Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government Ignoring Problems With Proposed Filters
halll7 writes with an update to the proposed Australian national firewall we discussed recently. According to the BBC, "The official watchdog, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), has been conducting laboratory tests of six filtering products, and the government plans a live trial soon. ... After its recent trials, ACMA reported significant improvements on earlier studies. The network degradation on one product was less than 2%, although two products were in excess of 75%." Now, Ars Technica reports that "an Australian newspaper has uncovered documents showing that the government minister responsible for the program has ignored performance and accuracy problems with the filters, then tried to suppress criticism of the plan by private citizens." The EFA has a great deal to say in opposition of these plans.
power hungry is about it, the governments have realised that they can do what they want, and even if everyone complains, no-one will ever actually get off thier arse and do anything about it like they used to, we are all content to be passive aggressive even though it achieves nothing and the big wigs can do what they want
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector. - Plato
Now this is way out of control. I mean I thought the whole thing about a backlash at Child Porn was to protect the children. By censoring the websites you are stopping the consumption of child porn. But how are you protecting the exploited children?
:)).
Instead of censoring the whole internet (which must be for some other agenda using Child Porn as an excuse to push censoring) why not focus more resources on finding and arresting the people who create child porn.
I don't mean the people who view it. Because honestly I have had child porn come up on the internet while searching for other things. I immediately close the site, but if you look at the logs I accessed the site. Also in some newsgroups there are tons of child porn pictures. If you say download all messages, even though you open a child porn and are like no and close it right away, it still says you downloaded it. Or even browsing, sometimes a message will have one title but in the end it shows someone young that maybe is 18 but maybe is not you just don't know. So anyway I close that message but I still accessed it. Should I be arrested? Probably not because I am not interested in child porn at all and I certainly don't want to go out and do anything with a child (as far as the difference between 17 and 364 days and 18 that is tougher call if you were looking at women in a bar, but if I knew they were 17 and 364 days I would wait the one day not to worry about some FBI raid
What would be better would be if there is a way for me to report these things to the government authorities easily. In the end I'm sure a lot of people come across Child Porn searching for completely unrelated things, or even searching for adult porn. It seems a waste to not have a way to report these things for investigation. The problem with that is if they just look at every ip in the logs that accessed the site and go arrest everyone, they will arrest a lot of people who came to the website by mistake or who downloaded a newsgroup message by mistake. But if there was a way to report it and they closed down the makers that would be great. At some point there would be so little child porn that people would stop coming across it by accident (mostly). Because the makers of it would take steps to make it harder to find. And the good thing is that people actively looking for it would have a harder time as well....
Also from the way this guy seems so child porn phobic you would thing he was looking at child porn and because he feels guilty he decided he should help filter the internet so he doesn't have the temptation anymore. Usually the most vocal opponents against something actually do it. I remember quite a few Republicans who were very anti Clinton for his affair who ended up having affairs of their own.....And I don't even need to mention the various ministers in the church. Maybe someone needs to investigate this government minster. He sounds awfully anti-child porn, as if he is overly familiar with the problem.
The countries of the world seem to be catching a bad case of censorphilia. I can't think of a single reason important enough to warrant censorship in peacetime. Where the hell does this all stop?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Bloody hell. This guy makes Richard Alston look competent.
No, analog television is already being phased out and replaced with equally free digital television. They're squabbling over what to do with the leftover frequency space.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
If anyone thinks this is about child porn, they are simply fooling themselves. This is about control. The governments of the world want the serfs to know who their masters are and what their place in society is. The easiest way to do that---as China has found out---is to limit the information coming into the country to that which is approved by the government.
This is nothing new: Australia is simply following an ages-old script. The difference between then and now is that you think you have control because you live in a democracy. Let me assure you that democracy and liberty are two entirely different things, and often are at odds. Please see Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed and Hayek's The Road to Serfdom for more detail.
The best reaction you can have to this is to encourage yourself and others (especially your own children) to differentiate respect for others' rights from respect for artificial "law", and to show the latter none while deferring to it only enough to keep from attracting too much attention. Defy all rules that have nothing to do with protecting the rights of others, and you are a free man; obey them, and you are a slave.
[ home ]
They ignore anything that may set them back because those within these western governments pushing this garbage really don't give a fuck about child porn, protecting the people, or anything. It is all politics; window dressing for censorship and control, a conduit to get an agenda they've wanted for a very long time rammmed through whatever sort of consitutional or other protetctions (including mass opinion) the people supposedly have against these sorts of abuses.
Another interestingly disgusting point when to comes to child porn (and other sexual behaviors that are not criminal but just as denounced by these guys) is that there have been many occasions where politicians, community leaders, priests, leaders of socially conservative movements, etc who are vocal and fervent denoucers and crusaders against such things are caught with this material or, worse, even involved in producing and distributing it.. the nebraska Franklin scandal that the Reagan/Bush whitehouse was caught up in comes to mind....
As a political issue child porn is like terrorism - it's an awful thing, but is also one of those political trump cards - and these slick bastards know it and use it as such.
Serious question. What IS the solution ??
I'm torn on this. The filtering plan is bullshit obviously and I'm also sure that someone
will post the funny "Please god.. won't someone think of the children!?" but heres the rub...
They're my children. MY kids. Not someone theoretical child somewhere that needs saving.
And after 15 years on the net, I know exactly how bad and sadistic some of the content is
out there.
My kids are of the age where they're becoming independent. I've educated them. I've
implemented my own rules of engagement when it comes to my kids accessing the internet at home.
But I can't guide them 100% of the time. They know whats ok, and whats not, but
they're still kids.
I'm lucky in that I was in Uni when the Internet went mainstream in early 90s. I could make
decisions for myself, but for kids these days, the Internet has always been ON.
Its time we stopped bagging the HOW and started thinking about the WHY.
WHY is the (insert your government here) trying to censor the internet ?
The main reason is simple - people are worried about their kids and the ease
with which they can end up in touch with seriously maladjusted, sick and sadistic
motherf**ers online.
Most parents learn that while the world can be wonderful - it can also be a nasty,
mind numbingly horrendous place at times. The internet is representation of that.
All things wonderful, all things horrible, all at the same time. You can't critisize
parents for wanting to come between their kids and the nastier elements.
This is Slashdot - one of the biggest collection of people with the talent and ideas
to find a solution to this problem in the world. SO WHAT IS IT ???
2 internets ? registered and unregistered ? make it an over 18 network ?
How do we use a technical solution to enforce a line in the sand that noone can agree
on anyway ? If the geeks can't find a solution to this dilemma, then ultimately the
politicians will - and we won't like the bonus pack I'm sure.
So, to pose the question: Dont put your head in the sand. The predators are there.
They're real. They exist. Given this, how do we protect OUR kids online ?
It's called 'social democracy'.
People are taught/led to either explode or collapse with emotion at the sight or thought of suffering. Instil regret, a bad conscience and the 'humane reflex' from the age of three onwards.
Therefore, they relatively speaking become blind to all other things. Who cares about clause 4.7.4a of the tax laws? If it could help a single child, then burn every tax law!
The individual therefore only has relevance to society if the individual either 1) suffers or 2) is oblivious to suffering. People who neither suffer nor are oblivious to it are not interesting. The only relevant unit of measurement is the group, which is relevant for the purpose of detecting the number of sufferes or the number of oblivious-to-sufferers in it so that either can be "corrected".
Here a human element kicks in, namely that it is far more appropriate to introduce a new protective law than remove an old one. Introducing a law helps protect sufferers or correct oblivious-to-sufferers, it will get you political momentum, and the theme of the discussion will be "how much good can I do?". The doers of good are saints, and everyone wants to be a saint. It is easy to identify at least a number of cases, at least up to several dozen in a 40-million-people country, where the law would have helped. And a SINGLE SUFFERER is as we know too much.
Removing a law is much tougher - because you are dealing with unknowns rather than knowns. You can't know for sure how many will START TO suffer as a result of removing a law. If a filter is in place to protect against accessing child porn, you can't know how much you contribute to child porn by removing it. Therefore, the quest to protect against suffering will virtually always result in the implementation of new laws and regulations, rather than removing old ones. Removing a law will never make you a saint.
This may seem like a joke, but is actually true, and the mechanism of suffering works this way. As 'the group' which is shepherded should not have access to child porn, that means YOU YOURSELF should not have access to child porn.
So what if it excites a pedophile? Was the child harmed by the photograph taking? Does he or she even knows that someone wanked to that picture?
As long as no one is harmed by the taking of the picture, no censorship should be done, doing otherwise is punishing thoughtcrimes.
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
The reason why governments expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes is simple, although not many people can bring themselves to accept it:
Government attracts the kind of person who wants to control others through force -- tell them how to behave, how to spend their money, what to value and what not to value -- not the kind of person who just wants to mind their own business and live in peace.
It is only natural for the people in this business -- the business of controlling others through force -- to gradually expand their power and revenue over time, making it more lucrative for those in the business. Put it this way: if government was limited to simply protecting against coercion, rather than in the business of employing coercion, then what's in that for the people who make their fortunes in the business of controlling others?
To be sure, this isn't about "anglo-saxon" governments at all. No government in history, democracy or otherwise, has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced its power or revenue. Sit down and reflect on that for a minute.
Well there is at least ONE positive thing to come out of Australia: Abby Winters dot-com ----- Of course if the Aussies "turn on" their filter Miss Winters will probably no longer be available. :-(
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.