Slashdot Mirror
Aussies Hit the Streets Over Gov't Internet Filters
mask.of.sanity writes "Outraged aussies will hold simultaneous protests across Australia in opposition to the government's plans for mandatory ISP internet content filtering. The plan will introduce nation-wide filtered internet using blacklists operated by a government agency, away from public scrutiny. Politicians and ISPs will join protesters in the streets to voice their opposition to the government's plan, which has ploughed ahead, despite intense criticism that the technology will crippled internet speeds and infringe on free speech. Opponents said the most accurate filter chosen by the government will incorrectly block up to 10,000 Web pages out of 1 million."
Once again the guise of stopping child porn and terrorists will be used as cover to do the bidding of big business and lobbyists for the music/movie/software studios who want to block torrent sites. I doubt the U.S. and E.U. will be far behind Australia's lead, sadly.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
They will label the protesters pedophile sympathizers. Insinuations will fly. Motives will be questioned. Fingers will be pointed. Dissent will disintegrate.
Newspapers will be sold.
These protesters are only protesting the symptoms and not the root causes of modern censorship. That is why they will fail.
May the Maths Be with you!
Of course in the long run government will win, as they always do. The business of government is simply too lucrative to resist. A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're sitting at the top of a trillion-dollar power pyramid.
There's a reason why no government in history (democracy or otherwise) has ever significant, permanently, and willingly reduced its revenue or power over the people. The reason is simple, although not many are willing to accept it (or admit it): more government benefits the people who make their fortunes in the business of government.
Make no mistake, governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes. We ought to sit down and think long and hard about this reality, because it is a perfect window into the true motives of government.
That's the problem; since it's automated, that 1% blocked could be anything. cnn/bbc/etc could be blocked for talking about a child porn news item. That would seem unacceptable to me.
As for the whole "think of the children" issue. There are child protection software packages available. Parents need to start taking responsibility for their offspring and stop expecting everyone else to bend over backwards for them. You brought them into this world, not me. You take care of their well-being. I'm all for "thinking of the children" when it doesn't adversely affect anyone else but this does. Therefore, it is unacceptable.
-SaNo
That's the problem; since it's automated, that 1% blocked could be anything. cnn/bbc/etc could be blocked for talking about a child porn news item. That would seem unacceptable to me.
Well, according to the last part of one of the articles
The trial is expected to use a blacklist of 10,000 banned Web pages, using the rumoured 1300-page blacklist held by the ACMA mixed with dummy data.
If that's true, they are simply going to blacklist a bunch of websites. I heavily doubt cnn/bbc/etc will ever negligently be put on that list. I know little to nothing about this scheme but if it's a blacklist, you probably have little worry about with major news sites. A lot more to worry about things labeled as "counter-culture" or "low brow humor."
My work here is dung.
The best internet filter that can be used is called a 'parent'. The 'parent' places the child's computer in a high trafic area of the home and monitors what the child is doing. 'Parents' can also come with aditional feature which is called 'intrest' as in the 'parent' takes an active intrest in what the child is doing on line. (Comments accepted, special cases ignored)
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I think we need to back up and examine that statement in itself. Why should the govt. be involved at all in technology or laws that protect people from themselves?!?!
Isn't part of being free, the freedom to fuck up?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Any widespread filtering of the internet at large will result in a massive tech 'arms war' that will make the cold war look like a Sunday picnic. Splinter cryptoed internets on both the current and eventually new internets will occur. Won't be pretty.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Lastly, how is this any different than what China is doing? I'm surprised nobody has made this connection and accused the government of being no better than anti-free-speech China.
It has before been alluded that it is just like what China have implemented, even in the senate. To quote Senator Conroy (the nut in charge of the department for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy).
I was wondering if I could get the questions without being accused of being the Great Wall of China.
From http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11346.pdf.
No, you great twat, you can't, not when what you're proposing is so damn much like it.
if they do this in the USA, there will be blood. end of story.
I didn't see any blood over the USA PATRIOT Act, did you?