Slashdot Mirror
Largest Aussie ISP Agrees To "Ridiculous" Net-Filter Trial
Klootzak writes "Michael Malone, head of Australia's largest ISP iiNet announced today that his company would sign up to the Government's live trials of the Great Firewall of Australia. In an article published by The Age, Mr Malone is quoted calling Stephen Conroy 'The worst Communications Minister we've had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed.' Despite at first giving the impression that iiNet is rolling over like a good Government puppy the article quotes Mr Malone saying that the reasons for participating in this trial is to show how unfeasible and stupid it is — Quoted from the article: 'Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we'll be publicizing it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we'll be publicizing it.' Let's hope that in typical fashion of government-instigated Internet-filtering that this stupid idea is just as useless, inefficient and ineffectual as the last one, and that the Australian Government realizes this before wasting more taxpayer dollars on it (seeing as the first attempt only cost taxpayers $84,000,000)."
... iiNet is my ISP!!! It will be interesting to see what happens, and what sites get blocked. I like Mick's idea about doing it to show how unfeasible it is, just hope it won't sour iiNet's reputation. Their already overrun support lines may end up getting worse.
Good way to get the people to accept it, ' look we are just trying to disprove it' ' its for your own good '.
I bet a buck it doesn't get shut down and seen as a success.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
iiNet has been around longer than the iMac. They started in 1993. As an aside, it is commonly known as iiBorg, as it has bought out (assimilated) many smaller ISPs.
At least with the latest Gilette they sell with the slogan "Now we've added so many blades it's a pain to use, so, guess what? We've added a single blade on the other side! Enjoy!"
Improvements!
12 blades 'ought to be enough for everyone!
12 blades 'ought to be enough for everyone!
I know a lot of companies who use more than just 12 blade servers...where have you been?
Mark Newton (of Internode, not the same mob as this story is about) has an opinion piece on the ABC (which I submitted to Slashdot, but still pending...), entitled Filter advocates need to check their facts.
The other camp includes people who just make lots of mistakes; including Senator Conroy, who claimed that Sweden, the UK, Canada and New Zealand all have similar filter systems as are being proposed.
----
Anyway, if Conroy is the worst minister, that's pretty damn bad. After all, Richard Alston, Daryl Williams and Helen Coonan were all communications minister under Johny sticken Howard.
According to Wikipedia, Alston tried "to ban online gambling, and make email forwarding illegal, he was dubbed 'the world's biggest luddite'. [1]".
Maybe this "representative" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? Anyone up for some Demarchy?
I wank in the shower.
Hah! You buy at the KwikEMart?
Everybody knows the KwiikEMart is much better.
Actually iiNet was formed (and named as such) in 1993, which was eight years before the first iPod release. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IiNet#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#History_and_design
It was just as bad an idea 12 years ago:
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1996-01-23/
Actually, the iPod wasn't the gagdet which popularized the iSomething. The iMac predates it for about three years.
Before the first iMac too, or was I just trolled?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
If TPG have ADSL2 DSLAMS in whatever exchange you are on, you should consider giving them a go. They have decent download quotas on their ADSL2 plans and VoIP service. Customer support is good too
Note that I have no relationship with TPG other than being a satisfied customer of their ADSL1 plan (there is no ADSL2 available in my area from anyone I would give any money to)
I just found that myself having remembered about the iMacs... was going to post in reply to my own but thought the point was irrelavent because iiNet still predates the iMac which was introduced into Apples desktop offerings in 1998 - five years after iiNet was formed.
"Why get your internet service from just one puny i, we've got two!"
The UUnet already invented this idea back in the 1980s. Not just one "you" but two "yous" for that extra-special focus on the customer. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uunet
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
So UUnet is not the Intranet at Discworld's Premier Thaumatological Institution?
I know it's popular on slashdot to look at things based on its technical proficiency, but this isn't about whether or not it works. It's based on satisfying certain luddites that think that free access to information is evil because free access to information means free access to things that they disagree with. Things like abortion, religion, sexuality, human rights, protest, recipes for unhealthy food, and government/corporate oversight. And it doesn't matter whether it can be bypassed or not, what matters is whether the majority of the population cares enough to.
It's like peer to peer filesharing. Geeks like us will always be able to make it work because we know enough about the network to make a connection from any one point to another point. It's a decentralized communications network and by design and very nature it cannot be fully compromised. You can't stop the signal. But very few of us that use the internet are geeks and they use common tools like Google and Shareaza and if they don't work then they just give up. They don't have the proficiency to make it work. And so the luddites win, because the literacy is so low.
They don't care if it works... They just want to stop enough people that they don't lose their political clout. It's not a firewall, it's a dam; And while there's always water flowing through a dam, it's not all the water and that's what makes a dam useful.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
If they filter conte
Shouldn't Australia look into why so many people there like kiddie porn than try to just block it. I know it is peopled by criminals, but they could do some kind of rehab to get them off the kiddie porn.
How is iiNet Australia's largest ISP? That's ludicrous. Telstra Bigpond is by far the largest due to their former government monopoly, Optus would be a 2nd and then perhaps iiNet would be there along with a dozen other medium sized providers.
Y'know, I understand the "Great (Fire)Wall of China". Shouldn't this be the "Australian Great Barrier Firewall"? And - isn't that in danger of being destroyed by people poking and prodding at it, punching holes in it, etc.?
Umm, actually iiNet was founded in 1993.
The first iMac was in 1998.
I think they won :)
As an aside, the title's a bit off. From the wikipedia link above - iiNet is Australia's third largest ISP, not the largest.
You fail at math, he said iiNet was formed 8 years before the iPod, you said the iMac was 3 years before the iPod, that's still 5 years AFTER iiNet.
As an aside, it is commonly known as iiBorg, as it has bought out (assimilated) many smaller ISPs.
This is true, and I shunned them for many years. But they were the first kids on the block with ADSL2+ when it first came out (at least where I live in Perth), and I took them up on it. I can't say I've had any complaints - the service has been great. Which, coming from a confirmed cynic, could be taken as an endorsement.
You are a professed cynic, not a confirmed one.
Is here, in which an iiNet user pleads with them to not go ahead with the trial, and is replied to by Michael Malone (the head of iinet). Whirlpool is the main news / forum site on Australian broadband news and information.
I concur with the original poster, and that the ulterior motive is not about blocking child pornography, but instead about:
Australian censorship has always been pretty hopeless... - We still don't have an R18+ classification for games (although we do for movies, and print media), so games that would fall into that category are refused classification (and therefore can't be sold). This mandatory internet filtering would take things to a whole new (unwanted) level.
Unfortunately, despite Michael's best (and appreciated efforts), there's still nothing stopping them from continually moving the goalposts... and when challenged they'll continue with the "If you're not with us, then you're against us, which means you're pro-child porn" rubbish. Sounds kind of like the always attack never defend strategy endorsed by a certain science fiction author.
You are a professed cynic, not a confirmed one.
I don't think so. This is confirmed by a plurality of independent persons. And (BTW) I stand by the definition of cynic as a "disappointed idealist".
[let the flames start...]
They could just buy one from China and get them to manage it too (at half the price).
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people," Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. "As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." (sorry, pinched from an earlier thread)
And you fail at reading comprehension. The GP didn't claim that the iMac predates iiNet, only that it came before the iPod.
This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
You can't be that cynical, you still expected fire...
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
You, on the other hand, are a confirmed skeptic.
I hate printers.
Actually, the iPod wasn't the gagdet which popularized the iSomething. The iMac predates it for about three years.
Surely Asimov's "iRobot" predates those. 8-P
fuck
He's confirmed that unwanted content would include topics such as euthanasia, and other politicians have been pushing for gambling and anorexia websites to be added to the mandatory filter.
Now that you have mentioned those words, this is going to get slashdot blocked from Australia. Let me see what these two words mean, oh heck wikipedia is probably going to be blocked now ;)
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
This is by far the stupidest fucking idea ever.
"the reasons for participating in this trial is to show how unfeasible and stupid it is"
By all means then let's also instate a totalitarian government system that gives federal officals the ability to spy on, and regulate every little thing we do just to show them that it wouldn't work as well.
That's OK.
I wasn't using my civil liberties anyhow...
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."
"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
Anarchy_Creator
I like this guy. Here in the we need a government branch for granting honorary citizenship to people who go around publicising how stupid our various government branches are.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
iBorg was the worst episode of all the borg-related episodes. First of all it was the cheesiest with all the BS morality. What idiots. Compassion for a borg?! Secondly they missed their chance to destroy the entire collective. Which means that all future borg-caused deaths are on their shoulders.
That's what you get for listening to doctors.
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
I had never heard of this before. Wasn't there some old science fiction series where the king was selected at random, then beheaded at the end of his term?
I wonder how it would work, though. Wouldn't there have to be a permanent bureacracy to form the committees, perform the random selection, provide information and data, and implement the resulting decisions? Wouldn't this bureacracy have a tremendous amount of power, for example, to influence when and on what topic the decision committees should be formed? And if poor people are to be appointed to the committees, what happens to their livelihood while they spend time deliberating on some policy matter? Or what's to stop a newly appointed committee member (rich or poor) from approaching the subject of the regulatory decision and offering to be bought?
-Graham
iBorg was the worst episode of all the borg-related episodes. First of all it was the cheesiest with all the BS morality. What idiots. Compassion for a borg?! Secondly they missed their chance to destroy the entire collective. Which means that all future borg-caused deaths are on their shoulders. That's what you get for listening to doctors.
I never understood how that would work...The borg were masters of assimilating unassimilated people without causing problems. Why would reassimilating one be much different?
I mean, I could bite on the "infected laptop inside the firewall" theory, but you'd think the borg would be smarter than that.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
I wrote to my local Federal Minister about these concerns. She replied to my original letter, and now I am about to send this reply back to her:
Dear Minister,
I have read a lot of press recently from senior ISP staff who think the plan will not work. Here is the latest example.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/net-censorship-plan-backlash/2008/11/11/1226318639085.html
If I have to rent a VPN plan and connect to a server in the US to bypass this stupid filter, then I will. Is the Government going to block all VPN access too? How about the 1000's of businesses who use VPNs for linking remote offices together over the Internet?
This plan will never work. Any teenager will bypass this filter in 1/2 an hour. I guarantee it. I also guarantee that this filter will block legitimate content. And I also guarantee that this filter will slow down internet access for 1000s of users who never access illegal content.
I ask again, will the list of sites being blocked, be listed? Or will it be kept from the public "in their best interest"? How will we therefore know that the Government is not abusing this power? In fact I can tell you how... this list will be leaked and distributed on peer to peer networks. And I will publish it on my US based internet host. Along with 1000s of other savvy internet users.
Best regards,
(name and address included)
No, you troll. Second. Stop with the stupid "first post" meme. Time for it to die already.
Seeing as I have mod points every Tuesday, I will be making sure of it.
BTW: I only post anonymously so that I can continue to moderate the posts attached to this article.
I am an iiNet customer and I'm surprised that more people have not voiced opposition to even trialling the technology. I think we are embarking on a very slippery slope. Politicians will spin this trial the way they want, regardless of the outcome. If they don't get results, I'm sure they'll water the filter down and tweak it until they get the numbers they're after. After that, it's just a matter of "scope creep" whereby we trial one thing, and end up with something completely different. Also, I'm not happy that my soho connection that I rely on for business could be affected. I'd rather the government play with it's own internet connection, not mine. My $0.02. *also posted to whirlpool
Many Australian beaches have shark nets. They exist to stop swimmers from being exposed to sharks. Sure, swimmers can just climb over the shark net, and sure, the net isn't 100% effective at shielding swimmers from sharks, but does that really mean we shouldn't build them?
The fact that some of us might like to swim with sharks is completely lost on the majority of the population who don't want sharks near their kids.. and, frankly, think we're being unreasonable by insisting that the shark net be optional.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Wasn't there a follow-up to this where an entire of group of Borg had achieved "individuality" and were totally lost because they had no sense of purpose in life?
I seem to remember the standard away team having to explain that "nope, this is pretty much it... figure it out yourself"
Come to think of it, that was a crap episode too.
Firstly, decide on an ideological action. In this case, The Powers That Be don't want the internet to remain free and open, and a system is needed to control it. (Don't kid yourself that what is at stake is anything less.)
Secondly, make up an excuse that appears, at least superficially, to justify that action. It doesn't actually need to justify the action, and typically, under any degree of scrutiny, the argument will fall apart. If you need to resort to cheap appeals to "the children" and scare tactics, by all means, go for it.
Thirdly, you need to maintain that your excuse is better than anyone else's explanation to the contrary. Try not to spend too much effort replying to the experts who pick your excuse to pieces - you can't match wits with them. Don't answer their questions.
Fourthly, do whatever you wanted to do anyway. Again, ignore all the failings for now. Stick to your excuse; say it louder, if need be.
Fifthly, explain why the whole exercise has been such a success. If it has actually been a success in some way, your mistake has been justified by a successful result. However, even if it has been a terrible failure, you can still fall back on your ideological decision. For example, if your system has failed, you can campaign for the funds for a bigger and better system. Perhaps most importantly, do not acknowledge any failings significant enough to suggest that the move should be undone: leave it there at all costs, and use it as leverage as required.
I worked for an Australian government department once, and I've seen these sorts of mistakes made firsthand. I can all but guarantee that Conroy will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to keep the filter going. Everyone knows it doesn't work. The ISPs will say it doesn't work because it's broken by design. The Minister will say we just need a better one to make it work. If that's all that happens, the Minister will win.
If people don't stand up and make themselves heard, sooner rather than later, then the government is make whatever mistakes it can, using your tax dollars, and make your life worse with the consequences. Let's make them earn their keep for a change.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
iiNet are also, by far, the best ISP this country has.
yes... and all from the humble beginnings of a garage in Perth.
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
Sounds an awful lot like "Party of Five" formerly on the Fox network (years ago).
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
NoCleanFeed has a pretty good site on how to take action on this.
If you're only bitching about this, and don't do anything, you are nothing more than a goatse.
ws
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
http://www.ultrareach.com/ ultrasurf will get you around the filters folks. There is no way in hell that the Aus govt has the resources to block every proxy that ultrasurf can find, especially considering that the Chinese govt doesn't have the resources to stop it.
please, everyone who is an iinet customer install it and surf constantly for porn and wrongly blocked websites... it's your duty to download as much porn and illegal content as possible to prove that this shit doesn't work... so go looking for those barnyard inter-species orgies and gross out your friends today!
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
If you are an Australian, please take action:
1) Call Senator Conroy's office on 03 9650 1188. Do not be rude, do not swear, just in a very reasoned and rational voice, express your disapproval, and in a few short sentences, say why you disagree. It matters a lot.
2) Write a letter to Senator Conroy, make sure it's between half a page to one page (no more than 400 words). Again, in a polite tone (that doesn't have to be formal, and doesn't have to have letterhead, etc., just your name and address) let him know why you disagree with him. His address is:
Senator Stephen Conroy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002
3) Write a letter to your local MP. It doesn't matter what party he/she is from, Liberals will use your letter to back up their claims in Question Time, which gives publicity to the whole issue and will bring it to mainstream media's attention. Labor members will also express their criticism, privately, to him. This specially matters if your local MP is a Minister and serves in the Cabinet. To find out who your local MP is click here [aph.gov.au]
4) Write a letter to Prime Minister Rudd. Let him know that when the Australian people voted him in office last year, they didn't know "Education Revolution" means censorship. Rudd's address is:
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
5) Donate or become a member of Electronic Frontiers Australia . Right now the EFA is the sole organisation fighting this. They need all the help they can get.
6) Write a letter to your ISP. It doesn't matter if it's the Evil Telstra; on this, we're all together. They are fighting the battle for us right now, but it would help them to know that what they are doing is a good business practice, that you expect them to fight this to the end.
Don't just sit around and do nothing and then complain about how evil governments are. We, the citizens are the ones who allow governments to become evil, by our political apathy. Move! Take Action! Now!
--
Why can't we organise some kind of class action here?
What right enables the government to enforce a secret block on us, we know virtually nothing about, refuse to even discuss it and knowingly degrade performance by around 80%?
My company requires high speed and reliable internet for its livelihood. If this degrades that, my business will die.
Now if this ass-monkey knows full well that his proposal is going to degrade the internet substantially, and enforces it on me and then refuses to even talk about it... surely I and 100's of thousands more like me can arrange a class action suit?
As a matter of principle I don't like internet content filtering.
But having seen the insides of some of this I have gained some further perspective.
1) There is ALREADY a global block-list for Australia, has been for quite some time (10+ years) which blocks access to a small amount of material at the border. Most recent example of this was the "America's Army" clone released by Hamas (I think it was Hamas anyhow), it is not possible to access the site this is hosted on from within Australia.
2) The no opt-out blocklist currently has ~1500 entries, it is a *TINY* list compared to the others I've seen which are opt-out.
3) The Government does NOT control the blacklist, it is controlled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Agency of similar nature to the FCC in the US).
4) This is ISP-level filtering so if you've got access to tier 2 or better connectivity it is easily bypassed.
5) The Liberal party took a similar policy to the last election (NOT the PC-based filtering software, there was also an ISP-level filtering aspect, that said it *did* lack the no opt-out provision, at least in it's initial form.)
6) Despite what people on the whole think there is no enforcement on individuals (nor legislation relating to penalties for individuals bypassing the filters), if you were to run such as a service however you would probably be in trouble.
My greatest concern is that once this infrastructure is in place it is open to abuse, however ACMA have in the past proved themselves fairly impartial and as trustworthy as such an agency can be.
<DISCLAIMER>
I have contracted to a vendor building content filtering systems, which is one of the companies involved in the trial.
</DISCLAIMER>
the basis for all censorship is oppression
Well, they might be now that they own Westnet...
Fucking asshole moderators.
This is how the Australian public feels about censorship. They feel that hard core porn is "dangerous" and that adults shouldn't be looking at it. They want it blocked at the border. This is the way it has been for decades.
If you disagree with that, like I do, then you should be protesting that - not protesting that the net filter will be ineffective or slow down the Internet or unintentionally block acceptable sites or be used by the government for mind control.
Rambling on about anonymous proxies and how easy the filter is to get around will just make people who oppose censorship stop protesting, as they know they can easily ignore the filter.
How we know is more important than what we know.
To rephrase that for the gp,
12 blades ought to be enough for any chin.
We've already tried making email forwarding illegal, what's next, prosecuting peons who are clogging the tubes?
Somebody save me from my own country!
Efforts to prevent this idiocy ever being implemented are being organised at http://www.stopthecleanfeed.com
Please drop by and see how you can help.
click here
You mean Goatse-net :P (look at their logo)
iiNet was actually named as a bit of a pun on uuNet. It also used to always be pronounced as "eye eye net" too, but a few years ago the few ads I saw or heard had changed it to "eye net".
I would've thought Telstra Bigpond was the largest ISP here, quite an achievement if MM's company has managed to overtake them.
This isn't the first time I've read this. Is this the actual truth?
I ask the question seriously, no "err, just for a friend" jokes here. Is normal good-old hardcore porn actually illegal here? Or are we talking the more fetish-type stuff?
I don't completely understand how that is the case, because I've seen the contents of more than one XXX store and they definitely aren't selling Disney movies. And from the front covers of some of the magazines it's not even like they are edited versions of actual hardcore movies.
Can someone provide links to this as fact, or is this just more Family First dreaming?
And yes, it's clearly not the case in the nation's captial.
cannot be called internet later
it's broken
Steven Fielding was elected in 2004 not by the people (he only received 2% of the vote), but by a c*ckup by the major political parties. Essentially Labor tried to engineer a preference swap with Family First to protect its third candidate, which backfired and elected Fielding. From wikipedia:
Fielding was elected to represent Victoria in the Senate at the 2004 federal election. He is the first representative of Family First to be elected to the Federal Parliament. Since he polled less than 2% of the popular vote, Fielding's election was not expected. Like many Senators he gained a quota under the Senate's proportional representation system by receiving preferences from other parties (see Australian electoral system). The Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party agreed to swap preferences with Family First. But Fielding benefited from the larger-than-expected surplus of Liberal preferences, and stayed in the count long enough to receive Democrat and Labor preferences, defeating the Australian Greens' candidate David Risstrom for the last Senate place in Victoria.
Anthony Green gives a more detailed analysis.
Your cpu could be growing fungus!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Yes. I "chopped" their new logo as soon as it was released. It's still in my photobucket somewhere...
I'd say its a tie between them and Internode, but yes they are easily one of the best.
I found the title of this article misleading. Perhaps it should have read:
iiNet - Largest ISP in Australia to agree to "Ridiculous" Net-Filter Trial.
iiNet is currently Australia's third largest ISP - http://www.iinet.net.au/about/media/releases/20080508_iinet_comes_together_with_westnet.pdf
I've been customers of both, and though they're still very good, Internode are 2nd best for me. They're not quite as large as ii, and their Linux mirrors are usually a few days behind. Their network is really low-latency though, great for gaming.
I used to work for bigpond and recently left, when i left they had 44% of market share. Mystifying when you cant get the net with twice the downloads at half the price quite easily. bigpond even want another $10 per month for a static ip on top of their already extremely high prices. Even with a staff discount, I got my internet way cheaper elsewhere. Its not entirely bigponds fault as they are not allowed to be ultra competitive on prices as this would sound the death of all other ISP's. Australia left it way too long before allowing competition in the market...the computer/internet dumb dumbs here think bigpond actually OWN the internet. A lot of them are not even aware there are other providers...I say this with 1st hand experience. "ISP? whats an ISP? if I want the net I ring bigpond"....grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
woops typo - Mystifying when you CAN get the net with twice the downloads at half the price quite easily
Kevin Rudd
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Mr Rudd,
I am writing to express my condemnation of the governments proposal to impose mandatory filters to the internet. I believe free access to information to be fundamental to Democracy. Freedom of expression only exists when we defend the right to express that which we object to.
I will not stand by idly while the government assumes the power to determine what information is appropriate for me to access. This remains so regardless of the fact that filter as currently proposed is aimed at material I personally find objectionable.
I believe that once such a filter is in place there is a grave danger that it will be progressively misused to curtail access to information in the governmentâ(TM)s political interest. This is largely because I believe the ideology of a government who wishes to put in place such a filter is seriously flawed â" both in practical and moral terms.
I also believe the proposed filter is not practical, and will not work well. It gives me little faith in the governmentâ(TM)s competence that it has ignored much expert opinion on this. It will therefore be a gross waste of tax payer money that will not achieve your desired outcomes.
Due to the above, the governmentâ(TM)s to attempt to arbitrarily filter access to âoeunwantedâ information on the internet is completely unacceptable. I have voted Labour all my life thus far. This issue is of such importance that I will vote in the most effective way to remove your government at the next election if you proceed with it.
Yours Sincerely,
Whereas you, sir, are a confirmed pedant.
;)
Not that that's a bad thing, nor unexpected, in present company.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
iiNet is the third largest. Bigpond, Optus, iiNet.
I have no idea what made anyone think iiNet is the largest Australian ISP.
"Commonly known as iiBorg"? You need to get out more.