Slashdot Mirror


Some Of Australia's Tubes Are About To Be Filtered

Slatterz writes "The first phase of Australia's controversial Internet filters were put in place today, with the Australian government announcing that six ISPs will take part in a six-week pilot. The plan reportedly includes a filter blocking a list of Government-blacklisted sites, and an optional adult content filter, and the government has said it hasn't ruled out the possibility of filtering BitTorrent traffic. The filters have been widely criticized by privacy groups and Internet users, and people have previously even taken to the streets to protest. While Christian groups support the plan, others say filters could slow down Internet speeds, that they don't work, and that the plan amounts to censorship of the Internet. At this stage the filters are only a pilot, and Australia's largest ISP, Telstra, is not taking part. But if the $125.8 million being spent by the Australian Government on cyber-safety is any indication, it's a sign of things to come."

339 comments

  1. Just boycott the asses pleases by Mrs.+Grundy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please, if you use one of the ISPs in this program, send a very strong message and dump them as soon as the filters go live. Tell them that you are quite capable, thank you very much, of filtering your own content.

    I guarantee that if this gains traction it will not stop at porn. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.

    1. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      fail. there is very little choice for most people, and if this trial is extended, it will be to everyone.

      and yes, it won't stop people visiting crazyshit.com and beating off to some weird porn.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mmm... no.

      1) my ISP (iinet) has repeatedly stated that it is only taking part in trial to demonstrate how badly it will fail, so I wouldn't be sending them any message they didn't already know
      2) there's no way I'm joining Telstra if I have a choice! Which of the good ISPs aren't in the trial?

    3. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the list of trial participants again. The only ISP in there is Primus.

    4. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by PenguSven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      have you seen the list of ISPs? they're all nobodies that have fuck all customers. Primus is the only "big" one, and they're fucking tiny, and I can tell you right now, they have alterior motives - the CEO tried to do a deal with the Senator who's pushing the filtering, so that Primus would supply filtering tech.

      --
      What is...?
    5. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I guarantee that if this gains traction it will not stop at porn. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.

      Censorship AND time travel?!? Is there anything a flux-capacitor CAN'T do?

    6. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      my ISP (iinet) has repeatedly stated [slashdot.org] that it is only taking part in trial to demonstrate how badly it will fail, so I wouldn't be sending them any message they didn't already know

      Apparently they don't already know that even flirting with this will lose them a lot of business, which is the message that I hope is sent to them. No buying this "No seriously guys, we're doing it IRONICALLY" crap The history lesson to ISPs and "christian groups" that should be written here is that censorship is radioactive, if you even give the IMPRESSION that you're okay with censorship you will go bankrupt.

    7. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by rdnetto · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm with iiNet, but there's no way I'm dumping them, and here's one reason why: http://www.iinet.net.au/customers/iinews/internet-filtering.html

      To summarise it, iiNet's only going along with the trial to demonstrate the futility of filtering. They're also currently fighting a court case regarding copyright infringement to maintain their user's privacy, instead of just rolling over like most other ISPs would.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    8. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Techman83 · · Score: 1
      Most aren't in it. Only ones I've heard of are Primus and Webshield, that latter only because of this whole netfilter business(read my comment about them further down)

      "The initial round of ISPs are Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1.

      No doubt they were selected due to not being to vocal about the filter and being rather small ISPs here in Australia. Primus is probably the biggest out of the lot of them.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    9. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by twostix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem we now have, and it's a hugely problematic problem, is that the government is going to use this legislation as a bargaining chip to push through it's economic stimulus plan.

      Late last year I was hoping and sitting rather comfortably in the knowledge that this would never make it through the senate.

      But now a few individual senators are holding the government over a barrel regarding the stimulus plan, the same senators that support the censorship (except the greens). So expect the government to sacrifice the internet giving them everything they want to gain support for their new financial endevours.

      The internet in Australia doesn't have a hope I'm afraid.

      I won't even mention that yet again Rudd seems to be bringing us into line with China. He really seems to have an infatuation with that country and everything they do, and I think it's got a little more to do than just being able to speak their language. It's getting to be really quite creepy.

      In other words I'm waiting for the bastard to sell us out.

      I voted for labour above the libs, something I'm somewhat regretting now (and not just for the internet censorship) I must say.

    10. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by plasmacutter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "o summarise it, iiNet's only going along with the trial to demonstrate the futility of filtering."

      I'm going to punch you in the face now...

      I'm doing it to prove that, one day, someone tougher than me will come along and make me pay for it, but for now I will continue punching you in the face.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    11. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I voted for labour above the libs, something I'm somewhat regretting now (and not just for the internet censorship) I must say.

      So all of this is YOUR fault! BASTARD!

      But seriously, most of Australia was fooled by this tourist. Personally I saw the crap that our (Labour) state governments were doing and thought, FUCK THAT! So I stuck with the Libs.

      Actually, I want an alteration to be made to our voting slips. All voting slips should have a question on the bottom of it which says:

      Do you watch any of the following TV shows or formats:
      a) Australian Idol
      b) Big Brother
      c) Biggest Loser
      d) Dancing with the stars
      e) So you think you can dance

      If they answer 'yes' to any of those, then their vote is burned and never to be counted as they have just failed a very simple intelligence test.

      (NOTE: it is surprising how many of those shit shows are broadcast by channel 10)

      --
      I am not stubborn. I am right!
    12. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Very little choice? How about one of the three largest ISPs in Australia?

    13. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by wdef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I'm going to collaborate with the [insert oppressive regime here] just to prove that the regime is not viable." Doesn't sound quite right, does it? A total boycott by all ISPs of this idiodicy would be far more effective. Dump iNet and all the others immediately, but be sure to email them first and tell them why.

    14. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Eskarel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bullshit.

      Firstly, when the opposition opposed the stimulus plan their approval rating dropped 4 points, they're going to show some token objection and get a few tax cuts in and cave because they don't have a choice.

      Secondly, without either the greens or the liberals, it still won't pass the senate. The greens hate it, and if the libs are going to support it, then it'll happen with or without the loonies.

      This may pass, but it's not going to pass as part of the economic stimulus package and it's not going to pass without the liberals(and with the liberals it'll pass not matter what anyway).

      The current senate situation isn't ideal for anyone, but it's not quite that bad.

      I don't like this filter, and I don't really know why Rudd is trying to do it. I haven't liked a lot of the nanny state bullshit labour has done(lots of taxes on booze and porn, very little effort to fix any of the things they were elected to fix) either.

      Hopefully this is just a stunt to appease the loonies and even Rudd doesn't want this to pass, if not, it'll fail miserably, slow down the internet doing so, and hopefully they'll repeal it.

    15. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Probie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So they are going to withhold content from there customers, and potentially slow down net traffic just to prove a point? I don't think they would be my first choice.

      --
      Who? Who is but the form following the function of what and what I am is a man in a mask.
    16. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      The internet censorship was clearly stated before the election. Yes it's hair-brained, no it won't work, but they DID tell you they were going to try.

      That Rudd is trying to "bring us into line with China" is a pretty ridiculous assertion based on one single thing.

      Sure is lucky the ballot boxes only require numbers anyway, it's "Labor".

    17. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by donaldm · · Score: 1

      But seriously, most of Australia was fooled by this tourist. Personally I saw the crap that our (Labour) state governments were doing and thought, FUCK THAT! So I stuck with the Libs.

      The problem was we were only given a "one horse race" what with Howard stating he was not going to complete his term no wonder the majority voted Labour. Having seen what the Labour party had done in NSW I was not going to vote Labour, however the dilemma was who to really vote for.

      As for the TV shows how about adding "Home and Away" as well. I usually find that I can find plenty of things to do rather than watching those shows :)

      One of the problems with Labour IMHO is they seem to listen to many of these "Holier than thou" Christian lobby groups.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    18. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Hellsbells · · Score: 1

      "Six companies will take part in the Federal Government's trial of an internet content filter, with the Government shunning large ISPs Optus and iiNet in favour of smaller ones that are more sympathetic to its censorship agenda."

      http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web-censorship-trials-to-exclude-large-isps/2009/02/12/1234028159641.html

    19. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually iiNet are not in the list of ISPs that will be participating in the trials. They applied to be, but it appears the govt did not accept them.

      Three guesses why.

      PS the list of ISPs who were accepted can be found here http://blog.websinthe.org/2009/02/11/live-trial-so-far-avoids-protecting-children/

    20. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I won't even mention that yet again Rudd seems to be bringing us into line with China

      Howard would do exactly the same - it's the policy of trying to impress the people with the money. Rudd would have been doing the same with the USA if they had swapped places in time - possibly even the same blank cheque of Australian support Howard promised immediately after 911. I think the trade deal would have worked out a bit differently however since more competant people would have been involved that wouldn't have fallen for the bait and switch and would have been prepared to wait for the next round of meetings. Most likely as an intelligent human being you saw that Downer was one of the shining lights of the Liberal party and voted Labour - with less factionalism they might end up with enough talent at the top instead to be worth voting for instead. Listen to parliment and you will despair at the current Liberal crop and hope there are some backbenchers that are actually prepared to do some work instead of wait for government to fall at their feet as a reward for sitting on their arses for years.

      I see two major attitudes in politics, those that see leadership as a job and those that see it as a reward to relax and enjoy. The Liberals are led by the latter and would be dangerous in power until they get more of the former - more Howards, or people like Abbout except with at least some honesty. Turnbull may be trying to manipulate his way to being Australia's first President but he'll just strut about and act important if he gets that instead of actually leading the country. He was not safe to trust in business (he screwed HIH just before it collapsed) and did nothing in government apart from an over the top complete ban on light bulbs and threatening to remove states rights over Howard's water plan. If he leads he would be our Nixon except nowhere near as competant - and he would just be wasting time trying to increase his constitutional power instead of actually running the country.

      Enough ranting - Australian politics is a bit of a mess and we're being led by a guy that rose to prominance via a NIMBY campaign and the policies have to be aimed at Godless "Christians" that think that God hates poor people otherwise they will not pass. The only saving grace is there is some progress in some areas instead of a decade of nothing but selling off the farm to Mexican Bandits.

    21. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by mabinogi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which of the good ISPs aren't in the trial?

      All of them.

      The trial will happen, it may even get extended, but the filter itself will never happen.
      It will never get through parliament, and even Conroy himself isn't actually saying the filter is a certainty - just that the trial is.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    22. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by peragrin · · Score: 1

      wouldn't crashing the filters be easier? start DDOS'ing the servers with repeated requests. as the entire ISP can no longer serve it's customers this trial will then start to require even more funds. As the ISP's can't live up to their service agreements they will have no choice but to shutdown the filters until they upgrade them.

      Wash, rinse, repeat. Show them that not only is service interrupted but that the filter itself is so expensive to maintain that it isn't practical.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    23. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by brinkster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Triple J's Hack had a good comment on this today. "I have more friends on Facebook than some of these ISPs".

    24. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by mgblst · · Score: 0

      exetel are pretty good, at least in Sydney.

    25. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Viridae · · Score: 1

      Give me Joe Hockey over the rest of them for PM any day.

    26. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit relieved to hear that the US is not the only country that's being effed up by the crazy religious.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by cellurl · · Score: 1

      Dump some tea.
      This is prohibition again.
      If I had that ISP, I would cancel today and get a WISP anyway I could.
      I would also setup neighborhood nets for filesharing.
      'Anyone know how to make a neighborhood net?, something that can't exist past 10 miles from my house?

    28. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If they can't even spell "labor" properly, how are they gonna organize an DDOS attack?

      {this comment brought to you by the National Organization of Ugly Americans, for Christ}

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    29. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by seanadams.com · · Score: 3, Funny

      it's a hugely problematic problem

      As problems tend to be...

    30. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by eneville · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you're trying to do. But I suspect that simply SSL/TLS your traffic would be a good place to start. For the net, well, WiFi network? Use private leased lines? Its not cheap, but do-able. If you really want, get a radio license and your own frequency. Or, simply, pay about 8GBP or a few USD for a VPS in another country and use that as your caching proxy over SSH.

    31. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by cliffski · · Score: 1

      "Welcome back to the Middle Ages."

      Get some fucking perspective. Filtering a type of media that didn't even exist 30 years ago is hardly a step back to the middle ages.
      There are legitimate concerns over web censorship. Rolling out the OMFG!!!1111 wagon every time anything happens just make anyone concerned about the topic look like a interweb dramaqueen.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    32. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by cellurl · · Score: 1

      thanks for that. We all need a backup plan as the roaches encroach.
      Funny story. Other day I pirated a movie called cashback. I liked it so much I wanted my wife to see it. She won't look at pirated stuff so I paid amazon 2.99 to download it. On the Amazon copy the volume was so low we couldn't hear it, so we went back and watched the pirated version which had loud volume! She said ok, since we paid...

    33. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say "crazy" per se. But fundamentalists and fanatics of all religions are dangerous. They cause damage to society as a whole because they don't think things through reasonably. I would say they don't think things through logically, but they do. Provided you buy in to their beliefs first.

    34. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Yes you're right - it's not like the Middle Ages. Because in the Middle Ages, people weren't obsessed about what individuals looked at or read in their own homes. There were better things to worry about.

      Rolling out the OMFG!!!1111 wagon every time anything happens just make anyone concerned about the topic look like a interweb dramaqueen.

      No. The only ones rolling out the "OMFG!!!111 wagon" are those people calling for censorship - they are the ones who think that some great harm is caused by people looking at or reading things. But for some reason, they never get labelled dramaqueens.

    35. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're going to accept 6 weeks of content filtering for your ISP's amusement? Are you dense?

    36. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, and I'm fucking your wife just to demonstrate that adultery is wrong.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    37. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      my ISP (iinet) has repeatedly stated that it is only taking part in trial to demonstrate how badly it will fail

      Thank god someone had the intelligence to see that they're only doing it as a way to tell the government "Screw you! We're going to obey you, but only for the irony, man!" Most non-smart people would cynically assume that their ISP was just falling into line because they're too scared of the government to say "no", and are merely offering a pathetic excuse for doing so by trying to pretend that they're not really caving in like a bunch of prison bitches.

      You seem like a really smart guy to me, in how you saw through to your ISP's honesty. In fact, I am looking to recruit some really smart guys and offer them a unique real estate opportunity, available only to a select few particularly bright guys like yourself. Now some upfront investment may be required, but a guy as smart as you knows you have to spend money to make money. Now, I've got guys lining up around the block to take part, so if your interested, you'll need to respond quickly or you'll lose your chance. Just give me your bank account information and we can get started making you some big money!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    38. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Fix a gas tank leak problem?

    39. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by cliffski · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you are right and that what we read and look at has no effect on our behaviour.

      In other news, its been found that after all these years and trillions spent, advertising doesn't work!

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    40. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      I take it what he meant was, "I have more friends on Facebook than some of these ISPs have customers".

    41. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      It will never get through parliament

      I wouldn't count on it. Experience should tell you not to underestimate the stupidity of a politician.

    42. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      my ISP (iinet) has repeatedly stated that it is only taking part in trial to demonstrate how badly it will fail
      Thank god someone had the intelligence to see that they're only doing it as a way to tell the government "Screw you!...


      iiNet (according to TFA) are not taking part.

    43. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by antdude · · Score: 1

      He's a /.er. He doesn't have a woman like the rest of us. [grin]

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    44. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So because media influences us we have no right to decide what media we consume? I call shenanigans.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Person A makes a simple, humorous remark comparing our current situation to the Middle Ages. Most people read this and continue on knowing that it was not intended to be taken literally, but was used simply to give a sense of perspective and to shed light on the situations that decisions like this may get us in.
      Person B takes offense at the remark, and hastily types a reply that overly dramatizes person A's post, and goes so far as to imply that person A's post included excessive capitalization and inappropriate punctuation.
      Which of these people is an 'interweb dramaqueen'?

    46. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) my ISP (iinet) has repeatedly stated that it is only taking part in trial to demonstrate how badly it will fail, so I wouldn't be sending them any message they didn't already know

      So you intend to continue doing business with them while they attempt to demonstrate it's failure? Gee, that makes sense.

      2) there's no way I'm joining Telstra if I have a choice! Which of the good ISPs aren't in the trial?

      The point isn't to switch over to another ISP that is obviously taking part in this, but to drop out entirely. You can go without internet, you know.
      If you can't, then HF paying ISPs to filter the internet.

    47. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Well, you could always take up guns and have a revolution if it came to that.

      Wait, where? Australia? Oh, sorry dude. My bad.

    48. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Hashi+Lebwohl · · Score: 1
      "The problem we now have, and it's a hugely problematic problem, is that the government is going to use this legislation as a bargaining chip to push through it's economic stimulus plan."

      You got it in one. The two independants (Xenophon and Fielding) have WAY too much power in the senate, and that spineless bastard Rudd (BTW, I voted Labour, too) will do -anything- to appease them. There is something seriously wrong when 1 or 2 people can wield so much power.

      Can anyone tell me a country I can move to where personal freedom is respected? Seriously?

      --
      I'm in to sadism, bestiality and necrophilia. Am I flogging a dead horse?
    49. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the News.com.au article yesterday it stated that 6 ISP's are NOT large ISP's. One is a network provider, one is medium to large businesses only....
      Iinet and Telstra are NOT in the loop for the closed 6 week test...

      So this means that the Govt will claim the test as a success (no porn got through), becuase NO-ONE WAS ACTUALLY USING ANY OF THE SIX PROVIDERS!!!!

      Then they will push it through parliament and make it law forcing australia to joinour cables to that of our biggest partner - China.

      Weclome to the Silk Curtain, Comrades....

    50. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by dwywit · · Score: 1
      You're displaying a spectacular level of ignorance - how about doing some research, mmmkay?

      iiNet have been quite vocal in their opposition, and I think they're in a good position to provide some counter-arguments - but now they're not taking part in the trial. Perhaps the govt. decided that honest ISPs wouldn't provide the results they were looking for.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    51. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Not this straw man argument again - where did I say we are not affected at all? I asked for evidence of harm. Obviously our behaviour can be affected - for example, me reading your post causes me to write this reply. But it is nonsensical to say that your post will cause me to commit a crime.

      There are three major problems with your comparison to advertising:

      1. Just because people are influenced by being informed about something doesn't mean that reading something will make them commit a crime that they wouldn't have otherwise. More generally, it is a fallacy to say "Because A causes B, then C causes D", especially when the latter is a much stronger and more dubious claim.

      2. If people were influenced to this extent, then how come it's only the unpopular things that are banned? How about we ban all depictions and stories of violence, sex, nudity, oh and religion, just in case. And let's ban all adverts too. And your Slashdot posts. Clearly, even if people are influenced by media, we need some stronger argument to justify why a ban is needed in only certain cases, otherwise we end up banning everything!

      3. And the biggest problem is, one can equally make the reverse claim: what if viewing media makes people less likely to commit crime? You see, if you play the "media affects us" card, and claim advertising as evidence, then that argument works both ways.

      Now, I'm still waiting for that evidence of harm of the material being banned here? Not evidence of adverts, because (a) it isn't adverts being banned, and (b) they don't cause harm.

    52. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by mdhoover · · Score: 1

      Who do you think you are kidding.

      Senator Steve Fielding (Family First) has a big hard on for filtering out internet porn.
      Senator Nick Xenephon (Independant) wants online gambling filtered.

      Myself I cynically believe this is a point scoring exercise to get the senators that hold the balance of power in the senate on the governments side.

      Why else would you push ahead with something absolutely nobody wants.

      No doubt down the track the government will call in this favour

    53. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

      ldo

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    54. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australians are a bunch of brutish neanderthals anyways. Descended from criminals and inbred to current times. If they get their connections filtered, it will be a service to the rest of the world.

    55. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Both sides of politics listen to various Christian lobby groups. Labour don't have a monopoly on that (but don't let that get in the way of a good partisan rant). I support those groups' right to lobby, even if I don't agree with their position.

      I think its also relevant to the discussion that a number of Christian lobby groups oppose the filtering. Some of them realise that its ineffective and the censorship side of it is dangerous to our freedoms. The groups that oppose it would prefer to see the money spent on measures which are effective e.g. resourcing police so they can catch the pedos, educating parents about supervising their kids on the net etc.

      NB: I'm not affiliated with any lobby groups.

    56. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that by buying into Christianity that you would then come to the logical conclusion that censorship is good then I'm sorry to tell you that you're wrong.

      Most of these "Christian fundamentalists" you describe are actually the ones who follow mainstream churches that have no interest in actually understanding Christianity, but rather just try to pull in people with entertainment and emotion (ex: "Think of the children!").

      If you were to actually study the Bible, it clearly states that while things such as porn are wrong and Christians should avoid it, you (Christians) *can not* (ie. WRONG/SIN) FORCE other people to follow your belief.

      In fact, if you were to actually study the Bible, you would find that forcing someone to follow Christianity is futile. God clearly states that if someone isn't one of his elect then they're not going to understand or believe Him anyway. And for all you idiots out there, it also clearly states that physical, psychological or any other type of harm to a person who doesn't believe is SIN/WRONG/BAD.

      I respect that (some/many) people here on slashdot are good in their field. But please, just remember that you suck at understanding Christianity. Its neither your field nor interest nor belief. As such, you're all pretty clueless.

    57. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      The Greens don't want anything to do with it. Those senators are only relevant in the case where the Greens are on side and the Coalition is against.

      Also, Xenephon won't get his gambling filtered. If the government added that they'd risk having even their own members crossing the floor. Maybe he might still vote for it even without gambling added, but it still doesn't matter without the Greens.

      This filter is definitely a bad idea, and we definitely need to protest it, and keep up the pressure until it's finally buried - as it's never a good idea to let stupidity like this go under the radar. But the thought of it having even the remotest chance of passing is laughable.

      Sensationalist defeatist pessimism will only hurt the cause.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    58. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by onenil · · Score: 1

      The current situation with the stimulus package is not the same as this Internet filtering proposal.

      Firstly, its important to note that the Greens party hold five seats in the House of Representatives. That gives them the ability to vote against a proposal, and assuming the Coalition party are on the same side, the proposal is dead, regardless of the position of the independents.

      Regarding Labor's stimulus package, the Greens were open to the overall plan, and indicated early on they were willing to let the bill pass with a few minor changes. The events of the past 24 hours show they came through with this promise. It was one of the independents that brought the stimulus package unstuck (Nicholas Xenophon).

      Regarding Labor's Internet censorship proposal, the Greens have stated clearly that they are against it. This will be a problem for Labor, especially since the Coalition has also stated they are against the policy.

      The Greens and the Coalition combined gives a majority vote against the proposal, so they're dead in the water, assuming the Coalition don't change their position (which I think is unlikely).

    59. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Yeah no kidding. Of these 6 so-called ISPs, I've only ever even heard of one of them (Primus). The other four probably have only a few hundred subscribers. Even Primus isn't really very big. For this trial to have any credibility, it would need to have at least one of the big players in the ISP industry here: Telstra Bigpond, iiNet, Internode, TPG, Westnet, AAPT etc.

      Also, one of the participants is already exclusively a provider of filtered internet to schools and businesses! So nothing to prove there.

      Really the filter trial will just show how pathetically useless the whole idea is. Kiddie porn isn't on the open web, so this filter won't do anything (except pointlessly slow down speeds for everyone else). The bad stuff is all encrypted, sent via invite-only IRC or private FTP servers, or on peer-to-peer networks. Most likely they use TOR to access it too.

      Basically everyone knows this. It slows down access, blocks pages incorrectly (false positives), is trivially circumvented, and doesn't really stop the 'baddies' from getting the stuff they get in the same way as they already do.

      Doomed to failure and will never pass Parliament, despite all the hype on Slashdot et al.

    60. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Guns. Revolution. Over internet filtering. That might be going a little over the top ;) (Although I'm opposed to this filter more vehemently than almost anyone. I'm 98% confident it will never pass Parliament though - it doesn't have the support of either the Greens or the Liberals, and you need at least one of those onside to get anything through the Senate).

      You know there are other options you might want to try first, like, protesting, debate, voting the responsible parties out etc.

      And if all that fails maybe we could revolt. But a) you don't need guns necessarily; and b) there's still quite a few guns in Australia my good friend.

      Just because we have regulated firearms ownerships laws and protections doesn't mean there aren't any firearms! Any farmer will show you a full rack of them in his garage. Americans seem to have this idea though that we don't have any firearms at all for some reason. That's not the case. You can legally own one if you have a reason to. Which I think is perfectly acceptable.

    61. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by g0rAngA · · Score: 1

      No, that doesn't sound right. A small variation on that statment does, though.
      "I'm going collaborate with the trial that determines if [insert oppressive regime here] is viable or not, just to prove that the regime is not viable."
      Any better?

    62. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Actually the system I believe they are going to "trial" doesn't correlate to the systems they want to implement.

      Depending on how they implement it, they could be just implementing a URL blacklist, which is trivial to setup with a transparent proxy and will not impact speed all that much.

      What Conroy _wants_ to implement is much much more than that and will require much more hardware and _will_ impact speed phenomenally.

      What I fear the most is that this "Trial" is just a showboat to "prove" that it's technically feasible and then implement full content filtering (which Conroy claimed showed promising results, even if the report shows something far different), which of course will fail miserably.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    63. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Oops. Guess that info was a bit out of date.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    64. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by ekhben · · Score: 1

      Rudd is a prat. He's clearly a prat. He's always been a prat. He'll always be a prat. If you voted for a prat because you didn't like a greaseball taking over from a monkey, ok, but you still voted for a prat. He's the PM, but he still looks like he expects the school bullies to push him into the women's bathroom, and isn't afraid to misuse his school monitor's ribbon to give detention to anyone who talks to the girl he likes.

      Don't blame me, I voted [1] Donkey. Well, I voted for an independent, but that's pretty much the same result. And also the only way to send the message that I do not support a two-party system.

    65. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by cliffski · · Score: 1

      of course advertising affects action. If an advert for pepsi does not make you buy pepsi when you wouldn't have anyway, explain what the ROI for pepsi ads looks like.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    66. Re:Just boycott the asses pleases by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Did you not even read my comment? You've just repeated your original straw man argument.

      I clearly stated: where did I say we are not affected at all?

      As I stated, there are three major problems with your comparison.

      Now, I'm still waiting for that evidence of harm of the material being banned here? Not evidence of adverts, because (a) it isn't adverts being banned, and (b) they don't cause harm.

  2. Kevin by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll
    Oh but kevin was supposed to be our savior, much the same as your Obama.

    if it wasn't so outrageous it'd be funny, labour gets back into power and the first thing they do is give us a 100 billion debt and filter our internet.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:Kevin by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Oh but kevin was supposed to be our savior, much the same as your Obama.

      Yes, but he's been "Feilding" some bigger problems.

      Personally I would be happier with the very dishonest way this "for the kiddies" stuff was done by the previous government to keep Harridine happy than the stupidity of actually keeping the promise to keep Feilding happy. When single issue loonies like the Philanderers First Lesbians Last party (the very hypocritical "family first") have the deciding vote in the senate all kinds of crap gets proposed.

      The disappointing thing is the government is acting on some of this crap. Since they are the only party with more than two sitting members with a clue we don't have a lot of choice.

    2. Re:Kevin by kramulous · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck that is one of the most idiotic things I've read today (I won't go 'ever'). Are you that much of an opportunist? You've never alluded to this in earlier posts.

      It is so dumb that you sound like one of those people who watch and believe 'Today Tonight'

      Kevin caused the financial crises, eh? The coalition never had plans for filtering? This is Australia ... nobody else gives a fuck ... and I like it that way.

      C'mon, you're smarter than this.

      --
      .
    3. Re:Kevin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the rest of the world saw things differently but I figured Rudd was a bad choice well before he was elected, whilst I figured Obama would be a good choice.

      I certainly never saw Rudd as some kind of saviour, quite the opposite, whereas I think Obama certainly is still making a lot of positive steps as expected.

      When we have elections in Britain I'll say the same about the tories, compared to Labour they look good, they sound good but the reality is they'll be awful. That's not to say Labour are good either- I'd rather see the Lib Dems in- at least their party leader is atheist and they're much more secular so wouldn't pander to all the religious do gooders that push for the kind of censorship and other general idiocy that the likes of Jacqui Smith tries to impose.

    4. Re:Kevin by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      To blame or not is irrelevant, when your the leader of a country you get the luxury of excuses. it's how he handles them that's important, and sending the country into debt isn't how you fight financial problems.

      And yes the coalition had a filtering policy, it was free filtering software they would send you on request. a perfectly reasonable and much cheaper solution.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:Kevin by LaskoVortex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh but kevin was supposed to be our savior, much the same as your Obama.

      The "Obama" as savior myth was propagated by the republican party and conservative news stations to make conservatives feel good about their votes for the dumb lady and McCain. Obama never sold himself as a savior and all but the most uneducated voted for him because they felt his administration would do a better job picking up the pieces from 30 years of reckless policy.

      But that's not why I wrote today. I wrote to rub it in. Obama got elected. Nah nah nah nah nah nah. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    6. Re:Kevin by kramulous · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's not sending us into debt, we're already in debt! It's amazing how the coalition fed us the bullshit of historical consecutive surpluses and 'fiscal conservatism' but managed to DOUBLE the national debt to a trillion dollars in ten years.

      This is after record taxation rates on the population (remember that the GST was meant to get rid of various taxes ... no wonder he promised never to move the GST to 11% ... Costello never needed to. How much after PAYG tax do you then end up paying on more taxes? Petrol? Milk? Bought a house in the last ten years? How much tax do you pay?) and a mining industry that brought in such huge amounts of cash from China and other developing nations but somehow the tax gained from that never found its way towards infrastructure or reducing the national debt.

      They are all the masters of spin. Feed with one hand and rob with the other.

      The filtering software was a first step that was deemed to be inadequate. They just got booted out before they could initiate secondary protocol.

      Apologies for getting an Insightful mod on my previous post. It never should have.

      --
      .
    7. Re:Kevin by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      Sending the government into debt is the most widely held view by economists on how you bloody well SHOULD fight a recession.

      But I suppose you're one of those nutters who believes we shouldn't borrow money at an interest rate of basically zero (rate - future inflation) while people lose their jobs.

      If it makes sense for companies with good future revenue and credit rating to borrow money to fuel growth why does it not make sense for governments to do the same when the private sector is incapable?

    8. Re:Kevin by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "DOUBLE the national debt to a trillion dollars in ten years"

      i'm not buying that without some kind of credible link. to my knowledge Costello paid off 100 billion in debt after the last labour government,and it took 10 years to do it. as for petrol, you were paying excise which is levied by STATE governments, which were all labour most of howards term. The same goes for stamp duty on houses - state government levied (and yes i have purchased a house). you never paid GST on milk, it was exempt as an essential food item just like fresh fruit,veg and preventative items like condoms http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.asp?doc=/content/13287.htm

      as for PAYG, or income tax, we are all paying less tax than ever before thanks to the previous government. Costello lowered the top tax bracket from 68% at 50,000 to 48% at 127,000. the lower brackets had even larger cuts.

      yes things like hospitals were left up to private enterprise to expand, i used to work in the medical industry and i can say both private AND government run hospitals are a shit fight. i don't really think more money from the government is going to fix it, it's going to take a reversal of peoples attitudes.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    9. Re:Kevin by twostix · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If you honestly believe the government will ever make good on that 'debt' by cutting the monetary supply in the future when things settle to bring our dollars buying power back to what it was before they fire up the printing presses, it's you who is the nutter.

      Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Lib, but I am torn on the package. See one half of me likes the idea of money in my pocket (yes short sighted I know) at this point in time. The other half looks at my little boys sleeping peacefully and feels mad as hell that the federal government, a bunch of old men are selling my innocent little men into debt so that those fools don't ever have to suffer. It feels like...theft, sorry can't help it, it just does.

    10. Re:Kevin by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      because they are planning to just give away 23 billion of it as hand outs, most of which i'm betting will be spent on booze/drugs/smokes/pokies? companies have a business plan that's going to make a return when they loan money, our government just spent 10billion on that stupid xmas bonus and they can't even say with certainty it saved a single job long term.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    11. Re:Kevin by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      Then you're thinking emotionally and not with your head, if governments are unable to act on a timeline longer than 4 years then they've got the same problem as the private sector and cannot act as a buffer.

    12. Re:Kevin by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      Actually the numbers from december are in, and we saw a significant trend spike that has been wholly attributed to the 10bn.

      Booze, smokes and pokies all have massive taxes on them, so if you're interested in the government recouping their money then that's a surefire hit. The idea that most people in Australia who make less than 100k are going to spend it on that is a bit absurd however.

    13. Re:Kevin by kramulous · · Score: 1

      You made me check my facts ... I was wrong.

      In 1996, the national debt was 298.8 Billion
      In 2008, the nation debt was $1032 Billion!

      The states didn't remove the taxes because the government didn't let the *full* money from the GST flow through to them.

      --
      .
    14. Re:Kevin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You fail
      You're an idiot if you think Household debt is actual Federal Government debt. If I borrow money for a house, it's my debt and overall it contributes to national debt but it's not actual Federal Government debt. I bet if you check you'll find most Government debt is from the states, and guess which parties run those these days?

    15. Re:Kevin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually the coalition never had plans for ISP based mandatory filtering. Their position was that filtering should be opt-in and was best performed on the PC

      C'mon, you're smarter than this.

    16. Re:Kevin by kramulous · · Score: 1

      If the federal government doesn't spend money on education, health and other public infrastructure, what do you think happens? The State governments and the private sector has to loan money to pay for those services. That is why you look at the National Debt. It encompasses everything - total in / total out.

      Like I said before, they are all masters of spin.

      --
      .
    17. Re:Kevin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kevin was never supposed to be our saviour, he was just a lot better than that ugly racist John Howard.

    18. Re:Kevin by Sapphon · · Score: 1

      "It's amazing how the coalition fed us the bullshit of historical consecutive surpluses and 'fiscal conservatism' but managed to DOUBLE the national debt to a trillion dollars in ten years."

      Dude, were you asleep during high school economics? National Debt = Government (Public) Debt + Household & Business (Private) Debt. If the Coalition did one thing right (and it may very well be one of the few things), it's eliminate the public, i.e. Government debt. Which they did through, yes, consecutive surpluses and fiscal conservatism.

      If the private sector wants to go and borrow bucketloads of money to buy cheap shit from Taiwan, that's not the government's fault. Or would you like the state to "direct" your spending via more taxes so that you don't increase the current account deficit? From there it would only a short hop to "directing" your internet usage.

      --
      Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    19. Re:Kevin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1996, the national debt was 298.8 Billion In 2008, the nation debt was $1032 Billion!

      Not that it changes the figures much but are you sure those are both in US or Australia dollars and not a hybrid?

    20. Re:Kevin by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      the states, and guess which parties run those these days?

      Except here in WA. And needless to say, our state government (in the absence of any real policies) has simply reverted to type and started kicking heads in the health/public services and unions. It's like they just can't help themselves.

      If you're as old as I am (ancient ;-)) you'll have seen it any number of times before, and it doesn't get any prettier.

    21. Re:Kevin by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      because they are planning to just give away 23 billion of it as hand outs...

      Regardless of how this money is spent, we shouldn't forget that this money has been taken from us and is otherwise sitting there unused.

      Although I've never been tempted to play pokies, a devil's advocate could say that if Joe Public uses that means to shed his disposable income, he has a better right to waste his own money than the government does.

    22. Re:Kevin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing how the coalition fed us the bullshit of historical consecutive surpluses and 'fiscal conservatism' but managed to DOUBLE the national debt to a trillion dollars in ten years.

      Are you kidding? The budget was in surplus for 6 financial years straight.

      I think you are referring to private-sector debt, which is by no means the responsibility of the government. People need to know that putting plasmas on the mortgage is a bad idea.

  3. OK guys here's what we'll do by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everytime one of our friends or relatives asks us about a problem with their internet our response shall be,

    "Oh that'd probably be the internet filter causing your drop-outs, thank Stephen Conroy"

    1. Re:OK guys here's what we'll do by KenMcM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like it. Let's, however, have them thank Kevin Rudd's Labor government. They're all responsible. We don't want to make it too easy for them to make Conroy the scapegoat.

    2. Re:OK guys here's what we'll do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be fair, everyone was under the assumption that filtering was going to be completely opt-in.

    3. Re:OK guys here's what we'll do by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I think i'll apply this to Phorm in the UK, should it ever arrive.

      Might not need to, though, should the EU do something right.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:OK guys here's what we'll do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because most people will have a clue what that even means.
      Some people don't even know where the on button is...

      Just say something like "the government are blocking some of your internet because they think you are too childish to browse the internet"
      THAT will annoy them more. (even if it is true)

    5. Re:OK guys here's what we'll do by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Although note in the UK, we already have internet filtering from the Internet Watch Foundation (think of the recent fiasco with Wikipedia), so we could blame it on that :)

    6. Re:OK guys here's what we'll do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So one might say it's a Rudd-y stupid idea? /ducks

  4. Re:first post by grantek · · Score: 1

    I know what a secure proxy is, you insensitive clod!

  5. Re:You know... by QuantumG · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well, you're almost right. See, the English are a bunch of pussies and they run the country by suppressing the Irish (who made up most the convicts you mention).

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  6. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skynet is operaConnection reset by peer

  7. VPN by nthitz · · Score: 1

    Just VPN your way out and huzzah!

    1. Re:VPN by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to create a Firefox plug-in that detects the filtering and automatically routes around it with Tor or even just a simple proxy site.

      It would be even better if there was some way to find a list of sites being filtered. The only thing I can think of would be some kind of collective spidering effort. Publish the list on Wikileaks. Show how stupid it is.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:VPN by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Oh dont worry... Wikileaks will be filtered too. For your own safety ofcourse!

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
  8. Thanks Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For putting the country back into debt and censoring the internet.

    1. Re:Thanks Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than Howard The Jew saving every penny while our infrastructure (eg hospitals) went down the drain.

    2. Re:Thanks Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and whats spending money you don't have going to do for our hospitals, you dim witted fool.

    3. Re:Thanks Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, this might be a long shot, but perhaps:

      increase the productivity of the population?

      Or do you think the average hospital visit costs more than it saves? If so, I suppose you have some argument as to why Australia shouldn't immediately close all its hospitals?

      You should run for health minister, jewboy.

  9. Whose fault is that? by dogganos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its people's fault. Plain and simple.

    Because after this tragic act of censorship, the people in the next elections, while having the opportunity to vote down the current government, most probably will not. Even if they do, they will most probably vote for another party that has most probably done something equally bad when they were government.

    It's called mass amnesia, and its the reason why our democracies are in fact ""democracies"".

    1. Re:Whose fault is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Look at the US.

    2. Re:Whose fault is that? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Its people's fault. Plain and simple.

      Because after this tragic act of censorship, the people in the next elections, while having the opportunity to vote down the current government, most probably will not. Even if they do, they will most probably vote for another party that has most probably done something equally bad when they were government.

      So put dogganos firmly in the category of "Everyone else is stupid so everything sucks and there's nothing we can do about it ever might as well eat worms and die" category. Do you have any suggestions, beyond realizing how stupid we all are?

    3. Re:Whose fault is that? by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      I disagree, the people chose a government that were going to investigate an optional filter. Who was to know that it was going to change.

      Then there is the Alcopop tax, to curb binge drinking in young adults. Well all pre-mixed spirits have become so expensive that said young adults are turning to post mixing there drinks, so instead of getting a controlled, albeit high amount, they are getting an uncontrolled and in most cases stronger mix, leading to an actual increase of binge drinking in young adults.

      Kevin Rudd is a poser, he knew how to put on a good show, but as a leader I really do wonder what he is doing to _lead_ his party when you have halfwits like Conroy running around like a headless chook claiming that our kids are at risk and the sky is falling!!!!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    4. Re:Whose fault is that? by dogganos · · Score: 1

      Well actually this is the category I put it into. Most people are indeed stupid. People have the potential to master their fates, and if they choose not to do it and always stay like sheep, I have the right to categorize them as stupid.

      My suggestion is that everybody should do what I do: I vote only for people who consistently show competence, and I try to convince my environment to vote only likewise. Democracies have been put into a lot of """"'s because people abuse their democratic rights by voting like idiots.

    5. Re:Whose fault is that? by Hucko · · Score: 1

      right. Now name one Australian politician that has shown an approximation of competence in the past twenty years.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    6. Re:Whose fault is that? by dogganos · · Score: 1

      I don't have a clue! I am from the other hemisphere. But I don't think that there are no new persons in politics. Vote for them. Why vote for the old known scumbags? For the surprise? I hope you did not write that as an alibi for voting those old scumbags...

    7. Re:Whose fault is that? by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Heh, I voted for Rudd... the 'new bloke'. Still better than the previous... just not good.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    8. Re:Whose fault is that? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      personally I make voting decisions based on taxes, competence to run our public services, and whether or not I trust the PM with the nuclear arsenal.

      I think its sad that top of some peoples list for voting priorities is whether or not they will always be able to torrent stuff, which is 99% of peoples objections to internet filtering.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    9. Re:Whose fault is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Australia has a 99% voter turn out because it is enforced by law. So rest assured that the majority of the population will be voting.

  10. Great hospitality by samuraiz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know a lot of Chinese nationals have been immigrating to your shores lately, Australia, but this is the wrong way to make them feel at home.

    1. Re:Great hospitality by cadu · · Score: 1

      "emigrating to" or "immigrating from", please pick one or we won't be able to parse it correctly XD /me ducks as the anti-language-nazis throw bombs :)

    2. Re:Great hospitality by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Pedantic cadu is a pedant.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:Great hospitality by cadu · · Score: 1

      meh ;)

  11. It's begun by shungi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well - I was wondering why the net's a bit slower today... Thought it was the random fluctuations I get from time to time but no... Sigh... Sad thing is, you mention this to people here and it's oh... Well, kinda bad, but meh..

    1. Re:It's begun by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      uh, no it hasn't.
      The trial will begin when the ISPs have got the equipment, and Conroy's announcement didn't say how soon that would be. Not only that, but unless you've read the article, there's an excellent chance that you're not using one of the ISPs taking part.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    2. Re:It's begun by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Er...no.

      The ISP's haven't received the equipment yet, and even when they do, it's entirely opt-in. If you do nothing, your internet will remain exactly the same as it is now.

  12. I don't understand by aerthling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand these alleged Christians' obsession with force and control. Forcing your own will upon someone else is the very antithesis of Christianity.

    1. Re:I don't understand by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow, you're right! Shit, how did they miss this! And this is just a new phenomenon too!

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you're not a history student ;)

      Yes it flies in the face of their alleged morals, but it certainly isn't out of character :(

    3. Re:I don't understand by Korbeau · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're very right sir. We very much prefer nice comfy chairs.

    4. Re:I don't understand by aerthling · · Score: 1

      I apologise if my comment was overly obvious. It's only recently become apparent to me.

    5. Re:I don't understand by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Forcing your own will upon someone else is the very antithesis of Christianity.

      No. The sentiment "Mind your own business" is not really a strong theme in Christianity at all.

    6. Re:I don't understand by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      If you actually ask a bunch of Christians about what they think, rather than "Christian lobby groups" you will get very different answers. I'm a Christian and I am strongly opposed to this plan. Or any net filtering. Surly this is against the Australian constitution or bill or rights or something.

      Of course the media lumps everyone together.

      But I don't care who you are, if you are in politics I am wary of trusting you.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    7. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On one hand, you're strongly opposed to the censorship. On the other, you actively (by definition as a "true Christian") a) discriminate and marginalise certain groups. b) let yourself be counted as a vote-buying statistic (ie. Joe is a Christian, therefore by default he _must_ back policy ABC on the basis of his theology) Why not just stand tall in your belief in Jesus, but dissociate yourself from the term "Christian"?

    8. Re:I don't understand by huit · · Score: 1

      no bill of rights over here :(

    9. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia does not have an American-style Bill of Rights. It does have a Constitution that grants some rights, but freedom of speech and freedom of internet access are not among them.

    10. Re:I don't understand by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      Why not just stand tall in your belief in Jesus, but dissociate yourself from the term "Christian"?

      I think the idea is that believing in sprites and fairies and invisible men who rule from the sky requires some sense of company--or you end up awaken to the fact that your beliefs are a little nuts. I've always assumed that this is why they invented religion, to make it a group activity.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    11. Re:I don't understand by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 1

      Australia does not have a bill of rights. Our courts have interpreted our constitution to read that we have "implied rights" but there is nothing set down in black and white, unfortunately

      --
      I am not stubborn. I am right!
    12. Re:I don't understand by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Anyone for fluffy cushions?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    13. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm. Plain and simple. No, no it isn't.

    14. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people doing this aren't christians. But christians make an easy scapegoat.

    15. Re:I don't understand by phosphorylate+this · · Score: 1

      Much research has been done by HEREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) into writing one for Australia. Not sure where it has led or if Rudd wants to introduce it.

      Not that the research I saw had provisions for unfiltered interent access - maybe it would be interesting to have a "bill-of-rights" written in the modern age. Can't help thinking in this day of spin that it would largely be a fluff-document.

      Although I suppose even after the American bill of rights was written the abolition of slavery remained a century away and the clearances of the Indians wouldn't stop for 200 years. Perhaps all such works start off as shallow and only become meaningful as they are proven useful with time.

    16. Re:I don't understand by kingturkey · · Score: 1

      There's probably a tenuous argument that it breaches the implied right to freedom of political communication that the High Court found in the constitution but there aren't very many rights actually in the constitution and we don't have a Bill of Rights.

    17. Re:I don't understand by Emphron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people who are most pissed off by the Christian right are this of us who *are* Christians, but see issues like this as frankly silly. I have no problem with anyone looking at porn; I have huge problems with the fact that 6,000 children a day die from drinking contaminated water. On the one hand pictures of genitals, the universal equipment of every human, on the other hand, dead children and grieving parents because the developed world withholds its resources. Which is the more important? it's a no brainer! Just because I disagree with the Christian right doesn't mean that I should stop identifying myself as a Christian. The Christian faith is no more single voiced than any other faith, or any other large scale grouping. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean that I have to agree with any and every other person who self-defines as a Christian any more than the fact that I define myself as a socialist means that I agree with every other socialist about every other issue. I may completely fail to understand how anyone can read the Gospels, or the prophetic tradition (Especially Amos, Micah and Isaiah) and not conclude that the key ethical issues are around social justice, but the fact is large numbers of people do just that. My strong suspicion is that faith traditions act like amplifiers. If you are concerned with control and repression then you can find faith-based rhetoric to support that. If you are primarily motivated by liberation and social justice then you can find faith-based rhetoric to support that too. If I ask the question what does the Jesus revealed in the Gospel support, the answer seems pretty clear to me. But we all have to make up our own mind - and ultimately we are all responsible for the use we make of our faith.

    18. Re:I don't understand by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      There's a fine line between saving other people's souls (which is mandatory in the Christian faith) and controlling all media to keep it squeaky clean (which is what Christians bring to the party).

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    19. Re:I don't understand by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      This is a good point. In the UK, I followed the progress of the recent law that criminalises possession of "extreme" pr0n involving consenting adults. It was noticeable that the Government consultation involved large numbers of religious lobby groups (not just Christian - there was a response from the "National Council of Hindu Temples"), needless to say arguing fully in support of a law, despite them having no expertise in this area, or any indication that their reponse is representative. But among my friends, I know plenty of Christians who think the law is mad (and none who support it).

      Similarly, when there's an issue involving religion in the media, the organisation Christian Voice is asked to give their opinion. They'd more accurately be called Stephen Green's Voice, as it's just one person spouting his right wing fundamentalist views, which (I hope) are in no way representative of Christians.

    20. Re:I don't understand by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      If by antithesis you mean canon, then yes it is the antithesis.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    21. Re:I don't understand by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      It is because religion was never about spirituality and making the world a better place. Religion is always about command and control structures. They command you to do certain things by saying that when you die you'll goto (Good Place) or (Bad Place) depending on what you did while you were alive. They control you by controlling the structures within the religion that issue the commands.

      Thou Shalt Not Kill - Unless ordered by the Pope to go kill Muslims to secure Jerusalem for the Christians AKA. The Crusades are just one example of religion being used to command and control a populace based on religion to do things that under the ordinary structure would have had them all going to hell but the pope went and said 'God wants you to kill them!' and everyone believed they needed to go do it.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    22. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read "The golden compass"

    23. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those that would impose their morality on others substitute a deeper knowledge of self with a delusional sense of self-righteousness.

    24. Re:I don't understand by jhantin · · Score: 1

      Look closely enough, take things out of context and maybe squint a little, and you'll find scriptural evidence for any old idea. There's even a wiki page of scriptural evidence for eXtreme Programming.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    25. Re:I don't understand by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      One Christians view are no more representative of all Christians than one Atheist view is representative of all Atheists. Of course. Now any people that want to be the Political arm......... It is never pretty.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  13. Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm going to venture a guess that tor is going to become very popular in Australia very soon...

    Though, I'm sure some teenagers will figure out how to bypass those filters even more simplistically. Good on them. Say no to a censored Internet!

    1. Re:Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convinient how the government is compilling a list of illegal websites for them to access to.

  14. Better to dump the ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do complicated things with VPNs when you can simply dump the ISP? It's still possible, sends a clear signal, and if people start using VPNs en masse to get around the filtering, they'll simply filter that as well. And you want a clear signal that filtering isn't wanted before all choice is gone.

    1. Re:Better to dump the ISP by who+knows+my+name · · Score: 1

      I'd have thought a filter would be good if you wanted to send a clear signal...

      --
      Nothing to see here.
    2. Re:Better to dump the ISP by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      The problem is all the ISPs (except iPrimus) are absolutely tiny, so it is in fact impossible for customers to dump them "en masse" - there is no mass of customers to begin with. Even iPrimus is pretty small fry by ISP standards, really. The only large ISP that was interested in participating was iiNet, and they're not involved in this phase for some reason. Smells fishy to me; I suspect Michael Malone was intending to provide actual feedback about the filtering, and that's not what they're after.

      Either that or they couldn't implement a filter that wouldn't bring a regular-sized ISP to its knees, so they had to find ISPs with less than a dozen active customers to trial it on.

    3. Re:Better to dump the ISP by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Some of the head guys working for iiNet are former Defence Signals Directorate drones (And other 3 letter agencies). Westnet was a small upstart bought out by iiNet, the bozo running that little outfit was one of them. Never, ever, rule out the old boys network up at the top.

    4. Re:Better to dump the ISP by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying 100 customers leaving a 300 customer ISP isn't "en masse"? Just how much market share do they need before it becomes an "en masse" leave?

      You seem to not get how this should work. Smaller ISPs with 500 customers getting stung by just 50 customers leaving sends a MUCH more clear message than 300 leaving an ISP with 200,000+.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:Better to dump the ISP by kingturkey · · Score: 1

      The trial is opt-in on the customers' part and one of the ISPs actually provides a 'clean feed' as its service, so the customers there actually want to be censored. If/when it passes the trial stage then it will be universal and compulsory so there won't be an ISP to switch to.

  15. Hong Kong is facing the same problem by razgriz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Christian Groups in HK are trying to push web filtering on ISP to 'protect their children'. Those groups are nuts. They even think David (Michelangelo) is porn and should be banned. We will protest against it on 15 Feb. Sorry for my poor English.

    1. Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Christian lobby Groups in HK are trying to push web filtering on ISP to 'protect their children'.

      There fixed that for you.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    2. Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem by Inda · · Score: 1

      Your English is fine. It reads fine. It's better than most of the posts I've read today.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    3. Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lots of vague allegations against "Christians" here. May we know specifically which groups are supposed to be in favour of this? Most Christians are on the receiving end of politically correct censorship and are very jumpy about this.

    4. Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Adults who believe in fairy tales should be given therapy, not power.

    5. Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem by SpatialVacancy · · Score: 0

      your English is better than most.

    6. Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

      Tough shit.

      I haven't heard of a single Christian group speaking up against this type of foolishness.

      If you stay silent while other members of your group blather, then expect to be tarred with same brush.

      --
      --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    7. Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem by AioKits · · Score: 1

      In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. - MLK Jr.

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    8. Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem by Meski · · Score: 1

      What poor English? Don't apologise for it, it's great!

    9. Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Members of the group? What the hell does that mean. Some dude goes up to the newspapers and says I'm a Christian and this new filter stuff rocks!

      There are no requirements to "join" these groups and political groups are about politics. Not religion, they just use that as an angle.

      And perhaps the ones that opposed to the censorship (like me) join the anti censorship groups etc rather than starting *another* Christian lobby group. In fact i don't know a single person in favor of net censorship, and that includes Christians, atheists, and even the odd Kiwi.

      Or more likely perhaps you only listen to what you want to hear.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  16. Re:You know... by Starayo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I blame the Americans, for their culture of inactivity they brought over here back in the war.

    Oh, who am I kidding, we're all lazy. And our general populous is just as ignorant as the American general populous.

    I have not read TFA, due to the aforementioned laziness, but I think the summary misses some of the biggest news in regard to the filter trials: every damn ISP on the list (with the exception of iPrimus) are tiny little no-name setups that likely have customers numbering in the hundreds. Two major ISPs with large customer bases, Optus and iiNet, were excluded because, I would assume, their data would reflect poorly on the filtering scheme.

    These "real world" trials are a sham, and Conroy's a bastard.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  17. Note: Not just Australia's largest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But the 3 largest in Australia -- Optus and iiNet as well as Telstra are not taking part in these trials. How the hell are they going to get any accurate data if they're simply using 6 small ISPs? What next, they just flick on the switch for all ISPs and it it should work fine?

    1. Re:Note: Not just Australia's largest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just that they didn't go with the largest, but apart from iprimus, they seemed to have picked the smallest ones that no one has heard of.

      netforce is not an ISP, but seems to resell VPN services. 2 are very minor business only ISPs (possibly again just resellers). webshield already sells a (heavily) filtered feed, and tech2u is an overpriced single town ISP (family run business providing internet to other families in the community perhaps).

      It is a real disgrace that iinet was not included, but the government doesn't want to run a real trial that will return negative results.

      They have conducted 4-5 studies (paper based until now) of internet filtering since around 2000 until they finally found somebody (Enex testlabs) who would give them the answer they wanted and have been the only consultancy to get follow on work.

    2. Re:Note: Not just Australia's largest... by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 1

      Sen Conjob and Chairman KRudd don't want accurate data.
      they want data that supports their cause.

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    3. Re:Note: Not just Australia's largest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the 3 largest in Australia -- Optus and iiNet as well as Telstra are not taking part in these trials.

      iiNet is taking part.

    4. Re:Note: Not just Australia's largest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iiNet is in the trial. They doing it "just to prove filtering sucks".

  18. Apologies to Banjo Paterson by mudshark · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once a jolly swagman plugged into the internets,
    Under the shade of a coolibah tree,
    And he sang as he watched and waited as he torrented
    "Don't go deploying your filters on me".

    "Deploying your filters, deploying your filters
    Don't go deploying your filters on me"
    And he sang as he watched and waited as he torrented,
    "Don't go deploying your filters on me".

    Down came the content speeding through the internets,
    Up jumped the swagman and viewed it with glee,
    And he sang as he shoved that content on his backup disk,
    "You'll be a-wasting your filters on me".

    "Wasting your filters, wasting your filters
    Don't go a-wasting your filters on me"
    And he sang as he shoved that content on his backup disk,
    "Don't go a-wasting your filters on me".

    Up rode the Conroy, mounted on his ISP,
    Down came the troopers, one, two, three,
    "Where's that jolly content you downloaded so illicitly?
    You've been evading the filters from me."

    "Evading the filters, evading the filters
    You've been evading the filters from me."
    "Where's that jolly content you downloaded so illicitly?
    You've been evading the filters from me."

    Up jumped the swagman and handed them his backup disk,
    "You'll never crack my encryption", said he,
    And his packets are tunneled and proxied through the internets,
    "You'll never get your bloody filters on me".

    "Your bloody filters, your bloody filters
    You'll never get your bloody filters on me".
    And his packets are tunneled and proxied through the internets,
    "You'll never get your bloody filters on me".

    --
    In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
    1. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by sams67 · · Score: 1

      "Where's that jolly content you downloaded so illicitly?" Sheer genius!

    2. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by aerthling · · Score: 1

      That was brilliant. Thankyou.

    3. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      And the original for anyone interested. I laughed hard, well done!

      Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong,
      Under the shade of a Coolibah tree,
      And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boil,
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

      Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda,
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me,
      And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boil
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

      Down came a jumbuck to drink at that billabong
      Up jumped the swagman and grabbed him with glee,
      And he sang as he shoved that jumbuck in his tucker bag
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

      Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda,
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me,
      And he sang as he shoved that jumbuck in his tucker bag
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

      Up rode the squatter mounted on his thorough-bred
      Down came the troopers One Two Three
      Whose that jolly jumbuck you've got in your tucker bag
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

      Waltzing Matilda Waltzing Matilda
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me
      Whose that jolly jumbuck you've got in your tucker-bag
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

      Up jumped the swagman sprang in to the billabong
      You'll never catch me alive said he,
      And his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

      Waltzing Matilda Waltzing Matilda
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me
      And his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong
      You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    4. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by mudshark · · Score: 1

      Well, it's empathy from across the ditch. We're getting some pretty shocking ineptness from our governing idiots here in NZ, too.

      But at least we're not getting the fires of hell burning entire towns. Chins up, Aussies. I sincerely hope you beat this.

      --
      In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
    5. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Excellent. Parody, satire & humour in general has always been one of the best ways of showing up these types of ridiculous auhoritarian practises IMHO.

    6. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by kramulous · · Score: 1

      Wow!

      --
      .
    7. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by kramulous · · Score: 1

      For those who WTF'ed at the above ballad, this video will give a little insight to what it means to Australians

      Bledisloe?

      It's the only response we have to the New Zealand Haka.

      --
      .
    8. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by wdef · · Score: 1

      Excellent LOL

    9. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should be giving that whole $125.8 million to bushfire victims in vic and flood victims in qld.

    10. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by shungi · · Score: 1

      A great choice of song. Banjo's Waltzing Matilda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzing_Matilda#Lyrics is an unofficial anthem in this country, and harking to our convict heritage, it brings to life the relaxed, disdainfully rebelliousness of Australia. That attitude, which has served us well, is now under threat in so many ways, of which this filter nonsense is but one. Also ironically, the version most people sing contains a very early instance of product placement for the Billy Tea company (see link above). A great choice of for a parody.

    11. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by Meski · · Score: 1

      Heh. Just what I needed, last thing on a Friday, thanks :) Sorry I used all my mod points.

    13. Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson by ekhben · · Score: 1

      Bravo.

  19. Where's is by Korbeau · · Score: 1

    Yahoo Serious when you need him?!

    1. Re:Where's is by shungi · · Score: 1

      Negotiating with Microsoft

  20. Providers by Techman83 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Webshieldis one of the providers participating, here is some of the feed back from their site

    David from South Australia I would like to say that; I am so happy using Webshield because I don't have to worry about what the children are doing, passwords or anything. I was constantly keeping tabs on things before, but now I know Webshield is doing it for me.

    Angie from South Australia Before I used Webshield, I would constantly be checking my children on the internet, worried and anxious about what they might 'accidently' find. But now with Webshield, I can leave them to their homework, etc and not stress."

    Julie from Queensland With 2 boys approaching teenage years and a husband who works late into the night at times, we (and I say âweâ(TM) on behalf of my husband as well) are glad for the peace of mind webshield provides. With pornography and all that it leads too, sweeping through families â" even strong families â" as it is channelled right into our houses, wreaking absolute heartache and havoc, we can only be glad for protection.

    Those three quotes are quite probably the most disturbing potential outcomes from such a system.

    The brutal truth of the matter is that what ever you can _easily_ find on the web via http is far less dangerous than Predators lurking on Friend face or Instant Messaging, which cannot be filtered. (You could block them entirely, but could you imagine the uproar of Millions of people then!). And wanting to block "Unwanted Material" this screams scope creep in a big way.

    I am an Australian, and the B/S the Dis-Honourable Senator Conroy continues to feed us is quite alarming. I have met the man in person and witnessed first hand his obvious technical ineptness.

    I for one will be fighting tooth and nail to inform everyone I know and I am already geared up at home to "circumvent" any filter.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    1. Re:Providers by zwei2stein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chances are, they are not real quotes.

      I hope so. I really do.

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    2. Re:Providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do these paranoid parents this is going to happen if their kids see a bit of porn? Will they turn into were-children, raping and eating everything in their path?

    3. Re:Providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Julie from Queensland With 2 boys approaching teenage years and a husband who works late into the night at times, we (and I say ÃweÃ(TM) on behalf of my husband as well) are glad for the peace of mind webshield provides. With pornography and all that it leads too, sweeping through families Ã" even strong families Ã" as it is channelled right into our houses, wreaking absolute heartache and havoc, we can only be glad for protection.

      She means by this that she caught her husband watching porn. This made her hysteric and insecure (is he watching porn cos I'm ugly?).

      Teenagers will find a way of looking at boobies and asses. We found in my days, and we didn't have internets back then.

    4. Re:Providers by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Chances are likely, but if you've ever listened to Bernadette McMenamin chances are I fear, that there are people that truly believe garbage like this.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    5. Re:Providers by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Gah, I really should check my links Bernadette McMenamin

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    6. Re:Providers by registrar · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, don't beat up on webshield, it isn't their fault Conroy is a bastard. If the marketing-quote-people like a filter, let them buy it. Don't be too disturbed if consenting adults use a filter in private. Nobody accidentally signs a contract with webshield etc. If you don't like how other people bring up their kids, tough. I think the world is a better place because of the choice webshield etc present.

      I'd be more concerned if webshield's filter doesn't work the way it's marketed. That might border on misleading advertising.

    7. Re:Providers by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I recommend people to Webshield and even suggested to Conroy himself that he setup a website and education package to promote the option for people that want it.

      But along with that and I am led to believe even in Webshield's ToS that minors should not be left unsupervised. Even still, it is exactly the sort of mentality the government should not be promoting and along with that, why the heck should my Tax dollars go to a filtering solution that I don't want and is already available to those that do want it.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    8. Re:Providers by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Actually, the scary thing to me about those quotes is the attitude of "Well, I had to keep an eye on my kids before but thanks to Webshield I can just dump them on the Internet and ignore what they're doing! Thanks for being a substitute parent for me Webshield! Parenting is too hard for me to do."

      Seriously, filters are a great tool for individuals to apply, but they aren't perfect. They'll inevitably block some good things and let some bad things through. (Specifically what depends on your definition of "good" and "bad.") Just because you stick a filter on your Internet connection doesn't mean you're freed from parenting responsibilities. You should still monitor what your kids do online and (even more importantly) talk with them about what they're doing. Let them know what's safe to do online and what isn't. Teach them how to handle getting unwanted content or interaction (porn pop-ups or some creep on Facebook trying to "friend" them). If you do your job right, then you won't need filters. Your kids will steer themselves clear of the bad things, towards the good things, and will know how to react when/if they accidentally encounter something bad. Even the best filter is no replacement for good parenting.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Providers by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, most responsible parents teach their kids not to accept candy from strangers, look both ways before crossing the street etc. IMO the internet is just as dangerous and should be treated the same way.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    10. Re:Providers by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >I am so happy using Webshield because I don't have to worry about what the children are doing, passwords or anything. I was constantly keeping tabs on things before, but now I know Webshield is doing it for me.

      Hahahahaaaaaa! oh that's beautiful.
      Here's the most interesting thing about bad security: it makes you *less* secure because you think you're okay so you stop paying attention. When those kids find a way through, David from South Australia won't know, because he isn't constantly keeping tabs on things.
      False positives suck for people who are trying to look up information on breast cancer. False negatives suck even more, when parents are incorrectly thinking that their kids are being kept safe from that kangaroo bestiality video that's been making the rounds.

      >The brutal truth of the matter is that what ever you can _easily_ find on the web via http is far less dangerous than Predators lurking on Friend face

      Also a far over-rated danger. I don't know the numbers for Australia but in the US, in . Your kid is more likely to be killed in a car crash.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    11. Re:Providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those three quotes are quite probably the most disturbing

      That's because they're shills. I thought I was reading dialog from an infomercial.

    12. Re:Providers by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Also a far over-rated danger. I don't know the numbers for Australia but in the US, in . Your kid is more likely to be killed in a car crash.

      Quite probably the case, but there is still a danger and that danger is best mitigated by monitoring and educating children.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    13. Re:Providers by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      A: my dumb reply shows the importance of actually reading what 'preview' presents. (It originally talked about how 199 out of every 200 abductions is by family members, not strangers; abduction rates by strangers are an order of magnitude lower than car deaths.)

      B: I agree, but at what point do you draw the line -- educating your kid about nuclear annihilation, meteor strikes, getting run through by unicorn horns? I have a fairly good idea of what the top 20 causes of death/injury are, and anything that isn't on that list is pretty difficult to justify spending a lot of time on.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    14. Re:Providers by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      That line is objective and something that is the responsibility of Parents. I used to work for a school and the only kids we had trouble with were the ones with Parents that were completely unwilling to believe their child could do wrong or just didn't give a rats ass whats_so_ever! I know when I did wrong at school, my father would talk to me about it and by time I was nearing the end of high school he knew enough about me to know when a Teacher was being unreasonable or when to punish me for doing the wrong thing.

      There is no way I am going to let the government tell me how to raise my inevitable children and if the filter goes through, my connection will be on a permanent proxy, so they will receive unfiltered access, of which I will be monitoring and educating them about.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    15. Re:Providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were probably entries in a contest to win a years supply of beer by saying how Webshield has improved your life.

    16. Re:Providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The middle quote is almost certainly real. The first one reeks of the kind of stupidity I expect from the technologically illiterate; as such it is a plausible quote. The last one is the most disturbing -- here we have a woman who is concerned about pornography "sweeping through families even, strong families, as it is channelled right into our houses, wreaking absolute heartache and havoc". A reaction totally out of proportion to the problem at hand. Yes, even young children may end up inadvertently seeing porn. Seeing a breast or even sex is not the end of the world, I'm personally more concerned shock sites -- but of course our government (in its infinite wisdom) has exacerbated that problem. Christmas Island's revocation of Goatse.cx means that people need to filter dozens of mirrors as opposed to merely the original site's IP.

    17. Re:Providers by dudpixel · · Score: 0

      I happen to know the owners of Webshield and whilst they are very nice people and well-meaning, I disagree with the marketing/concept behind webshield (and others). I can see a benefit for concerned parents in having an internet provider that blocks all illicit content, BUT such a system DOESN'T EXIST. Not at webshield, not anywhere.

      The problem with these content filtering systems is that they ignore this and wrongly fool their customers into thinking the internet is now safe for their children so that they dont need to monitor it. Admittedly they do offer a "whitelist-only" solution but who wants that?

      I'm all for every household and every parent putting in place their own filtering and their own guidelines for internet use in their family.

      Build a safe home out of trust, not out of fear!

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    18. Re:Providers by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Lol. What's really funny is that it's a false sense of security. Webshield relies on some pretty basic URL/IP filtering that any teen with half a brain could get around in 5 seconds.

      So you sign up to a 'safe' ISP so you don't have to watch your kids anymore. And as a result, your kids are now unsupervised and actually download MORE porn than they ever could have before.

    19. Re:Providers by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      What's so wrong with taking candy from strangers? It's very unlikely to be poisoned, and is a shitty drug distribution vector, not to mention the kids will be spooked when they feel the high. I don't get it.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  21. Tying the Tube Tyer's Up? by itsybitsy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There must be some way to bypass the tube tying that these folks in the governments around the world are doing. Yes, sure there are snoop blockers and other web sites that enable encrypted bypassing of restrictions but State based Freedom Limiting Terrorists have figured out that firewalls exist. I'm wondering about legal means to assault these State Based Terrorists who continue to assault our freedoms including our freedoms of communication.

    Sure it's likely different in each country due to the differences in laws but there must be strategies that will work across the entire planet to protect the masses Natural rights to free communications.

    One idea is the open project to monitor ALL GOVERNMENT AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, STAFF and POLITICIANS and publish their movements, their activities, their lives. Millions of Little Brothers watching the members of the Big Brother control freak cult (aka members of any group that considers itself a State or Government at any level).

    The purpose in part is to expose the hypocracy of these members of the governments but it's also to let them know that they are being watched.

    Who watches the watchers? The population must be the ones who watch the watchers. This is why all public business must be in the public domain for it to be valid public business, otherwise it's just the work of "terrorists pretending to be the State"!

    ps. If I vanish you'll know why.

    1. Re:Tying the Tube Tyer's Up? by Stroot · · Score: 1

      Why not totally disconnect Australia until they remove the filter.

  22. Australia's Tubes Are About To Be Tied by Panaflex · · Score: 1

    First, the little penguin bites Linus, and now it bites the internet!!

    --
    I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  23. Idiots by Mystery00 · · Score: 1

    They should be spending that money on improving our internet instead. Doesn't seem like they want any votes in the next election.

    --
    "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
    1. Re:Idiots by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      They should be spending that money on improving our internet instead.

      Well, that would mean actually fulfilling a promise rather than sitting on their hands. Can't have that.

  24. p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like it or not, when all of you geeks become parents, either you will spend 95% of your time manually filtering your child's on-line access, buy closed-source software from some "very dependable" company or be a very bad parent.

    And thinking, that 7yrs old can filter their own content is making you the last - bad parent.

    yes, any censure is bad, but if you think, that there is none in today's mainstream medias, you are deadly wrong.

    The Australians are only one of the first (of the "developed" countries) to go live. They will fail, as the geeks (without girlfriends, hence without children) will unite. And the gov. will make some mistake of filtering political content and the wall will fall. But after 10 yrs, others will pick it up, modify the idea, put gov. bodies (with a lot of good payed jobs for ageing geeks) to control the wall and it will stand.

    I the wall will be political or not? Time will time. Possibly it will bring some "politically unideal censorships". You know what? I'd rather live in such a world, than in a world, where my 7yrs old daughter asks: "Oh daddy, what's an ENEMA and how can it enhance my backdoor fun?"

    Don't get me wrong, TV with their crime channel is as bad as p0rn on the net. But hey, life is not fair (TV have their lobbiests, as do Internet companies selling p0rn these days). But why not taking it one step at a time, rather than not
        taking any steps?

    But a lot of arguing shall be done first, before such a plan will be fully deployed. That's for sure (egoistic geeks, strong lobbies for internet companies on one side and excetric religios idiots and political manipulators on the other) . That's almost case for any now days ideological war: idiots VS idiots, normal people standing by and taking collateral.

    1. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by daveime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I thought that censoring what my 7 year watches would be MY responsibility as a parent. Turns out you can just get the government to do it for free. Who'da thunk it ?

      Just turn OFF the damn TV, parent your OWN kids, and stop spoiling the fun for the rest of us who ARE old enough and mature enough to decide what we watch.

    2. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      when all of you geeks become parents, either you will spend 95% of your time manually filtering your child's on-line access, buy closed-source software from some "very dependable" company or be a very bad parent.

      I can tell you first-hand (as a parent and someone from a "very dependable company") that Internet filtering is not all it's cracked up to be. The filters are simply not accurate enough to rely on for home use; there are sites out there which deliberately try and remain unfiltered. There are a LOT of ways to get around them, depending on the tech. I can tell you that none of the companies that I know of are perfect. The government's expensive testing even proved that. The only reason Internet filtering works in schools and businesses is group mentality. Students and employees start to think they're being watched and tend to avoid doing things that are inappropriate lest they be found out and others find out what they're doing.

      Porn is not a problem. If you're letting a young child out onto the Internet unsupervised you're a fucking moron. You are the problem in that case. Plain and simple. Are you so fucking stupid you let them swim in a pool without watching them too? I bet it'll be the government's fault for not when they drown! Do you take them to large events (sporting ones perhaps) and let them run around where you can't see them? Oh, Uncle Sam should have protected them there too because you were too fucking lazy to!

      Being a parent is not the job of the gumbiment. Being a parent is your job, and I've got some news for you shit-stick; it's a full time job. I know this because I am a parent and it never ends. It may be hard work, but it's also great fun and a real rush, knowing you're molding and shaping them into responsible little versions of you.

      *end rant*

      I make no apologies for flying off the rails. It sickens me to the very core that some people actually think they shouldn't have to look after their own children.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    3. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      like it or not, when all of you geeks become parents, either you will spend 95% of your time manually filtering your child's on-line access, buy closed-source software from some "very dependable" company or be a very bad parent.

      Why does no one ever demand actual evidence of harm from people like you? You claim that all of these dire consequences will arise from allowing your children unfettered access to information, and that we, as a society, will have to accommodate your beliefs. We've heard it before, over and over, for a large part of a generation now.

      If you actually had to cite concrete, peer-reviewed, reproducible studies demonstrating the societal benefits of draconian ISP-level censorship before your position was taken seriously, it'd be amusing. Because such a requirement would leave you gasping and sputtering and waving your hands, unable to point to any evidence that children are actually harmed by media content. Yet, for some reason, people with your opinion are exempt from such requirements.

      So... let's see that evidence, shall we?

    4. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by Maelwryth · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Really? It sickens me to the core that children are so mollycoddled.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    5. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The only reason Internet filtering works in schools and businesses is group mentality.

      That is so wrong. Take websense and category based filters. From here, I can't even log in to /., let alone visit any site that isn't academic or news related if the site in question is older than 48 hours or so.

      Once a filter gets large enough, it has enough data coming in to quickly block and site or service the settings would deem...inappropriate.

      I mean, you can block the websense bot from categorizing your site using .htaccess - but damn do they have a lot of bots. And yes, they ignore the robots.txt file.

      -Kyreas, who can't login due to a filter.

    6. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by twostix · · Score: 1

      Just a couple of nitpics for you there old mate...

      A) I have two children aged 1 and 8 and another on the way. Which makes me a parent, so no you are not special and you don't get to corner any sort of moral high ground in this debate.
      B) If in your household it's possible for your seven year old daughter to come across content like you mention then your already a failure as a parent, sorry.
      C) Don't push me (a real dad) and the rest of us down because you can't swim. We real parents can handle the internet in our homes, in fact of all the day to day dangers to my boys health and safety the internet rates about a 1 / 10.
      D) Don't ever, ever assume to speak for 'parents' again.
      E) If you can't handle having the internet in your home without the federal government getting involved, your the bad parent.

      Unfortunately your predictions for the future are sadly more than likely accurate and fairly insightful.

    7. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by Hucko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Filters seem to be either fall on false positives or ineffective. Working for Ed Queensland, and sites that are definitely safe are blocked. I've been to sites that (IT research) that had inappropriate (for children) ads.

        The balance required is too fine to be practical for anything other than the one in your head.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    8. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who said ANYTHING about mollycoddling children? I certainly didn't. I merely pointed out that expecting the Government's Internet filter to protect them from the evil 1nt4rw3bs is madness. In my own very pissed off way I pointed out other things that you wouldn't expect the government to protect your kids from.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    9. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Turns out you can just get the government to do it for free."

      For free?

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaa!

    10. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2, Informative

      ANSWER HER QUESTION. And TELL THE TRUTH. Damn, how hard is that? Coward.

      I'm a software engineer. I write software, both closed source and open. I write it at work and I write it at home on my own time. I think that qualifies me as a geek. I'm also raising a 10 year old girl. Last week she wanted to know what a phallus is. Her mother and I were sitting on the couch together. "It's a man's penis," we said, after a second. "Oh," she says. That was all. Yes, she knows what a penis is. She's 10. She doesn't care.

      This is the great truth that adults somehow forget. Pre-pubescent children do not have the hormones that make sex and sexual things of such raging importance to adults. Before the testosterone kicks in (yes, girls have it too), they literally do not care. Except for abstract curiosity, which is very quickly sated, sexual material is boring to children. They self-censor to an amazing degree. I've watched it.

      Yes, we watch her web surf on her laptop. We don't lean over her shoulder or anything, but she uses her computer in the living room, like we do, and we generally know what she's looking at. If she clicks on a video on Youtube that turns out to be full of obscenities, she immediately clicks the back button. If she follows a link that ends up at a porn advertising site (something that happens only extremely rarely), again, she pounds the back button. Most of the time she's very careful to stick to sites that won't ever have porn links on them in the first place. She knows what naked people look like, and she doesn't want to see them. She just wants her web games and her music videos and her funny videos and her lolcats.

      Anybody who pays attention to an actual child should know all these things. Lunatics who propound global censorship so they don't have to answer a question that is only awkward to them not the child are busy foisting their own prejudices and parochialism onto that child. "Think of the children" is rightly ridiculed on this site for the worthless cantrip that it is. Another poster in this thread said it best: censorship is radioactive. It contaminates everything it touches.

      No, I won't spend 95% of my time manually censoring her internet. No, I won't spend a dime on a commercial closed source product that will censor her internet. Yes, a 7 year old (or a 10 year old) CAN filter their own content. They do it successfully and well, and being a parent that can stand aside and LET them makes me a GOOD parent, not a bad one. The content exists because the world exists. Parenting a child means teaching them ways to live in the world and deal with it successfully. The example we set as parents influences how they will treat it. We don't get excited about it when she encounters a naked person. We don't rant and rave and censor. We answer her questions honestly, and don't make a big deal out of it. It's not a big deal to her and she moves on with her life with nary a bobble.

      All of this to an anonymous coward. Hopefully somebody who isn't a coward will read it...

    11. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by izomiac · · Score: 1

      My high school (boarding) used websense when they "gave" students laptops. That was 5 years ago, so maybe it's improved since then, but back then I certainly wouldn't have called it "good". It commonly blocked stuff I needed to do research on (such as journal articles on enzymes), and rarely prevented me from stumbling onto unsavory content. And I don't think it stopped anyone (teenage guys) from finding such content intentionally. The only time I remember it "working" was when it messed up and blocked nearly every category. And even then it was trivial to bypass with fragmented HTTP headers.

      Now, that the internet is even larger, and given websense's rate of improvement (imperceptible over three years) I wouldn't think it's even close to a "good" solution. Well, unless you don't try to bypass it or go to uncommon sites (e.g. work scenario). The IT people at my school probably thought it was pretty good since I doubt any student actually told them how ineffective it was. OTOH, maybe they knew... I remember them joking that it was supposed to block AOL instant messenger but all it did was block the advertisement, so the client showed the school logo (from the "Blocked" page) in it's stead, making it look officially sanctioned. Same deal when I talked with the BOFH of my local highschool casually a couple years ago... he had complete confidence in large, state-wide filter files as well. In a demonstration it took about 2 minutes to find a proxy type site despite that category being blocked.

      Also, what's the point of keeping someone from logging into a site? I mean, it's not like you can't read or post to slashdot, so I fail to see how it's "protecting" you...

    12. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by mjwx · · Score: 1

      And I thought that censoring what my 7 year watches would be MY responsibility as a parent. Turns out you can just get the government to do it for free. Who'da thunk it ?

      Just turn OFF the damn TV, parent your OWN kids, and stop spoiling the fun for the rest of us who ARE old enough and mature enough to decide what we watch.

      The problem isn't that they have control over their OFF switch, its the fact that "advocate" groups don't have control over your OFF switch which is driving this.

      I agree with you, Parents should parent their own kids.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you first-hand (as a parent and someone from a "very dependable company") that Internet filtering is not all it's cracked up to be. The filters are simply not accurate enough to rely on for home use; there are sites out there which deliberately try and remain unfiltered. There are a LOT of ways to get around them, depending on the tech. I can tell you that none of the companies that I know of are perfect. The government's expensive testing even proved that. The only reason Internet filtering works in schools and businesses is group mentality. Students and employees start to think they're being watched and tend to avoid doing things that are inappropriate lest they be found out and others find out what they're doing.

      This is so true. At work we have filtering, which is getting more and more strict. Youtube and Facebook were the most recent victims - which upset the admin staff to no end ;) Of course, it's extremely easy to get around via a number of methods... if you want to get caught doing something that is now explicity against company policy. That's the ONLY reason more people dont do their little end runs around the filter.

      Think the filter is going to protect children? The very idea is laughable, in all but the most naive cases. How concerned will children be that 'the government' is watching them? They wont be. Authority comes directly from the parents, or not at all - which brings us right back to PARENTS enforcing rules at home, not letting some hack job from the government try to do it. COMPLETE FAIL.

    14. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Well Said!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    15. Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      You, sir, deserve the Nobel prize for outstanding citizenship and generally being a cool dude. Every log on to /. you make is a blessing to it and it's inhabitants. Thank you for existing. I thought people like you existed only in my imagination.

      BTW, as someone who recently turned 15, I believe I can remember my childhood quite well. What you say is entirely correct. An 8 y.o.'s self-censorship is the most impeccable filter in existence. Cheers!

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  25. Aussies who are Christian: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contact the dumbasses located here:
    http://www.acl.org.au/

    Advise them of their dumbassery.

  26. If this is bad, what's YOUR excuse for....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't like content filtering / tampering / snooping?
    So what's YOUR excuse for...

    Not having a PGP key of your own so people can send you secure emails / files?

    Sending emails without digitally signing them (anyone can do it) and by default encrypting them to any/all recipients who will provide their keys for that purpose?

    Complaining about "internet filtering" yet not even running the software to check and see whether YOUR internet / ISP is filtering / port blocking / et. al.? Last time I checked there were pretty pervasive problems with wholesale port blocking for both incoming and outgoing traffic on many ISPs. That's wholesale blocking / censoring / filtering of communications too. A "network neutral" internet provider should allow ANY protocol, on ANY port, IN or OUT without tampering with the connection (throttling, blocking, et. al.). Anything less is just accepting the encroachment of such filtering.

    Willingly USING an ISP that does any kind of connection filtering / tampering?

    Willingly USING webmail systems and similar ones where your private communications are left out on some 3rd party server, especially ones where they don't facilitate end to end message signing / encryption / access purely over HTTPS, et. al.? Sites like yahoo, hotmail insert ads into every message you send by modifying YOUR content / message. Sites like google/gmail snoop on the contents of all your email and basically sell that information to advertisers to profile you and intrude on you with ads. If you don't want your content to be modified, filtered, sold, snooped then make sure they cannot either understand or alter your communications and the problems will be mostly solved!

    Willingly using software like SKYPE or MSN Messenger or Yahoo Messenger all of which go to great efforts to be able to be able to route your communications through THEIR servers and not offer any meaningful true verifiable end-to-end content encryption such that not even the service provider can intercept / filter your communications.
    Most of the IM software that is "popular" indeed does all sorts of content filtering based on keywords, blocking URLs it doesn't want you to share, et. al. Content tampering / filtering of a private communication should be the end user's option, not the service provider's! There are alternatives out there that use open source software, publically documented protocols, and which offer true encryption / privacy support like SIP, JABBER, et. al.

    Running a site that doesn't use HTTPS as its PRIMARY mode of communication, i.e. don't even ALLOW HTTP except as a deprecated option to satisfy very old cell phone browsers or such that aren't capable of SSL?
    Using HTTPS, although they could block sites based only on the domain name, they couldn't easily look at or filter / tamper with the content of the communications themselves -- NebuAd insertion or whatever simply wouldn't be possible. Also one wouldn't reveal anything more than the domain name / IP address being contacted for HTTP, so even the rest of the accessed URL would be secure. Enabling HTTPS is a trivial change to almost any web site, and compatible with most any browser platform. Why don't we provide this as sysadmins and demand it as users. Why
    am I not on https://slashdot.org/ now? In the old days the CPU performance cost for the crypto was somewhat of a factor for fairly high traffic sites, but now that CPUs/Network processors are much more capable, I very much doubt it would be a significant impediment for ANY site to offer. Is the privacy and security of your users not worth another 3% of your CPU load or whatever? Certificate cost? Ok, self sign (it's better than plain HTTP!), or use a public / free CA or whatever.

    As others have said, it more customers demanded full open unmodified internet access from their ISP, it would be offered by more ISPs and ones that want to tamper with your data (NebuAd, DNS hijacking, content snooping / altering) or whatever either wo

  27. Re:You know... by kaos07 · · Score: 3, Informative

    And one of the ISP's, Webshield, is only known because it's business model is based on already offering a "clean-feed" connection.

  28. Needs to pass Parliament first by huwr · · Score: 4, Informative

    For this to come into force properly, the Government will need to pass legislation through Parliament. While they can get it through the lower house easily, the Senate will be much harder. In the Senate the Government will need the support of either the Coalition or all the cross-benchers (Greens, Family First and Xenophon) in order to gain the majority. I know the Coalition intends to vote no and I can't see Greens supporting it, so it will fail to pass.

    1. Re:Needs to pass Parliament first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Coalition were the ones who originally formed the committee to recommend a net censorship solution. Labour ran with it as soon as they got in, after attacking it while they were in opposition. I won't be pinning my hopes on the Coalition saving me. And Family First and Xenophon are making net filtering a condition of their votes on economic policy, so expect to see gambling and legal porn added to the block list.
      The Greens are the only ones I trust to oppose it, but they can't block it in the face of support from all the rest.

    2. Re:Needs to pass Parliament first by nemesisrocks · · Score: 0

      Do you really think Bob Brown will stand up to Stephen Conroy when he's called a kiddy fiddler?

      Conroy has an infallible argument. If you come out against his Internet filter, he just calls you a child molester. And no politician wants to risk that.

    3. Re:Needs to pass Parliament first by kingturkey · · Score: 1

      It's possible, Steve Fielding is obviously going to vote for it and if they just tacked on an amendment for making ISPs greener or something and something about gambling they could conceivably win over the Greens and Xenophon.

    4. Re:Needs to pass Parliament first by huwr · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems Senator Brown (Greens leader) has already spoken of this here. His colleague Senator Ludlam has been doing some investigation...

    5. Re:Needs to pass Parliament first by kingturkey · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I hadn't seen that. This makes me a little less worried about this horrible plan passing.

    6. Re:Needs to pass Parliament first by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      Labour ran with it as soon as they got in, after attacking it while they were in opposition.

      Actually, it was Kim Beazley who announced Labor's Internet filter policy back when he was the opposition leader, which was obviously long before the election. In fact, it was the Coalition government who attacked Labor's policy before they then adopted a similar policy.

      It was yet another reason to vote for the Greens.

    7. Re:Needs to pass Parliament first by mjwx · · Score: 1

      For this to come into force properly, the Government will need to pass legislation through Parliament. While they can get it through the lower house easily, the Senate will be much harder. In the Senate the Government will need the support of either the Coalition or all the cross-benchers (Greens, Family First and Xenophon) in order to gain the majority. I know the Coalition intends to vote no and I can't see Greens supporting it, so it will fail to pass.

      If the Lib's vote yes, we're screwed either way, however they've said they'll vote no.

      This hinges on the Greens (for non Aussies, the Greens are the largest minor party in parliament, holding 5 seats). The greens have openly opposed this, if the greens vote no the internet filter will go nowhere and single-handedly win the Geek vote. Rudd and Labour have gotten the Greens offside with failing to uphold their environmental promises from the election so unless Rudd does a spectacular back flip on the environment he wont be able to count on Green support.

      Stephen Fielding (Family First, for non Aussies he's our Religious Right, only one ever gets elected and normally that's due to preference not number of votes) without a doubt he'll vote yes. I don't know which way Nick Xenophon (Independent) will go. Either the Greens or Xenophon could put a stop to this but I think the Greens will come through.

      I voted Labour in the last election, I had to as Howard's Industrial Relations laws were insane but if the Greens put a stop to this nonsense then I'll be voting Green in the next election.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Needs to pass Parliament first by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's possible, Steve Fielding is obviously going to vote for it and if they just tacked on an amendment for making ISPs greener or something and something about gambling they could conceivably win over the Greens and Xenophon.

      Xenophon could go either way (I don't particularly like Xenophon at the moment). The Greens have openly opposed this, Rudd got the greens offside by doing a back flip on his environmental promises he and Labour made during the election, so unless Rudd does a spectacular double back flip on the environment which is unlikely, the Greens will oppose this as its an easy way to win votes amongst the tech savvy crowd which will not be opposed the Greens policies, plus it will probably piss labour off and embarrass Rudd/Conroy.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  29. Active countermeasures / attacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that a pilot's up and running, has anyone got any ideas about actual attacks that can be launched against these systems?

    DDoS, etc?

    1. Re:Active countermeasures / attacks? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The only attack needed is financial.

      If the customers leave, the money stops. If the money stops, the lobbying stops.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Active countermeasures / attacks? by what+about · · Score: 1

      Even if there are technological measures you can take, they are worthless since the opponent has the whole backing of the government.
      Yes, you con win a round but you cannot win a war against a determined government.

      The battle should be done using the correct ways, legal and clear ways.
      It should be clear to all population that "filtering" can and is usually used to shut down political opponents and such risk leads to a type of government that put all effort in preserving itself instead of creating better wealth for the citizens.
      It should be clear that the "save the children" is just a salesman trick. The proponents will swear that it is so, show you "statistics" that have been made by "professors", what do you expect, they are not stupid. It is up to the general person to be smarter and see behind the hype.
      It should be clear that one way accountability leads to abuse (who is controlling the filters?). On a side note, why is it illegal to take pictures of cops or filming a crime scene ? are we saving the children or is just the government protecting its abuses ?

      Until at least 60% of population behaves like sheeps they will be treated like sheeps, unfortunately.
      So, instead of digging ourselfs into technology we should blog, write to newspapers, talk to people and make sure that freedom is preserverd, since freedom creates better wealth for everybody (even the government)

  30. For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dear Senator Conroy,

    I am a member of the Western Australian Labor Party and a long time supporter of the ideals and values the Australian Labor Party and Trade Union movement promote in our country. I am writing to express my extreme concern on the mandatory Internet filtering you and your office are trialling over the next six weeks.

    I understand that the decision is being considered as an option to assist parents, schools and public resources (such as libraries) to keep children away from unwanted Internet content. However, I do not believe that the planned solution will ever be appropriate for the Australian cultural climate. As a teacher, uncle and future parent I cannot stress enough the complete apathy and ignorance this policy encourages in parents of young and adolescent children in relation to the Internet. It should be the absolute responsibility of the authority figures of each household to understand, take action on and maintain any steps taken to remove perceived inappropriate content entering the household through a connection to the Internet. This policy is the antithesis of promoting an open caring relationship between parents and children in relation to online content.

    Your policy discourages education and accountability because it takes the responsibility of filtering away from the parents of the household. It also discourages communication between the parent and child, not only stifling the need for dialogue but also, as shown through the lack of information given to the public by your office, the idea that information can be withheld by those "who know better" (in this case those who think they know better). Furthermore, the technical, financial and freedom of expression (as upheld through our constitution) issues are well documented and those in themselves should be more than enough to kill any further life in this poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly though-out plan.

    Please understand that I do not advocate nor do I support the idea that the government cannot assist parents, schools and other public institutions from helping them with filtering their access to online content. However this policy which will continuously block any number of unnamed web sites is not aimed at targeting an individual's right to choose what they view, instead generalises values for the entire Australian population. I cannot think of anything more "un-Australian" than that.

    As a Labor member and supporter of both a Labor government at both a state and federal level it is with great disappointment that if this policy is to be enacted I will do everything in my power to ensure that only members of parliament who oppose this policy will represent me in my electorate in the future. I understand that this may well end up in me needing to leave the Labor party but this issue is too important and your policy to narrow sited for me to ethically be able to support any Labor party member encouraging this policy.

    I am looking forward to your response.

    Yours sincerely,

  31. Minor Tiny ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those that don't know all of those ISPs have tiny customer bases, the only one which is actually of recognisable size is Primus.

  32. It's kind of tragic... by xenobyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All those filters are usually erected in an attempt to 'protect the children' but so far I haven't seen any kind of hard evidence showing the children are 'damaged' from looking at porn or similar.

    Actually I've seen a study showing quite clearly that porn has no negative effect on children at all. Back in 1968 porn was legalized in Denmark and porn shops popped up everywhere, especially in a section of Copenhagen called Vesterbro. About 1/3 of all shops there were porn or porn-related shops in those days. This meant that almost no matter where children looked they saw porn (dildos, explicit magazines, books, movies) and there was a lot of prostitutes in the area as well. All this happened when the children was mostly unsupervised by adults (on the way to school etc.). Now the study compared the children that grew up in this area with similar children from similar backgrounds growing up elsewhere, and looked at deviations from 'normal' when it came to crime (especially sex offenses), sexual preferences and orientation, attitude towards sexual deviations and so on. The result was quite clear: The 'porn-exposed' children had a similar life to the 'normal' children but had a more tolerant attitude towards everything sex-related, and often had more friends from the 'deviant' groups like homosexuals, transsexuals or so on.

    The conclusion was therefore clear: Porn does not hurt children emotionally or sexually and it even seems to create more tolerant adults that is less likely to be ignorant of sexual themes. This is a good thing in my book.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    1. Re:It's kind of tragic... by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      The last thing people like senator conroy want is a more tolerant attitude towards everything sex related.

    2. Re:It's kind of tragic... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      had a more tolerant attitude towards everything sex-related, and often had more friends from the 'deviant' groups like homosexuals, transsexuals or so on.

      There! There! See! That's exactly the sort of thing we god-fearing Christian folk are talking about. We need this filth banned and we need it banned now!! Tolerance and acceptance indeed, the very idea.

    3. Re:It's kind of tragic... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Note how it's only the unpopular things in society that ever get censored "for the children". I'd say religious preaching has far more effect on children, so by their reasoning, how about we censor that?

      and often had more friends from the 'deviant' groups like homosexuals, transsexuals or so on.

      The sad thing is that pro-censorship people claim that this sort of an effect is itself a bad thing.

    4. Re:It's kind of tragic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn does not hurt children emotionally or sexually and it even seems to create more tolerant adults

      To a lot of people, more 'tolerance' in an adult is evidence of childhood harm. When you believe that homosexuals and transsexuals are deviant abominations, tolerance of such people is disgusting and sinful.

    5. Re:It's kind of tragic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...The result was quite clear: The 'porn-exposed' children had a similar life to the 'normal' children but had a more tolerant attitude towards everything sex-related...

      It's true - the girls will fuck anybody.

    6. Re:It's kind of tragic... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >it even seems to create more tolerant adults that is less likely to be ignorant of sexual themes.

      Ding! You've uncovered one of the actual motivations for this (along with vote-gathering.) Everybody knows that what the kids experience now, is what society will be in 20 years. Education and childhood experience has always been the most fertile ground for people who want to convert society to their belief system. (For good and for bad: witness teaching creationism and the fights over 'one nation under God'/school prayer in US school systems.)

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    7. Re:It's kind of tragic... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Actually I've seen a study showing quite clearly that porn has no negative effect on children at all. Back in 1968 porn was legalized in Denmark and porn shops popped up everywhere, especially in a section of Copenhagen called Vesterbro. About 1/3 of all shops there were porn or porn-related shops in those days. This meant that almost no matter where children looked they saw porn (dildos, explicit magazines, books, movies) and there was a lot of prostitutes in the area as well. All this happened when the children was mostly unsupervised by adults (on the way to school etc.). Now the study compared the children that grew up in this area with similar children from similar backgrounds growing up elsewhere, and looked at deviations from 'normal' when it came to crime (especially sex offenses), sexual preferences and orientation, attitude towards sexual deviations and so on. The result was quite clear: The 'porn-exposed' children had a similar life to the 'normal' children but had a more tolerant attitude towards everything sex-related, and often had more friends from the 'deviant' groups like homosexuals, transsexuals or so on.

      What you wrote is 100% correct, unfortunately there in lies the problem.

      The result was quite clear: The 'porn-exposed' children had a similar life to the 'normal' children

      This bit doesn't matter.

      but had a more tolerant attitude towards everything sex-related, and often had more friends from the 'deviant' groups like homosexuals, transsexuals or so on.

      Here's where the problem is. Filtering advocates are against such tolerance and acceptance of deviant, immoral and/or heathen behaviour and thus do not wish their children to have such an open minded view. This attitude is not so much of a problem for society but these people do not wish for anyone else's child from developing such attitudes, thus they seek to have mandatory filtering put into place so that society conforms to their views and is not permitted to make its own. This is where it becomes a problem for normal society.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  33. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're

    1. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grammar Nazi.

    2. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your like the Jew being handed a bar of soap before having a shower.

      You're

      Grammar Nazi.

      That is so... disturbingly appropriate.

  34. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't let them do it. Aussies can kick just as much ass as anyone else. Show em how Aussies bring the pain. Don't put up with the censorship bullshit. Proxy up and watch as much hard core fucking porn as possible. Display it on the sides of buildings. Watch it on those little tv's that people put in the backseats of their SUVs, all while driving around your local church or legislative building! FIGHT THE GODDAMNED POWER! WHY!? CUZ AUSTRALIA HAS BALLS!

  35. Re:For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter.. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    Let us know how it goes. I'll check my comments page for a response.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  36. Re:You know... by registrar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And one of the ISP's, Webshield, is only known because it's business model is based on already offering a "clean-feed" connection.

    Which is a fine business model---it's selling something that people want. And by participating in this trial, they might demonstrate that they've got a product that works. (Maybe. For some value of "works.") Or get some free publicity.

    What's not OK is imposing a filter on people who don't want it.

  37. What about giving people a Choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that really what this is all about? Surely ISPs can "choose" to give their users a "choice" of having a Filtered internet connection, or not?

    Or perhaps ISPs can "choose" to have an all or nothing type approach. Certain ISPs can filter, and others can decide not to. At least people could then decide on if they want filtered internet or not. And both types of ISP can have a distinction and even make it a selling point.

  38. Re:You know... by Dan541 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Our prime minister is a communist. He is good pals with the Chinese who send their prostitutes/women to his office to, persuade him.

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  39. Re:You know... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    Iprimus is just in there to lend credibility, I have never heard of the other ISPs.

    But wait, iPrimus is not actually listed only their parent company Primus Communications who won't have the same infrastructure configuration as an actual ISP.

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  40. Re:You know... by fractoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What gives is that modern Australians aren't the same hardass cons that built the country. Life's so good and easy and comfortable here that people have nothing to really worry about, so they make shit up and worry about that.

    Half the equation is that Australia's population is aging badly, and most old people think that everything is too fast, too loud, too dangerous and too untidy. This is a problem when a sizable portion of the voting public makes up this group.

    The other half of the equation is, as I said first up, that life's too good here. We don't worry about getting shot at or knifed. The worst we generally have to contend with is bushfires (just had a doozy but it's been a few years since the last big one before that) and poisonous native animals. Out of work? No problems, Centerlink will pay for your cask wine and internets.

    When people spend too long without serious threats to life and limb, their brain adjusts to see trivial things as big and important. Humans do that, our brains are great at adapting to their circumstances... but in this case, people rate their top 3-4 concerns as "life threatening" even when they are things like "my neighbour plays music after 7pm" and "my kid might see a digital nipple if he plays this M-rated game".

    Another exacerbating effect of the general pantywaistness of the proletariat is that our political system is, for want of a better word, pan-partisan. Campaigns are based either on smearing the opposition (the last couple of federal elections have done this) or making a stand on the traditional party differences (unions and workers rights vs. tax breaks for businesses, for instance). Any remotely controversial issue is swept under the carpet and then laws about it are ninja-passed at 3am. As an Australian citizen I feel about as far removed from the running of this country as I am from the running of Uzbekistan.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  41. Re:For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sighted*
    thought*

    and I'd reword the line:

    "poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly though-out plan."

    A poorly planned plan is just a poor plan. Perhaps "poorly conceived" would work?

    Either way, onyamate.

  42. iiNet? by mgiuca · · Score: 1

    Why aren't iiNet participating in the trial?

    They have been the most vocal in agreeing to the trail since it was announced, specifically so they can use the results to show how stupid this is!

    Have they been banned from the trial because of this attitude?

    1. Re:iiNet? by Techman83 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They spoke out against it, do you really think the government are going to pick them. This "trial" is all about finding people to support Conroy's "findings".

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  43. No censorship please by Luc1fel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm hoping that all these attempts will fail in the test phase. Because the last thing I want is to be denied information because someone else is not capable of protecting themselves due to their stupidity.

  44. Re:You know... by kayditty · · Score: 0

    populace.

    - "ignorant american"

  45. how did Christians get into this? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    The Australian Labor Party that's pushing this isn't particularly known for its ties to Christianity, growing as it does out of the historically anti-religion Socialist movement.

    1. Re:how did Christians get into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current leader of the Australian Labor Party is a Christian.

      Family First have wanted compulsory internet filters for a while.

    2. Re:how did Christians get into this? by aerthling · · Score: 1

      So why is it bent on blocking pornography, which (as far as I can see) is only dangerous in a religious context? Isn't sex just one of many everyday biological functions to an atheist?

    3. Re:how did Christians get into this? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      It's not. It's interested in blocking child porn, which is altogether a different thing.

      Of course, the main objections are:

      1) that perfectly legit sites (both adult and non-adult) will get blocked incorrectly as a result. The earlier trials showed it had a pretty high false-positive rate.

      2) The government may eventually creep the scope of the filter beyond child porn to anything else that the government of the day feels inappropriate. THAT is a scary thing and starts verging on Chinese-style censorship.

      3) It slows down the tubes. This will particularly irritate people in remoter parts of Australia who already have pretty slow tubes to begin with...

  46. Re:For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks .... I will do that

    Cheers

  47. WHAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's PORN on the Internet?!

  48. Re:You know... by suckmysav · · Score: 1

    Ummm, will you have my babies?

    --
    "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
  49. Re:For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter.. by Techman83 · · Score: 1

    I hope you have some success, it's worth sending, but I can probably send you the same scripted letter I received. Quite offensive and completely dismissive.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  50. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You also have to know that some colonies were settled by freemen. Melbourne and Adelaide were founded as cities rather than penal colonies. Convicts, if present at all, were a very small minority.
    As far as the filtering goes, it's all politics. The Government has stuff it wants to get through and the weirdos will do it for them if the filter (and who knows what else) goes ahead.

  51. Re:You know... by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you're just saying:

    Harden the fuck up Australia!

  52. Re:You know... by Starayo · · Score: 1

    I go to the protests, I write to the appropriate officials, and since neither of those look like they'll have any effect, I have a wide variety of free VPN solutions and the like to distribute to anyone that wants one. :)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  53. Re:You know... by Starayo · · Score: 1

    Oops. My bad. I've been playing too many old PC games.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  54. Re:You know... by Starayo · · Score: 1

    Tech2U has worse value for money than even telstra. Omniconnect, netforce, and highway 1 provide internet for businesses. In short, the people who will be trialled will either have more money than sense and no idea about technology, or be one of the miniscule amount of businesses that are with these ISPs.

    Any results from this trial have no credibility at all.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  55. Pure unadulterated laziness of the parents... by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These so-called Christian and Parent groups who advocate such nanny state intervention are only doing so because they are too lazy.

    You want to protect the children? You supervise them. You don't give them a computer with internet access that they can use privately in their bedroom in the dead of night: You put the computer in some family location where a responsible adult is available.

    Or... Lock the router in a cabinet with a simple timer switch on the power brick.

    The phrase which sums up our modern era : "Can't someone else do it?"

    Bah!

    --
    No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
    1. Re:Pure unadulterated laziness of the parents... by Locklin · · Score: 1

      But, you see, they want to dictate how *other people's* kids are raised.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  56. Re:You know... by mgblst · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would think they would be against the filter, since if it becomes widespread, there is no need for their business model anymore. They will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.

  57. Re:You know... by fractoid · · Score: 1

    My wife won't let me. ;) To save double posting, @sortius below: Yep, I'm basically saying that a bit of HTFU won't go astray.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  58. Re:You know... by Tsagadai · · Score: 1

    I agree with you and sortius_nod, this country is a fucking nanny state. We have governments who insist on appeasing a bunch of scared old fuddy-duddies. At this rate every corner will have a padded edge, driving will be at the fixed speed of 40K everywhere and a curfew will apply to everyone under the age of 30(those over that age don't need a curfew, they never go out at night). 1984 comes in a maid's outfit under the guise of fixing your buster.

    This country needs to get some fucking dignity and remember where it put it's balls.

  59. Re:You know... by Loosifur · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dude, you live on an island with the most poisonous animals on earth. Ridiculously poisonous spiders that snuggle up in the toes of slippers and are native to your capital city.

    I live right outside of Washington, D.C., and if I couldn't walk around at night in my apartment for fear of poisonous, deadly varmints holing up in my Nikes the last thing I would be is complacent.

    Re: governance, I would like to point you towards a recent statement by our new president in which he said something along the lines of, "Debate's nice and all, but you've had your fun and now it's time to pass the legislation I want you to pass." Translation: "Democracy, shemocracy, blah blah blah!"

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
  60. Re:You know... by redxxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't say anything at all about Webshield, but most commercial filtering software also blocks things like game sites and employment resources(job search sites, as well as sites with information about how much people in specific jobs get paid) .

    They wouldn't have to pay for an anti-porn blacklist, so that saves them a little money and they probably offer services(or at least could) above and beyond just porn and IP filtering.

  61. Net Neutrality in Action by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    This is net neutrality in action. Once you hand over responsibility to the government, your service is only as good as those in power see fit. Internet censorship becomes a political whim, to be used when it is politically profitable for campaigns.

  62. False security by coder477 · · Score: 1

    Parents are going to get a false sense of security because of the web-shield -> less parental control -> more unsupervised children online

    if the parents think that the biggest problem online is the porn then they are more ignorant than i thought, and that's the main problem here isn't it?

    so government censorship cant work without the parents involvement with the protection of there children and if the parents are involved then why the hell do we need government censorship in the first place.

    the even more important point here is freedom, shouldn't I as a consenting adult have the right to view any website online, what give the right to any person to control or limit my activity's online, and whats next censorship of the media if they say something anti government or god forbid(i say sarcastically) anti Christan.

  63. Re:You know... by Techman83 · · Score: 1

    They're a not for profit organisation.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  64. Filtering *NEEDED* for public education by PoolDoc · · Score: 1

    I generally find these anti-censorship threads boring, because they end up being long rants by wankers worried about the loss of easy access to their free porn and movies. In this context, "free speech" is usually just camouflage for "free porn".

    If you really want to worry about "free speech", go post in some threads about Google and China! Or, go blog about the US "Fairness Doctrine". Both topics offer you an opportunity to rant about political censorship pure and simple, with no subterranean porn issues.

    Nevertheless, let me say I don't care that much about porn, per se. If you want to watch porn on your home or office PC (as long as MY tax dollars aren't paying for it) till you have a right arm the size of a pro wrestlers and a pecker so calloused it's always hard . . . have at it! It's no worse than spending your life on Warcraft or a some redneck virtual football pool.

    But, this kind of filtering matters for reasons most of you wankers miss: its absence totally cripples the use of computers in public schools!

    Public schools -- at least in the US -- specialize in educating kids whose parents don't give a sh$$, but who will $ue at the drop of a hat. Teachers, and especially administrators, live in terror of Johnny Pervert pulling up Wikipedia's illustrated pages on pornography. Johnny Pervert may see his mom or 'aunt' screwing around with 'Uncle Bob' at home, or may leaf through Hustler on his weekends with Dad, and nobody gives a sh$$. But mom is likely to become "upset -- just totally upset" if he sees a pecker or pu##-E on a PC at school. And she's likely to stay outraged till there's a school board hearing and hush-up settlement involving $$$. At that point, either the administrator or teacher or possibly both will be unemployed, and possibly sued or charged with a crime.

    At least, that's what the teachers and admins believe -- and act upon -- thanks to some highly public cases and news accounts.

    As a result, PCs at schools -- elementary through high school in my school district -- are so restricted and filtered as to be useless. They essentially have no internet access, except maybe to National Geography, Discovery Kids and the like.

    I have to laugh, every time some PC industry titan, like Gates or Cuban, pontificates about needed more technology in schools. It's a big joke, because you until you give EVERY student one, PCs have to be used for largely unsupervised activities like research or using targeted programs for reading, math or typing. Because these activities have to be somewhat unsupervised -- since the REST of the class is doing something else -- teachers don't want, and won't use more PCs. They can sort of keep an eye on 2 or 3, while teaching the class, but they can't keep up with 6 or 8.

    The bottom line here is simple: until you can find a way to keep PCs from being a threat to teacher's and admin's jobs, all the talk of technology in the schools will remain just talk, no matter how many millions or billions you spend. Even teachers with AOL level tech skills can find the off-switch!

    In order for them to be able to use 6 or 8 PCs, they HAVE to have reliable and trusted filtering. It's doesn't have to let everything good through, it just has to keep almost everything bad out. AND -- and this is VERY, VERY important -- it has to be provided by someone official enough to create a high CYA factor. That is, if Johnny Pervert does manage to show Cindy Angel a stiff pecker, the classroom teacher has to be able to SUCCESSFULLY defend him or herself by saying, "But, we've been told we could trust the filter -- after all it's provided by the GOVERNMENT!"

    Almost by definition, a private company's filter is useless for this purpose -- unless it's PERFECT -- because it will NOT be effective at protecting the teacher or administrator. At the outside, a private filter -- selected by the school board -- will only move blame from the teacher to the board . . . and THAT is NOT going to happen. By contra

    1. Re:Filtering *NEEDED* for public education by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > As a result, PCs at schools -- elementary through high school in my school district --
      > are so restricted and filtered as to be useless. They essentially have no internet
      > access, except maybe to National Geography, Discovery Kids and the like.

      And your "filtering" would make the entire Net like that.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  65. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed, the free market will just come to the rescue with a huge escalation of VPN service providers and life will go on as normal.

  66. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's not OK is imposing a filter on people who don't want it.

    Well, it's a good thing nothing like that happens in the Democratic USA

  67. folly by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 1

    I do not understand how someone in the 21st century would still feel the urge to CENSOR anything, again. We have not learned from our past , not a thing, if we are still debating such basic issues. Freedom of speech and thought is something that should not be never ever menaced. But since the governments are still so much into the deep mud of religious influences and other anti-human believes, I propose that the Internet should be split in two trunks, one for the government usage, that allows completely official comunication and information between citizen and the state. And another, which is the 'normal' internet, which would be only for 18+ yrs old citizens and has no censoring whatsoever. Granted, it is a compromise , but it's maybe the less problematic one. Religions are the relics of a world in which absolute military power and violence was the daily routine. We should get rid of them. And this comes by a correct education. my2c mrn

  68. Re:You know... by rastilin · · Score: 1

    Re: governance, I would like to point you towards a recent statement by our new president in which he said something along the lines of, "Debate's nice and all, but you've had your fun and now it's time to pass the legislation I want you to pass." Translation: "Democracy, shemocracy, blah blah blah!"

    I can actually empathize with that. If they're all talking and no-one's making any cohesive points, you'd want them to get on with it already.

    I live right outside of Washington, D.C., and if I couldn't walk around at night in my apartment for fear of poisonous, deadly varmints holing up in my Nikes the last thing I would be is complacent.

    It's not that bad, I had a spider in my shoe once and trust me, when you put you're foot in, it's vastly more stuffed than you are.

    --
    How do you kill that which has no life?
  69. A long time ago... by e-scetic · · Score: 1

    In a galaxy far, far away, I remember when many IRC channels banned .au addies on sight because, it seemed, the vast majority of Australians on efnet were troublemakers.

    Seems the .au government agrees.

  70. Call to action by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    Here is a call to action: enable https on all your sites and use the Firefox extension that uses https instead of http by default.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  71. Just one... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    ...reason to be cheerful:

    iiNet doesn't feature on the list of perpetrators. They were initially proposing to join the pilot scheme in an attempt to prove it wouldn't work, but for whatever reason it seems they've abandoned that idea. I guess there are arguments both ways as to whether or not that is a good thing, but as an iiNet customer (*) I'm not unhappy that my connection will not be slugged (yet).

    * By way of an OT footnote, I might add that there was a time when the cognoscenti here in Western Australia (myself included) regarded iiNet customers with the disdain accorded to AOLites. Fact is that they were by far the first off the starting line with ADSL2+, and they've been good to me since...

  72. Huh. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Our prime minister is a communist.

    I wish.

    That would at least be interesting. Instead we have a narrow-minded, suburban, mealy-mouthed motherfucker who is content to run around screaming ohmygodohmygodwhataboutchechildren rather than actually do anything valuable or useful with his office.

    All his blathering about "rolling up our sleeves" has no meaning other than that he doesn't want his cuff-links to bruise his butt.

    Although I heartily despise the asswipe he replaced, Kevin Rudd is a serious disappointment.

    1. Re:Huh. by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      Don't blame him for your unrealistic expectations.

  73. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, I don't click through to the websites of hate-filled morons.

  74. I'm going to laugh my ass off when this fails by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I hope everyone in their government gets thrown out on their asses when this completely fails and pisses everybody off. They're wasting taxpayer money on a stupid and useless idea that doesn't serve the interests of the population as a whole but instead serves only a special-interest group. Dumbasses!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  75. Re:You know... by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    I am a Christian but one thing that annoys me about the Christian community is this nonsense about God being so overly worried about sexual practices. With all of the wrong things that every person does I find it mystifying that so many Christians are so hung up over sex. I suspect that the Lord has more concerns than just worrying about who, what, when and where we have sex.

  76. Read that as: by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    Just boycott the aussies pleases

    Well their exports are: coal, iron ore, gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat, machinery and transport equipment.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  77. Cyber Safety? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    I assume that by "safe" they mean no phishing, no viruses, no botnets, no trojan horses...

  78. Re:You know... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    Is the effectiveness of conservative opinion substantially diminished by the mere presence of dissent?

  79. Re:You know... by TheSync · · Score: 1

    blame the Americans, for their culture of inactivity they brought over here back in the war.

    The other possibility was for the Japanese to bring their culture of quiet industry and octopode porn Manga to Australia...OK, maybe you chose the wrong side!

  80. Turning the internet into TV. We heard that befo by zymano · · Score: 1

    Our Christian groups control our over air & pressure cable TV networks in the USA and tried to filter the internet too.

  81. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's exactly what it's like in the US, right down to the campaigns. Except our police beat us, protest is suppressed, and there's a lot of dirty underhanded corporate and political scheming.

  82. What about Satellite Internet by Lawman58 · · Score: 1

    How do they plan to filter satellite internet? Drop a large mesh net around all of Australia?

    1. Re:What about Satellite Internet by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Quit giving them ideas, nitwit!

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  83. Re:You know... by spoco2 · · Score: 1

    Firstly:
    * Really, the deadly animal thing, REALLY not that much of an issue unless you actually live in the bush. We have antivenoms for all the spiders and snakes and the number who are killed by any of them is sweet bugger all

    * In regards to you thinking that somehow Obama is not being democratic in his current problems with the republican party, I would instead perhaps put this forward:
      He has debated with, consulted, talked to and had great dealings with all sides, listened to all of their concerns, and yet really, the only thing that the Republicans want to do is... give tax cuts... that's it, that's their sole solution for ANYTHING, which makes no sense as then you have a government that has less money to DO anything with. You think somehow giving back little amounts to everyone will suddenly make the US become a power again? HOW?

    Spending money on developing sustainable industries and education and things that might actually lift the US in its world standing are GOOD things to do for long term economic health. Giving a bit of money back to everyone so they can spend it on a larger tv or a few more take away dinners helps no-one.

    The Republicans are blocking for blocking's sake. Obama was voted in with a landslide, which should suggest that the majority of the country believes in his ideas, so perhaps they shouldn't be so grandstanding as to block things for blocking's sake. If the populous want these things through, and have rejected the piss poor financial management of the Republicans for the past 8 years, then MAYBE they should let it through.
     

  84. The real scandal here... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that the very idea an ISP is allowed to interpret the data you transmit over their service *in any way* is akin to the phone company listening in on all your phone calls. Now we know in the US that's business as usual, at least in Australia it doesn't take an telco whistleblower for them to find out about it.

    Time to buy stock in some VPN service companies, I'd say...

  85. Re:You know... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    That's exactly what it's like in the US, right down to the campaigns. Except our police beat us, protest is suppressed, and there's a lot of dirty underhanded corporate and political scheming.

    Oh, and you forgot-- for the last 20 years or so the banking and securities industry has been running a giant Ponzi scheme that makes even Madoff look like an amateur.

  86. Re:You know... by Loosifur · · Score: 1

    Well, I'd still be a little nervous about needing antivenin in a major city, but I suppose it's something you get used to.

    The thing about "blocking for blocking's sake"...that's exactly what drives me up the wall about what the current administration is doing. They assume that no one could possibly in good conscience disagree with Keynesian economic policies which have proven time and again to fail, or with a massive spending package concocted in secrecy and then rushed through Congress without anyone knowing how they came up with the numbers or how, for example, monies going to Ms. Pelosi's home state of California for the protection of a particular breed of mouse's habitat relates to economic stimulus.

    "If you disagree with me, it must be out of spite." That's a level of arrogance I am uncomfortable with.

    That argument is usually followed by the second you mentioned, which boils down to, "Well, the Bush administration was AWFUL!" As has been pointed out repeatedly, the race is over and Bush is no longer president. Stop running against him. Furthermore, just because the previous administration was wrong doesn't mean that this current administration must be right.

    I don't disagree that developing a broader industrial base, investing in infrastructure, education, environmental policies, etc. are worthy goals. I have a problem with packing pet projects in to an omnibus spending bill of historic size and having the gall to describe it as an "economic stimulus package" when even the Congressional Budget Office has determined that, in the long term, our economy would be stronger without it.

    And, speaking as one of the people who received the tax refund, I can tell you that I didn't spend it on a bigger television, nor did most other recipients. Although, as it was MY MONEY in the first place, I would've had every right to spend it on hookers and blow if I so chose, legalities aside. I, like most people do in a shitty economy when they aren't making enough money to pay every bill on time, paid off outstanding debts.

    Believe it or not, the stereotype of the fat, lazy, consumerist American isn't 100% accurate.

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
  87. Re:You know... by DeathElk · · Score: 1

    Spiders? Hah! If you're ever by ol' Sydney town, you'd best watch out for the drop bears. Big, mean drop bears. Just waiting to... drop.

  88. My suggested protest method by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Would be for all major websites outside of Australia to start blocking Australia surfers preemptively, redirecting them to a page informing them they are being blocked from accessing this site due to the government's filter.

    If they choose not to be full participants of the internet, why should the rest of it (that isn't blocked) cooperate with them?

  89. Conroy's address. by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

    Tell him exactly how you feel.

    Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
    Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
    Deputy Leader Of The Government In The Senate,
    minister@dbcde.gov.au
    Tel: 03 9650 1188
    Fax: 03 9650 3251

  90. Re:For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter.. by snicho99 · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, the technical, financial and freedom of expression (as upheld through our constitution) issues are well documented and those in themselves should be more than enough to kill any further life in this poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly though-out plan.

    Constitution fail. There is no such protection under the Australian Constitution. We have no bill of rights. This is not the Almighty US of A. Are you sure you're a politician? If so, that's a bit scary... though not surprising.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitution#Protection_of_rights

    --
    -Steve http://www.stevennicholson.com
  91. Re:For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter.. by afterteatime · · Score: 1

    Yes I know that.. my point was more along these lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#Implied_rights
    However I can see that I may not have been clear in exactly what I meant.... and I agree that not having a Bill of Rights is rather poor on our part...

    PS I'm not actually a politician simply a lowly paying member of the ALP... I also hope that I would be able to...express... my limited knowledge of the constitution a little better had I been one :)

  92. Geek test... by Javaman59 · · Score: 1

    Did you understand the headline - "Some of Australia's Tubes are About to Be Filtered"?

    Yes? - you're a geek!!. No? - Congratulations, now get off slashdot, and spend some time with real people, before it happens to you.

    And, have you ever heard anyone in real life refer to the internet at "tubes"?

    --
    I'm a software visionary. I don't code.
  93. Re:You know... by fr!th · · Score: 1

    hear hear. I would also like to add that while some groups may have 'Christian' in their title, or in their party, its a bit much to call them Christian groups. This is not the only case I have seen, and it makes Christians seem like a bunch of fanatical luddites. While this may be true for some, its certainly by no means a requirement. And there are a bunch of other well-meaning stupid people who have nothing to do with Christianity who are behind this in the name of 'the children'.

    I'm just really looking forward to the day when the people who were born before the invention of the transistor (1947: Bell Labs prototype) to either a) get the hell out of my government, or b) shuffle off this mortal coil. Whichever comes first.

  94. Re:For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter.. by Cimexus · · Score: 1

    We do have a implied freedom of POLITICAL expression in Australia. So says the High Court. But yeah, you're right. It doesn't cover all expression, and the link with the internet filtering debate is tenuous.

  95. Re:You know... by Cimexus · · Score: 1

    Couldn't agree more. Great post.

  96. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What gives is that modern Australians aren't the same hardass cons that built the country."

    Most modern Australians aren't related to the original convict settlers would probably be a big start.
    Australia is, primarily, a nation of migrants.

  97. Re:You know... by registrar · · Score: 1

    Maybe they won't like having competition? I doubt it, I assume they're doing it not just for the cash, but because they believe porn &c should be filtered. Either way, good on them for providing a product that people want, and bad on them if they go trying to impose their own moral standards on others.

    And---it may be unpopular around here, but---bad on them if they provide a broken filter so that people are paying for something they don't want (access to porn).

  98. Anybody got a list of the sites to be blocked? by AndyCanfield · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a list of the sites that the Australian Government wants to block. After all, I don't live in Australia so it isn't illegal for me to look at what the Oz-ies are being silly about. Indeed, it isn't illegal for an Oz-ie to look at these sites. Yet. So whom do they want to block?

  99. Re:You know... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    Right now, I wish I was that cute girl from across the street from you. Too bad. Rock on dude!

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.