurt children.
Well, maybe he knows better than me. After all he his a government minister.
As someone from Michigan, I can assure you that if a location exists that isn't Detroit, it's safe to assume it's safer than Detroit.
Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
Here you go, every scrap of tangential evidence pertaining, even remotely to WMDs. Clicky If this is the best that the world's right-wingers can come up with, I'd consider Enderandrew throughly debunked.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
Oh for crying out loud ... have the mods finally completely lost their tiny, walnut-sized minds? I can overlook a slashdot drone choosing to drop a troll like this, but do you have to go and mod it +4 Interesting? This whole fucking thread is waaayyy offtopic, yet if you comment from the left, chances are good you get modded +1 Hive-Mind Approved. Comment from the right, and you are -1, Flamebait. All of you, get the hell off slashdot and go suck up to the Huffington Post, or Daily Kos or something. Seriously. This article is about Australian internet censorship. Did you guys forget about that?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Actually, my opinion of the liberal movement is that they want complete control. Their thought is, we know how to handle your [money, job, family, education, etc] better than you do. So let us take care of you and don't worry about that guy behind the curtain.
In my opinion, the Conservative movement has the stance of get the government out of my life and let me run my business the way I want.
You contradict yourself....
"Viewers of adult porn don't usually go out and become rapists do they?", then "your implication that blocking child porn would increase child abuse doesn't seem credible, in fact it is more likely to reduce it. The current situation probably tends to lead pedophiles to believe that their mindset is relatively normal which is far more dangerous to children."
In reality, most paedophiles don't molest children for the same reasons that most men don't rape women. Even those who think that sex with children is inherently harmless avoid sexual contact because of the effects of a socio-legal response for both themselves and children. From Freel (2003):
I suspect that blocking internet access to child pornography would increase rates of child sexual abuse, but not necessarily in the way many would imagine. Digital storage and distribution means that any scannable or digital material can survive forever and be distributed on a much wider scale than would be possible without the internet. This means that there will be less interest in new material being produced, which is obviously a good thing if the material in question is child pornography.
There will clearly be some paedophiles who would abuse children regardless, but they are in a tiny minority of what is a large but hidden demographic of paedophiles.
"The current situation probably tends to lead pedophiles to believe that their mindset is relatively normal which is far more dangerous to children."
What "current situation" are you referring to? I am a paedophile, I know that paedophilia is normal, but I don't molest children. Believing that a fantasy is normal doesn't mean that one considers acting on the fantasy to be acceptable. Freel's research also shows that:
From Hall, et al (1995):
"citation needed"
If you're referring to the argument that most child porn viewers don't molest children, see a collection of quotes here
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
A serious shortfalling of Western democracies is that if the government (and associated media) manage to misinform the majority of the public to believe a lie, they are allowed and expected to act on that lie.
I'm sorry but this is rubbish. The public chose to be misinformed because Americans wanted to lash out. Afghanistan was not enough. They wanted blood in retaliation for 9/11.
The rest of the world didn't believe in this war from the start as they knew there were no WMD's that were a threat to anyone, let alone the USA half a world away. They knew Al Qaeda had been kept out of Iraq by the Baathists. I lived in Canada at the time (currently in the US) and no one believed that the US govt was telling the truth. The reason they got away with the lies in the US was because the public wanted blood.
The real problem with democracy is that sheeple get to vote
The reason they got away with the lies in the US was because the public wanted blood.
Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Please, stop posting in this thread: some interesting comments are showing up but yours isn't one of them.
The real problem with democracy is that sheeple get to vote
Yes, because matters are so much better in countries where people don't get to vote.
Get a grip.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Canada has a huge surpluss of oil and we're not invading them.
YET !!!
OK, lets get one thing clear, it doesn't matter about the speed. I don't care if it doesn't affect the speed, the issue is that it's a blacklist decided by a government department. Some public servant sitting in an office reads a comment on /. that's actually a joke about bomb plans on the internet, doesn't get the reference, then /. becomes a banned site because of "illegal content".
Don't think this can happen? Think about the stories of "wags" who miss their flight because they're asked a few questions by police about the "bomb in their luggage" joke they cracked to a mate as they were queuing for the plane. That is how Australia's net censorship plans will "work".
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
It is so sad that all this money and resources will be wasted on a system that probably won't even work. Hackers will get through whatever firewall they put up. There's some more at this interesting article.