Slashdot Mirror


Aussie Gov't To Introduce Bill That Would Require ISP-Level Censorship

bennyboy64 writes "iTnews reports that the Australian Government has announced its intention to introduce legislation that will make ISP-level filtering mandatory for all refused classification material hosted overseas. The Government intends to amend the Broadcasting Services Act in August 2010 to enforce the filter, and expects the filter to be operational within a further twelve months. 'The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed' Senator Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said." This despite, as reader Sharky2009 writes, the trial run showing that "a technically competent user could circumvent filtering technology based on ACMA’s blacklist."

200 comments

  1. what the fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is there a way to vote this guy out of office or something?

    1. Re:what the fuck. by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Well, his next bill will propose that adults are not only incapable of choosing what is and what isn't appropriate to be played or viewed by themselves and their children, but also to choose who chooses what is and is not appropriate.

    2. Re:what the fuck. by besalope · · Score: 1

      The next step would be to declare all the inner political policy making as inappropriate to view by the general public, thereby cutting off any hope the Aussies have of knowing what their government is doing. If you can't legally know they're doing evil, how can you want to vote them out?

    3. Re:what the fuck. by preperat · · Score: 0

      No, his next bill to be entered into parliament is "Do you want to vote this guy out, ppl who vote yes, will be declared unreasonable and the gov will make decisions for them" :/

    4. Re:what the fuck. by dk90406 · · Score: 0, Troll
      No, I am sorry. They are working on a bill that will abolish elections in Australia. The bill will say that ant other parties are opposed to protecting the children. Anyone who opposes the bill is obviously a child abuser.

      I wish you a good safe life down under.

    5. Re:what the fuck. by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Because he's a dictator acting on a whim, right? The thing I want to know is who is supporting his ideas? Do the Aussies have some conservative/religiously motivated party down there like we do in the USA?

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    6. Re:what the fuck. by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      Bye-bye internet for Aussies.

    7. Re:what the fuck. by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 1

      There's at least one (ie. the Australian Christian Lobby).

      Mark Newtown and Stilgherrian are good sources of info if you want to see what's happened in the last 24 hours.

    8. Re:what the fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but think frying pan/fire (or kodos/kang). You see the opposition "alternative" right now is a mish-mash of uber-conservatives, fruit-loops and combinations of the aforementioned. Of course ideally people would vote for independents and smaller parties to win back some sort of actual representation, but unfortunately many, many people comprehensively fail to understand how our preferential voting works and believe the bullshit spin that such a vote would be "wasted", so that's not likely to happen any time soon.

      So your answer is: technically yes, practically no.

    9. Re:what the fuck. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Barring a double dissolution (the constitutional trigger for which has occurred, but the PM has said it will not happen), you probably won't have a chance to vote him out before late 2010/early 2011.

      In addition to writing to your MP, if you are a member of the IIA, you might want to write to them urging them to lobby the government to ensure that ISP-level filtering will be offered on an optional basis and will not unduly burden small ISPs.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    10. Re:what the fuck. by keeperofdakeys · · Score: 1

      Both of the leaders for our main political parties are active church goers (wiki Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott), and (at least) Tony Abbott is pro-life.

  2. Would this block web stores? by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the lone holdout Attorney General gets his way, Australia will ignore comments from the public and continue to refuse classification to video games that have been rated mature in other regions. Does this mean Australia will start blocking Amazon, eBay, and other foreign sellers of mature-rated video games?

    1. Re:Would this block web stores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, since Australia, as we all know, is entirely populated by criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, I can clearly not choose the unfiltered internet in front of me.

    2. Re:Would this block web stores? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the Australian Postal Service (or whatever it's called) will also implement "deep packet inspection".

    3. Re:Would this block web stores? by pleappleappleap · · Score: 1

      **WHOOSH!!!**

    4. Re:Would this block web stores? by avm · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I've seen a more apropos movie quote... Kudos AC.

    5. Re:Would this block web stores? by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      Inconceivable!

    6. Re:Would this block web stores? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Australia Post already does this. I've had quite a few packages arrive which have obviously been opened in transit for someone to have a good snoop inside. After all, 1984 is so 25 years ago...

    7. Re:Would this block web stores? by vegiVamp · · Score: 2, Funny

      And soon after, the border guard will also jump on the "deep inspection" hype bandwagon, marking a sharp increase in the sales figures of Crisco brand vegetable shortening.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    8. Re:Would this block web stores? by Shagg · · Score: 1

      But criminals are known for having devious minds, and knowing that people won't trust them will likely do the opposite, therefore I can clearly not choose the filtered internet in front of you.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    9. Re:Would this block web stores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of Australia is populated by criminals except for Soth Australia which was settled convict free.

    10. Re:Would this block web stores? by mino · · Score: 1

      except for Soth Australia which was settled

      ... by an unholy army of Death Knights?

    11. Re:Would this block web stores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No true, South Australia was not formed by convicts like the rest. But yes they are damn stinking convicts!

      Conroy needs to go, the current governments needs to go. People are getting fed up with state and federal decisions that the people don't want.

      From a person who lives in Adelaide, South Australia (I don't have a Slashdot account)

  3. What's Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they'll tell us what we can watch on TV too.

  4. Wake up Australia by jack2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe you're still swallowing this bullshit by the buckets. It's time you did something. Get those people out of parliament, elect new officials!

    1. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      We voted out the last government, who at one point tried to introduce Internet filtering (they currently don't support filtering), and now this government wants to do it (who went to the election proposing voluntary filtering). We're fucked either way eventually when one of these bunches of cocks decides it's a good idea and has the numbers to push it through.

    2. Re:Wake up Australia by Techman83 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Believe me, Australians are not asleep. Senator Conroy has chosen to barge ahead regardless of any public outcry. Fortunately the Labour Government do not hold enough power in the Senate to push this through with out the support of the opposition and the Independents/Minority Parties, which they just aren't going to get. Independent Senator Nick Minchin and Greens Senator Scott Ludlam have both been very vocal in opposition to Censorship in Australia. The Librals (the other major party) seem to be fighting the Labour party at every turn, so I suspect their support will be limited. I think if it doesn't pass, the worst outcome will be that Labour will use this as a slander campaign to paint the opposition as supporting "Child Abuse".

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    3. Re:Wake up Australia by zsau · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There hasn't been the opportunity to since they made it obvious they would stick to their idiotic promises and drop their useful ones (i.e. since they got into power). You realise we can't just get new elections every news cycle. (Although the Prime Minister can call elections for the House of Representatives almost as often as he likes, it's terribly inconvenient and if they do go early (or, as early as you're suggesting they should've gone), people are inclined to vote them out just for dragging them out to the polls one more time than is necessary.)

      In any case, even if we could, the other lot aren't any better... Most people would rank this (known) temporary inconvenience as a lot less bad than the (unknown) evils a government ran by Tony Abbott, Leader of the Liberal Party, would bring.

      In the last case, we have a Senate and the Australian people are generally not idiotic enough to give the Government unmitigated power there. I expect the Liberal party will oppose it on the basis that they're the opposition, the Greens will oppose it on the basis that it's neither left nor liberal, and the independents will probably vote quite randomly on the basis of stellar alignment and what their advisors tell them people think.

      So ... don't say stupid things like that. The least you could do before commenting on our political system is inform yourself of the absolute basics of how it works. And in this particular case, almost every political system in the (developed) world works comparably.

      (If you really *were* telling us to use pitchforks, then either you're completely unrealistic, or completely crazy. In any case, whoever said "those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" was obviously crazy and/or making use of hyperbole and/or hadn't thought about his own position, and if you're an American you've probably been brainwashed into both believing that and not acting on it. Our society is so great, and so free, precisely because we complain and wait until its time to vote instead of getting out the guns and pitchforks and executing anyone in Parliament)

      --
      Look out!
    4. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny.. for a second there I thought you were talking about the United States...

    5. Re:Wake up Australia by yincrash · · Score: 1

      I can't believe the Obama administration went to Australia for broadband advice.

    6. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

      just because you are not smart enough to understand the quote doesn't mean that the person who said it was crazy. first get yourself educated then you can make comments on one of the smartest minds of the 19th century.

    7. Re:Wake up Australia by Jeeeb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who says we are?

      The Labor party (Current government) was meant to be liberal and reformist. The alternative is the Liberal party who despite there name are mostly socially conservative Christians. They just finished voting out Malcom Turnbull their former leader who was clearly too liberal and replacing him with Tony Abbot a Christian conservative who suffice to say holds a number of opinions that don't exactly resonate with the more liberally minded.

      Anyway despite that I say fuck the Labor party. I'll vote for the Liberals next election. Maybe for 3 years it wouldn't be the perfect government. But it's better than voting for the status-quo of simply being ass-raped by greedy bastards.

      As for young people the best way to make a real difference on this is to talk to your parents and grandparents (If they're still alive). Your vote alone isn't worth as much as the votes of both your parents and yours combined.

    8. Re:Wake up Australia by BakaHoushi · · Score: 5, Informative

      That would be Benjamin Franklin who said that, I believe, and I don't see anywhere where he is suggesting the wholesale slaughter of those who oppose liberty.

    9. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the exact same predicament America is in right now, too. Coinki-dink?

      There hasn't been the opportunity to since they made it obvious they would stick to their idiotic promises and drop their useful ones (i.e. since they got into power). You realise we can't just get new elections every news cycle.

    10. Re:Wake up Australia by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      You thought we have a parliament?

    11. Re:Wake up Australia by BlortHorc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, sadly so, we need to introduce a new law. Must be at least this technically literate to hold a ministerial position governing technology. Sadly, that would exclude essentially all currently elected politicians, as well as the vast bulk of the potential electoral fodder.

      This is essentially the end result of having a technological society where technological education is not mandatory. They require you to learn English, so you can speak to people, but the don't require you understand technology, so that you can understand the society you live in.

      As a consequence, at best, the pollies are neophytes, and at worst luddites.

    12. Re:Wake up Australia by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Ha! What good has it done in the US?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    13. Re:Wake up Australia by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      The Greens, despite their reputation as being a bit luddite have proven themselves surprisingly literate with Scott Ludlum putting up a great fight against the laws, practically being the lone voice against censorship in the senate.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    14. Re:Wake up Australia by Xest · · Score: 1

      Labour, and pushing laws through that no one wants including their own supporters.

      That sounds familiar.

      Ah yes, I remember now, it's like our Labour party here in Britain trying to push through ID cards despite the opposition being against it and half their own voterbase being against it leaving them around 10% - 20% support for the scheme with 80% - 90% being opposed (yet ~35% still being stupid enough to vote them in each election which is all they need for 100% control under first past the post).

      If it's any consolation the sensible amongst us have been fighting Labour's totalitarian ideals here in Britain for 10 years now, but finally, after all this time it looks like it might be beginning to pay off. They're finally just now looking at abandoning the ID cards scheme by the sound of it and the party is in ruins with defeat almost outright guaranteed next election in May or so.

      Keep up the pressure, and never fall for their "family friendly" values argument, as family friendly ultimately just seems to mean "dictator with an excuse". Hopefully we can do away with the international scourge which are Labour parties for good.

    15. Re:Wake up Australia by wadeal · · Score: 1

      Except you forget who just became leader of the Libs? Mr Ultra Conservative. Were fucked.

    16. Re:Wake up Australia by PeterBrett · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Labor party (Current government) was meant to be liberal and reformist. The alternative is the Liberal party who despite there name are mostly socially conservative Christians.

      I refuse to believe that there is a whole continent-sized country with two and only two political parties. If you can confidently vote for neither the Labour nor Liberal parties, why not try one of the following options:

      • Vote for a third party;
      • Run as a third party candidate if no third party candidates are available in your district;
      • Spoil your ballot paper.

      Don't vote for the "not quite the worst" party: use your vote responsibly.

    17. Re:Wake up Australia by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      We're fucked either way eventually when one of these bunches of cocks decides it's a good idea and has the numbers to push it through.

      Well, fortunately our illustrious government hasn't had such an easy ride lately at getting the numbers to do anything, and there's plenty of opposition to this filter, so there is still hope that sanity will prevail.

    18. Re:Wake up Australia by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Meet the new boss, even worse than the old boss.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    19. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a troll. Obama has been against censorship his whole life.

       

    20. Re:Wake up Australia by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      In the last case, we have a Senate and the Australian people are generally not idiotic enough to give the Government unmitigated power there.

      They were that idiotic in the previous election. They handed Howard a Senate virtually trussed up with an apple in its mouth.

    21. Re:Wake up Australia by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I can't believe the Obama administration went to Australia for broadband advice.

      Actually, it's really not a bad idea to learn from other people's mistakes. Of course, that rarely happens, and stupid ideas are recycled time and again, but the principle is a fine thing. ;-)

    22. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We did.

      The Liberal party (strangely enough, they are actually the more conservative of our two major parties) under John Howard (prime minister from 1996 to 2007, yes I did need to wikipedia what year he took office) tried to pander to the christian right for a number of years by talking about implementing this very policy. After being told it was unworkable, a public affairs nightmare waiting to happen, a waste of taxpayer's money etc he eventually settled for throwing a couple of hundred million into the development of client-side internet filtering software to be made freely available to any Australian who wanted it. The major users of the software were schools, and, surprise surprise, many kids quickly worked out how to get around it.

      At the end of 2007, we got right of the Liberals, replacing them with the more liberal (note the little l) party, called the Labor party. An unfortunate side effect of the election held that year was that the balance of power in the senate is now held by Senator Steve Fielding from the Family First party (more often known as the christian nutjob party) and Nick Xenophon, an independent who ran pretty much entirely on an anti-gambling platform. So while Howard pandered to the christian right out of personal preference, the Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd is forced to do pretty much the same thing out of necessity. Not that knowing that makes it feel any better when you see these kind of antics.

      An interesting (or not so much) aside: the original proposal mentioned blocking internet gambling sites, although Xenophon's less than enthusiastic comments on the policy and eventual opposal to it appear to have resulted in this being dropped as a selling point.

      Anyhow, back to the parent's point: there's noone else to elect. We've been through the two major parties, and they both suck on this issue. And no other party in our system at the moment has enough support to realistically hope to achieve anything more than holding the balance of power in the house or senate - although the greens will have my first preference come next election, that much is for sure.

    23. Re:Wake up Australia by Jeeeb · · Score: 1

      I choose not to spoil my ballot paper because that is an even greater waste than voting for a party which I believe to be the lesser of two evils.

      I'm happy to put third parties at the top of my preference list. Last election I did just that as did many other Australians. But realistically in the elections for the house of representatives, which is what will determine who governs us, the decision is going to come down to either Labor or the Liberal/National coalition. Thus the real choose when voting for the house of representatives is who I put higher on my preferences - Liberal or Labor. Of course the Senate, where third parties hold the balance, and which will hopefully block this, is a completely different story. There voting for third parties really does count.

      Anyway this entire discussion hasn't even touched on the fact that their are both desirable and undesirable aspects about each party and we have to balance between those. I'm pissed of at Conroy and would like to make my voice heard by not voting for Labor with the aim that both parties in the future will pay more attention to me as a voter (Obviously not as an individual but as part of a group of people who're horrified about this).

    24. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any case, whoever said "those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" was obviously crazy

      Fuck you, you little internet pissant. You don't know shit.

    25. Re:Wake up Australia by gknoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoever said "those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" was obviously crazy and/or making use of hyperbole and/or hadn't thought about his own position.

      Benjamin Franklin, one of the more influential thinkers in the American Revolution, was the one who said that. He was eccentric, but I don't think he was crazy. He certainly was aware of his situation.

      At the time, people living in America had relative safety (individually). The British crown generally tried to protect them, and wasn't out to kill them. However, there were certain injustices that the Crown perpetrated on them -- things like taxing them without letting them have representatives in Parliament, and the British military effectively forcing civilians to quarter (Feed+board) them for indefinite amounts of time. Franklin, and the other revolutionaries who drafted our Declaration of Independence, were very aware that they were making a choice to either revolt (and risk capital punishment should they fail or be caught) or continue sacrificing the Liberties which they felt were absolutely essential.

      Many of these liberties and related concerns are addressed directly in the first 10 amendments to our Constitution: the rights of freedom of religion, speech, a free press, and the right not to have troops quartered in your house are four examples. These are principles which Franklin and the others were absolutely prepared to die for.

      Franklin and his friends knew a lot more about the matter than many of us do. Right now, we live in relative prosperity and comfort, so the risk and "temporary safety" are amplified in our minds. We're not likely to die to disease, cold, or raiding natives, for example. Our populace has basically been seduced by the bread and circuses (so to speak), and has willingly traded away freedoms which some of us consider essential (freedom to copy a DVD you own, freedom to communicate securely, etc) in order to have a more blissful and convenient existence. The security theater we see in American (and other) airports is another example of this: we've pretty much irrevocably squandered our right to not be treated like a herd of potential criminals, in exchange for "safety". This is absolutely the same sort of things over which Franklin and others were willing to shed blood over: tyrrany, however petty.

    26. Re:Wake up Australia by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Hopefully we can do away with the international scourge which are Labour parties for good.

      1) Don't hold your breath. Both sides are very happy with current two party system, and won't be changing it any time soon.
      2) International scourge? What are the Tories/Liberals/Republicans... Scotch mist?

    27. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Independent Senator Nick Minchin

      Nick Minchin is a Liberal, not an independent. Did you mean Nick Xenaphon?

    28. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoiling a ballot paper hardly amounts to a vote but does give some indication of your acceptance of the available candidates.

      Since Australia uses a preferential voting system, a valid vote is almost always a vote for one of the two biggest parties.

    29. Re:Wake up Australia by Gudeldar · · Score: 1

      According to the Australian Election Commission there are a lot more than 2 parties.
      http://aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/index.htm

    30. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Independent Senator Nick Minchin

      You're thinking of Nick Xenophon; Minchin is a Liberal.

    31. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Spoil your ballot paper." - How does this help?

    32. Re:Wake up Australia by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      "Spoil your ballot paper." - How does this help?

      It's a poor man's vote for "none of the above."

    33. Re:Wake up Australia by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I refuse to believe that there is a whole continent-sized country with two and only two political parties.

      Well, believe it or not, that's how it works in Australia, both practically and politically.

      We have a compulsory, preferential voting system here. This means that in most cases, you actually have to vote for one of the two major parties.

      The way this works is as follows: say there are three candidates, Labor, Liberal and Green. Every voter must put them in order, 1, 2, 3. Then all of the 1s are tallied up. The candidate with the least 1s gets eliminated (say, the Greens candidate). Then all of the votes for that candidate are re-allocated according to which of the remaining two candidates got voted 2. In this way, in a typical Australian electorate, 100% of the votes will ultimately be divided between the two major parties.

      So let's say I really, really don't want to vote for one of Labor or the Liberal party. Well, that's a shame for me, because at the end of the day I have to rank one of them last and one of them second last, and because of preferential voting the one I put second last will get my full vote after all of the other parties have been eliminated.

      On top of this, voting is compulsory. Even if a decent sized chunk of highly motivated people go out and vote for the Greens, the fact that all of the sheep will also be herded out of their pen to vote whether they like it or not means that the major parties inevitably get a very large default vote. Stick a non-political person in a voting booth and tell them they have to vote and chances are they go with what they know, which is either the government or the main opposition party. Compare with the USA where something like 40-50% of people don't vote, IIRC.

      Add to this that most Australian cities have one or sometimes two newspapers, and that we get serious political coverage on only one TV channel which many intellectually lazy Aussies wouldn't watch because it's the boring government channel. All of our newspapers are actually owned by either Murdoch (in which case they are sympathetic to the Liberal Party) or Fairfax (in which case they are sympathetic to the Labor Party on the whole).

      Politically, Labor and Liberal hate each other but not as much as they hate the minor parties. So they spend a lot of time either discrediting or outmaneuvering any small party they see as a threat. For example, they both demonize the Greens as a bunch of environmental crazies who all want to take heaps of drugs and have orgies in the forest. A few years ago there was a far right party with a bit of clout ("One Nation") which the government promptly dealt with by subsuming most of its policy positions on key issues. That party is all but dead now.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    34. Re:Wake up Australia by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      We have a third party and independents, until the last election we also had a fourth. These members generally reside in the senate and act as a check on the government which is decided by majority rule of the house or representatives.

    35. Re:Wake up Australia by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Your refusal is well founded. There are many political parties in Australia but, just like the USA, there are only two horses actually in the race to govern the nation: Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party/National Party coalition. Votes for minor parties typically convert to a preference vote for one of the major parties (directly by voter choice, or indirectly). The only place that small parties or independent members hold any direct sway is in the Federal Senate where, by accident and not design, they effectively hold the deciding vote between the major parties.

      Spoiling your ballot paper, while legal, is not effective at obtaining change unless everybody did it.

      As a general note; it is Australian Labor Party, in another confusing break with Australian English spelling.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    36. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, at this rate the Liberals will have a new leader before the next election.

    37. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway despite that I say fuck the Labor party. I'll vote for the Liberals next election.

      That's some extremely flawed logic you've got there. If Labor and Liberals have moved so far to the right, then why not vote to the left of Labor. The Greens, for example, have much better policies on freedom of speech ( as raised here ), environmental issues ( ETS is a joke ), foreign policy ( opposed the Iraq war ), and plenty more besides. Voting for Liberals won't send any message other than convincing Labor that they haven't moved far enough to the right yet ... and of course rewarding the far-right loonies with Abbot at the helm.

    38. Re:Wake up Australia by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Not quite lone, Senator Nick Minchin although initially for it, because his own agenda, came to realise that exactly what he was pushing, was exactly the problem with the proposed filter and withdrew support for it.

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

      Indeed Pirate Party Australia who have quite a spiel regarding mandatory filtering in Australia on their home page.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    40. Re:Wake up Australia by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      The party as a whole doesn't seem to have a policy on it. Their candidate for the Higgins byelection was heavily involved in the scheme while he was at the Australia Institute, and is very much in favour of it.

      (I'm not putting down Ludlum's work agaisnt the filter, just saying that it seems to be a personal rather than party policy.)

    41. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...in a typical Australian electorate, 100% of the votes will ultimately be divided between the two major parties."

      So how do the Greens or the independents get elected then? It must be doable, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

      Secondly, you don't have to number all the boxes. you have a choice of indicating just the one candidate or numbering your preferences.

      Sounds like somebody's not reading their "How to Vote" cards.

    42. Re:Wake up Australia by geekangel · · Score: 1

      Join, and vote for, the Australian Pirate Party. It's just starting, it needs your support, and we Aussies sure as shit need it. http://www.pirateparty.org.au/

    43. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting the sitting member last on your ballot paper would change 20% of the members of Parliament. And wouldn't that wake them up....

    44. Re:Wake up Australia by Lunzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      So how do the Greens or the independents get elected then? It must be doable, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

      In the house of representatives they don't get elected, as a general rule. The only minor party which consistently get lower house seats are the Nationals but they only run in rural electorates and campaign on rural issues. They also have a permanent coalition with the Liberal party and there usually aren't any Liberals running in the same electorates as Nationals candidates.

      The minor parties and independents only get a handful of Senate seats. Each state elects six senators at each election. Again preferences are counted, but because the whole state is counted in the one pool it's easier for them to get over the line.

      Secondly, you don't have to number all the boxes. you have a choice of indicating just the one candidate or numbering your preferences.

      At federal elections you do need to number all the boxes for the House of Reps. Some states let you just vote 1 for your candidate. For the Senate you can number all boxes (yuck) or just put a 1 in your chosen party/independent's box. If you do that, you're still preferentially voting, you're just choosing to use the preference order that party has nominated.

    45. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoil your ballot paper.

      Don't vote for the "not quite the worst" party: use your vote responsibly.

      Spoiling the ballot doesn't work here. It gets counted as a vote to maintain the status quo. Granted this is a crappy situation for people who make a mistake which really should have invalidated a ballot, and it also punishes an entire country for the "sins" of those too lazy to vote properly or who are legitimately trying to protest a system that is essentially a corruption of democracy, where a right to vote is mandatory and enforced, without a reciprocal right to abstain.

      Agreed though, regardless of how annoying our system is, it behooves us all to make the best of it, accept our vote not as a right, but as a civic duty, and to use the only opportunity we have to exercise our rights in this country by voting responsibly. Then, when the next "seasonal dictatorship" commences, we have only ourselves to blame when we face another 3-4 years of mismanagement.

    46. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like somebody's not reading their "How to Vote" cards.

      Yeah - you. Luckily because you aren't filling your voting slip out properly your vote is being filtered out of the system.

    47. Re:Wake up Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately we are forced to vote and our choices are never great. As another person replied here we are screwed either way.

      The Pirate Party and other groups (like the bikies) are now starting groups to get into parliament and its about time. Current parties have really lost the plot.

    48. Re:Wake up Australia by zsau · · Score: 1

      Yeah, hence "generally". We got scared by the thought of Latham in power. It's one of the disadvantages of a two-party (for government) system.

      --
      Look out!
    49. Re:Wake up Australia by zsau · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your coherent response; it was way better than "Fuck you, you little internet pissant. You don't know shit." and probably better than I deserved. I will try

      Benjamin Franklin, one of the more influential thinkers in the American Revolution, was the one who said that. He was eccentric, but I don't think he was crazy. He certainly was aware of his situation.

      Well, that leaves hyperbole Not a suprise; people often do. But something people often forget when they refer to him. I think too many people just read the quote, and regurgitate it in their words and thought, without actually understanding it. Another possibility is that it was intended somewhat narrowly as a call to arms, but not as a call to arms to risk death to copy a DVD. Also, a lot of people fail to realise that just because one of the founders of America said it, another viewpoint isn't legitimate. I personally rank living and happiness as far more important than freedom; (limited) freedom is simply one (very) important ingredient in happiness, but it can't be seen as an ends in itself. (I truly would rather be a happy slave than a dead freeman---although the acceptability of being an unhappy slave would depend on my hope for happiness in the future.)

      Personally, I have no understanding of how the "freedom to copy a DVD you own" is essential. The fact that you do so suggests to me that you really haven't thought about it. Don't get me wrong---I've copied many a DVD and downloaded TV episodes and done all sorts of things. I also think the penalties for this are usually far above and beyond what's legitimate, and certainly worth concern, worry and even holding up traffic by blocking the busiest intersection in town. I also think it ought to be illegal that the DVD player in my computer can only play the DVDs I bought in Australia, or the ones I've bought here in Europe, but not both (well, it can only be switched five times between the two). How does it disadvantage you not to be able to copy the DVD? When was such an activity possible and legal in the past? You bought the DVD knowing the system that prevailed. The DVD shouldn't be crucial to your enjoyment of life; if it is, seek a counsellor. Your "freedom to copy a DVD you own", just like a schoolchild's "right" to wear a t-shirt with offensive words or images, bears no parallel to essential freedoms---like our right to discuss politics, the government's actions, and the political system, openly and fairly, without risk of (government) retribution. Obviously social retribution is another matter entirely; if you want to scorn me for expressing my dissenting opinion that's something I just have to live with/weigh in my decision to talk.

      --
      Look out!
    50. Re:Wake up Australia by Xest · · Score: 1

      "For example, they both demonize the Greens as a bunch of environmental crazies who all want to take heaps of drugs and have orgies in the forest."

      I thought you said they demonize them? They'd get my vote on the orgies in the forest alone!

    51. Re:Wake up Australia by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Another possibility is that it was intended somewhat narrowly as a call to arms, but not as a call to arms to risk death to copy a DVD. Also, a lot of people fail to realise that just because one of the founders of America said it, another viewpoint isn't legitimate. I personally rank living and happiness as far more important than freedom; (limited) freedom is simply one (very) important ingredient in happiness, but it can't be seen as an ends in itself.

      This opinion isn't wrong, it's just not a world view that matches that of America's founding fathers. It's quite possible that you are from a different country (with different cultural baggage), or just that you disagree with them.

      I have no understanding of how the "freedom to copy a DVD you own" is essential.

      If I've bought a book/CD/DVD/chair/desk/lawnchair/flag, I should be Free to read, destroy, and make personal backup copies (or media-shifted copies for personal use). If you own it, do what you will. (Note: I am NOT including "make a copy for others" in that list, though some might argue that it should.) When I buy a book in paper form, why should I not be able to make a (personal) PDF copy of it? When I buy a chair, why should I not be able to clone the design with my replicator? When I buy a book, why shouldn't I be able to perform (read) it to my son?

      These things are all Liberty (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) in varying forms, and Liberty is one of the "rights" which the United States' founders believed were fundamental to all humans, and worth securing at risk to their lives.

      Freedom to copy your own DVD (or book or chair) seems relatively trivial, but so does the freedom to eat in particular restaurants or sit at the front of the bus. (If you are an American, chances are you know exactly what I'm referring to. For non-USians, I'm referring to Rosa Parks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks ) .)

      You bought the DVD knowing the system that prevailed.

      We rarely have a choice in the matter: we can't get competing media that doesn't have this restriction. Moreover, the technical limitations were known, but the legal ones (e.g. DMCA) were added later to prevent us from circumventing the technical limitations. The difference between "very hard" and "illegal" is a very large one. Moreover, saying "You knew the rules when you started.." is a very poor counterargument when one is arguing that the rules are fundamentally bad.

  5. Conroy is a Traitor. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The new leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, is an outspoken catholic. His party has opposed the ISP-based filter in the past, so it's just possible this nasty piece of trash legislation is an attempt to politically embarrass him.

    If he opposes the bill, the government can accuse him of hypocrisy. If he supports it, he faces rebellion in his own party.

    But if it is brinkmanship, Conroy is playing with fire. There could be a very serious electoral backlash from this.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    1. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by SupplyMission · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If he opposes the bill, the government can accuse him of hypocrisy.

      I don't follow. How would it make Abbott a hypocrite if he opposes internet filtering?

    2. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by oahazmatt · · Score: 1

      I don't follow. How would it make Abbott a hypocrite if he opposes internet filtering?

      I believe the GP meant to imply that proclaiming oneself as Catholic and speaking out against censorship could somehow mark one a hypocrite. I assume the anticipated knee-jerk reaction would consist of "He says he's a Catholic, but he doesn't want your children to be safe on the Internet" or something along those lines. I suppose the natural response would be "The responsibility falls to the parent, not the Government", though that doesn't win over as many voters as one would like.

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    3. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How would it make Abbott a hypocrite if he opposes internet filtering?

      This is politics. There will be posturing.

      If Abbott opposes the filter, various family groups will be trotted out to express horror that he endorses pedophiles having access to filth on the (uncensored) internet.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    4. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by pleappleappleap · · Score: 1

      Apparently to me, the implication is that a "good Catholic" should support censorship because it leads to a more "moral" society.

    5. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hasn't stopped the opposition from accusing those opposed to "clean feed" to have a "pro child-pornography" stance

    6. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The implication is that a Catholic politician is not really free to make his or her own decisions, as their bishop can instruct them to do things on threat of excommunication (look at Bishop Tobin's instruction to Rep. Kennedy in RI).

    7. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      This political nonsense makes the Jacob Zuma/Malema crowd in South Africa look like amateurs.

      Thank God SA's not the only country with idiots in power...

    8. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      It's sad because this is true everywhere. And while I'm preaching to the choir, I have to ask, how is child pornography already not censored? If you find a site that (regularly, as in, not some random douchebag on a forum posting it as a shock image) hosts child porn, you can alert the ISP or the cops and the site will be taken down and, if possible, its creators arrested. How much more censored can it get?

    9. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he opposes the bill, the government can accuse him of hypocrisy.

      Why? He's a catholic, why wouldn't he want kiddie-porn?

      Oh, too low? ^^

    10. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      The implication is that a Catholic politician is not really free to make his or her own decisions, as their bishop can instruct them to do things on threat of excommunication (look at Bishop Tobin's instruction to Rep. Kennedy in RI).

      This is not actually true. As far as I am aware, Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical Deus Caritas Est is the authority on this, and it says:

      It is not the Church's... responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly...

      As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life... The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competences and fulfilling their own responsibility.

      I interpret this to mean that Catholic politicians are not expected to prescribe Catholic morals through legislation. Rather, their responsibility is to block legislation that would make it difficult or impossible for the faithful to live a Catholic life.

      We had a classic example in the UK recently. Many of the largest and most successful adoption agencies in the UK were Catholic (i.e. founded by Catholics, funded by charitable donations from Catholics, run by Catholics, and often caring for children of Catholic parents).

      Some same-sex couples wished to use these agencies to find a child to adopt, and were turned down. This is broadly analogous to going to a halal butcher and ordering some pork chops. Just as there are plenty of butchers which sell pork, there were at the time plenty of adoption agencies that accepted applications from same-sex couples.

      A big fuss having been made, the government introduced legislation forbidding adoption agencies from rejecting applications on the basis that the applicants were a same-sex couple.

      This is an example of legislation that a Catholic politician would probably be expected to either vote against or abstain from voting on.

      (The upshot of this episode was that the Catholic Church in the UK has had to separate itself entirely from the funding and operation of adoption agencies. Sadly, no-one has stepped in to make up the shortfall caused by this short-sighted and reactionary meddling. Least of all gay rights groups.)

    11. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he can get the real thing without fear of reprimand ?

  6. national character? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have to admit, this is not what I expect to see from Australians. Perhaps from Europeans who prefer their governments to make peoples' personal decisions for them, but not from Australians.

    Not that we're better here in the 'states - we're sliding down some very similar slopes over here as well, maybe just a little bit behind. Maybe it's just that very few any more really care about being free peoples, and would rather have the convenience of a nanny state to protect them and make them feel safe.

    1. Re:national character? by zblack_eagle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Us Australians don't want this except for the lunatic fringes that exist (as they exist in every other country). However, like everywhere else politicians here like to pull the tough-on-crime/think-of-the-children card when it comes to appeasing the large number of voters that favour 'shoot first and ask questions later' responses to perceived problems

    2. Re:national character? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 troll? How the hell was my message a troll?

      Anyway thanks for the reply zblack. I hope you're right, and these things really *don't* have much popular support, because that means there's a chance they'll get overturned eventually. But just from the culture shift I've seen in the USA in the past decades, I'm pessimistic about people's sense regarding such things. The perceived safety often outweighs the more nebulous benefits of not having government censorship.

    3. Re:national character? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      I have to admit, this is not what I expect to see from Australians.

      Not many Australians happen to like it, but the Minister has the bit between his teeth and does not have our concerns at heart. And this is with the collusion of a Prime Minister who seems determined to adopt a Tony Blair-like position as conservative cuckoo in the nest of the Labor Party.

    4. Re:national character? by microbox · · Score: 1

      Conroy isn't pulling a "card". He really believes what he says. Crazy times, eh?

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  7. 100% Accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry but done with 100% accuracy? I think that is an internet filtering first. I'd love to know what filtering technology they are using because it is far better than anything I've used to date.

    1. Re:100% Accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can 100% filter out a request using a specific URL assuming that it's not obfuscated or encrypted. Don't you love their statistics? They also consider 0-10% performance impact 'negligible' and a 10-20% performance impact 'low'.

    2. Re:100% Accuracy? by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

      I believe that little gem came from "Politicians book of bullshit statistics, vol. 3".

    3. Re:100% Accuracy? by killmenow · · Score: 1

      I know. I still can't believe the man had the audacity to say it. This is one of those times when a person says something so stupid it's not even stupid, so f*ed up it's not even funny, and so retarded even retarded people say, "OMGWTF?!"

      OMGWTF?!

    4. Re:100% Accuracy? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The one for Conroy's job seems to have been 100% successful in filtering out sanity.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:100% Accuracy? by KDEnut · · Score: 1

      They've just rounded 50.1 to the nearest hundred.

      That way they can keep it to one significant digit and all...

    6. Re:100% Accuracy? by straponego · · Score: 1

      Anybody who claims 100% accuracy in such a context is 100% lying, or 100% incompetent, or both.

    7. Re:100% Accuracy? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      But all of people blocked from the site failed to reach the site, ergo 100% of those blocked were blocked.

    8. Re:100% Accuracy? by AReilly · · Score: 1

      Read the report: it's not accurate in any useful or unexpected sense: it blocks the URLs that are on the block list. Neat, huh? They just get to make a claim with a pretty, round number.

      --
      -- Andrew
  8. What happened Australia? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    You used to be cool.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:What happened Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still are dude.....except we're stuck with a few idiots in power for a short while. never fear, normal transmission will shortly be resumed. Just think back to the USA oh...a year or two ago........see how things change ?.. :)

    2. Re:What happened Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They became apathetic.

      When I was last there, the majority of people I met were more interested in drinking, surfing and watching TV than they were with politics or voting.

      The only people who do care about anything at all are the small minority of crazies. These are mainly religious freaks, who continually cry and moan about "obscene" material.

      Mind you, these people are probably the most deviant people around. Like many male Republicans in the US, especially those in power, they'll go on about the important of "family values" and religion, only to be caught in an airport bathroom getting fucked by three random men while performing fellatio on faucet...

    3. Re:What happened Australia? by hierofalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things changed here? Sorry. I missed it. Perhaps you could enlighten us on what you think really is significantly different now.

    4. Re:What happened Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well our president was given the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in... um... let me get back to you on that.

    5. Re:What happened Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thousands of years of corrupt government to reflect upon, yet the average individual is still naive enough to believe the age-old fairy tale that government and the people are "one and the same".

    6. Re:What happened Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      " Perhaps you could enlighten us on what you think really is significantly different now."

      I'll take a guess..
      Both major political parties run by folk who wear religion on their sleeves.
      There was a time not so long ago when an Australian politician's religiosity was not something that was flaunted.
      Now we have politicians happy to be seen at megachurch events, and a prime minister who chose to announce additional funding for chaplains in schools at the national conference of the Australian Christian Lobby.
      In recent news.. "A study of the characteristics of 2422 political speeches between 2000 and 2006 shows that politicians doubled their use of Christian terms.."

      More censorship, 2am lockouts and other new rules on clubs etc, school chaplains in our supposedly secular schools, taxpayer funding of religious event 'world youth day' .. coincidence??

    7. Re:What happened Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's what everyone outside Australia thought, but the truth is, we were never cool.... not even very close to it.

    8. Re:What happened Australia? by salmonmoose · · Score: 1

      For a short while? Last decent Prime Minister we had was Keating.

    9. Re:What happened Australia? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I know what has changed!! The Illegal Aliens, allied with Wall Street criminals, have won their war. Almost all American citizens are broke, losing their homes, and wondering if they can find a job in time to buy groceries before Grandma starves. (alright, I'll compromise - it's not really "almost all" Americans - it's only somewhere between 15 and 20%)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:What happened Australia? by BlortHorc · · Score: 1

      Believe me, our politicians have not been cool since the early to mid seventies.

      Not saying the rest of us don't have some chops, but really, I don't know anyone who doesn't think Conroy is an unmitigated fool. He was elected because he was Labour, not because of the crazy shit he believes, and he got his cabinet position because of factional balance, despite what shit Rudd spouts about being above factional politics.

    11. Re:What happened Australia? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      They became apathetic.

      When I was last there, the majority of people I met were more interested in drinking, surfing and watching TV than they were with politics or voting.

      Is there a country where this isn't true after replacing surfing with some more culturally viable sport?

    12. Re:What happened Australia? by argent · · Score: 1

      I think the only "cool" Australian politician ever was Bob Hawke, even if you hated him you had to love him.

      "Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up today is a bum." -- Bob Hawke, September 27th, 1983.

    13. Re:What happened Australia? by Xest · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hardly any of the chicks in Neighbours are hot nowadays for starters!

      Even Steph now has a few rough edges, and Susan is getting too old to be milf material.

      How could you let your finest export slide like this?

    14. Re:What happened Australia? by deek · · Score: 1

      Politicians are not cool. It is universal.

      Anyways, we'll just have to wait until the next election. Then we can vote yet another douchebag in.

    15. Re:What happened Australia? by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

      Bob Hawke also held the world record for the fastest time to drink a yard glass. That not only makes him cool, that makes him hard as rocks.

    16. Re:What happened Australia? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Many of the Middle Eastern countries. There, people are very interested in politics, though for some of them that means strapping on bomb vests.

  9. LEAVE AUSTRALIA ALONE! by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Funny

    How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Australia after all it has been through!
    Leave Australia alone! Right now! I mean it!

    1. Re:LEAVE AUSTRALIA ALONE! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Making fun of Ozzies is mandatory for Americans. After all - many of the criminals shipped to Australia were first and second cousins to the criminals shipped to the American colonies, right? If we didn't bash each other verbally, we'd resort to bashing each other physically. ;^)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:LEAVE AUSTRALIA ALONE! by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is because we in Australia did not find a civil war necesary, thank goodness.

      The last thing we need is a US style "Democracry".

      We LIKE being thought of as civilised you see.

    3. Re:LEAVE AUSTRALIA ALONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making fun of Ozzies is mandatory for Americans. After all - many of the criminals shipped to Australia were first and second cousins to the criminals shipped to the American colonies, right? If we didn't bash each other verbally, we'd resort to bashing each other physically. ;^)

      Just glad aussie got the smart bunch of criminals..

  10. lame by Tei · · Score: 1

    this is stupid, so i can make a cards game on the internet, and ignore aussia boards, and these isp are forced to block my game (maybe on sf.com?).

    guys, change this aus govern NOW

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  11. Re:Leave australia Alone by aBaldrich · · Score: 1

    They won't invade Australia because they already speak english and they're in the sphere of influence of the british crown.

    --
    In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
  12. Re:Leave australia Alone by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think people would be right to mod you down.

    Firstly, Australia & America have been friends since WW2 when the shock of the british defeat by japan in the asian theatre(most importantly, the loss of singapore) lead to australia moving further from britain to america for defensive pacts, which would lead to trade, etc etc.

    Secondly, that has _WHAT_ to do with internet censorship?

  13. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be an American. That was Austria, you fucking muppet.

    1. Re:LOL by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Please don't assume we are all that stupid...

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    2. Re:LOL by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the Internet -- don't feed the trolls

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    3. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling australians with Fritzl will never get old.

      Thank god you aussies are dense as bricks.

    4. Re:LOL by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty safe to assume it's a joke.

  14. Of course... by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone (or at least, most people) here at Slashdot knows that on a network as large as the internet, no blacklist method will achieve 100% accuracy.

    This, of course, means that Senator Conroy is either completely ignoring the technical results, or the technical results are being flubbed to match Senator Conroy's agenda.

    Are others in your parliament actually going to vote for this bill, or is he more of a rogue senator who isn't actually supported?

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Of course... by salmonmoose · · Score: 1

      I gather that it was 100% accurate at blocking sites on the blacklist (without interference by the user) not 100% accurate at blocking unknown content - that figure fell in the 70-80% range depending on the filter in place.

    2. Re:Of course... by BlortHorc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Guy is a fucking turkey. iinet only took part in the trial to prove how idiotic it was, anyone who has a ssh tunnel to somewhere in the rest of the world can immediately bypass this foolish plan, and that has been pointed out to him. Repeatedly. Should I mention the turkey thing again? Not even to mention stenography, gpg encrypted emails, etc, etc, etc. This guy is without a doubt the biggest dumbfuck in the current Labour government.

      Why don't we vote the other guys back in, I hear you ask? Why, because in Labour this kind of turkey is somewhat rare, whereas the Liberals/Nationals has a good half dozen or so wack jobs even loonier than him. Why are so many extremists attracted to politics in Aus? Because capable people stand to make way more in the private sector, and those very few capable people with a strong sense of ethics tend to join a party with an ethical basis, such as the Greens, who have yet to make enough traction to make useful changes to the fucked up political culture in this country.

      And for what it is worth, the legislation is still just a twinkle in Conroy's eye, it hasn't even been tabled in the house of reps yet, let alone pass a hostile senate.

    3. Re:Of course... by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      and presumably it doesn't measure the accuracy of the blacklist either... as in whether or not the URLs on the blacklist A) shouldn't be there but are or B) should be there but aren't.

    4. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an Australian. Senators of a party (and also Representatives in the House) usually vote together on bills in their house. The differences of opinion are usually discussed in party meetings outside of the chamber. His opinions are usually the official party line for his area, as he is Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate

      So assuming he does introduce this bill, it will have Labor support in both the house and the senate.

    5. Re:Of course... by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      and those very few capable people with a strong sense of ethics tend to join a party with an ethical basis, such as the Greens,

      I hate the greens with a passion, primarily because of their two-faced reactions to certain freedoms. Half of what they do is alright, but they want to get rid of recreational shooting, all forms of camping, fishing, etc. Even when fishing permits etc tend to cost for the hatching of more fish than what is caught with them.

      What is the point of preserving nature, if people are not allowed to see it?

    6. Re:Of course... by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      The Greens are happy for people to see nature. I've never heard them suggest otherwise. I would, however, suggest that there is a difference between seeing nature and shooting it.

    7. Re:Of course... by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Conroy is a minister in cabinet, and the communications portfolio he has is one of the higher profile ones. If he's pushing for net censorship it has the full backing* of the government.

      * Full backing = 51% or more of the Labor caucus.

    8. Re:Of course... by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      I should have been more specific, they want to ban target shooting as well as hunting. It is hard to argue target shooting on a range effects them at all.

      Point still stands why try to ban fishing when by people going fishing MORE fish are produced through the cost of permits to go do it?

      It's all the little things combined, that at least to me make it seem that they are two faced in regards to freedoms.

  15. 100% Accuracy? by rainmaestro · · Score: 1

    I would love to see this filter of his. I've never seen a filter for *anything* that could truly be said to be 100% accurate.

  16. Remember - it's the Government, not Australians by ajv · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is an EPIC FAIL.

    Australia has led technology trends and adoption for so long, and the Government is prepared to kill it and our children's future for a single lousy vote of a Senator who has the support of exactly no one.

    The Government is terribly misguided on this one. Conroy might be pushing this as a wedge policy, he might be doing it for Fielding's support, but this issue alone will lose the ALP the next election, as well as many for years to come.

    All of Gen i, Y and X will remember this and vote accordingly for years to come. The ALP will be in the wilderness for many elections, and struggle to form a strong government in their own right without doing the independent / Greens coalition tango that is working soooo well for them right now.

    Seriously, I could see the Greens take this to the election and coupled with effective climate change policies and no internet censoring, they could become the balance of power for years.

    Conroy is Public Enemy #1. He has committed electoral suicide for himself and his Government. I really do think they have no idea exactly how unpopular this policy will be.

    In short - how to fight this thing:

    * Ring your politicians tomorrow. All of them. Make the phones run hot.
    * Write them letters.
    * Ask to see them. Talk to them about this issue, and only this issue.
    * Write letters to the news sites
    * Blog and Twitter and Facebook away.
    * Attend rallies. Publish photos and write ups about same.
    * Join the EFA.
    * Sign up to Get Up if you feel inclined
    * Use #nocleanfeed religiously.
    * Do not do work for Conroy's department. Resign or transfer if you work there.
    * Support ISPs that are against this idea. Leave ISPs that support it or who have no position.

    If it becomes law, mass civil disobedience is required. I will be blogging about how to get around the filtering.

    --
    Andrew van der Stock
    1. Re:Remember - it's the Government, not Australians by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I will be blogging about how to get around the filtering.

      It seems that the URL to your blog was filtered out.

      They're at it already!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Remember - it's the Government, not Australians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize the vast majority is much more passive than this. Don't worry, the politicians of late in Australia and America are already finished. They realize it, and that is why they are making these mad grabs for power: they have nothing left to lose (e.g., censorship in Australia, Government controlled healthcare in America, etc). The only difference is that the Autralian bullshit is an easy one to fudge in comparison in that it effects fewer people (as opposed to the whole populace).

    3. Re:Remember - it's the Government, not Australians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conroy is taking public submissions here: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/all_funding_programs_and_support/cybersafety_plan/transparency_measures/how_to_make_a_submission

      As well as #nocleanfeed, twitter to @nocleanfeed

    4. Re:Remember - it's the Government, not Australians by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If it becomes law, mass civil disobedience is required. I will be blogging about how to get around the filtering.

      That's when ISP's like iinet, node et al start offering VPN accounts in Sweden as standard with all of their plans, and routers pre-configured to use them. Smart people/companies work around stupid laws when they need to.

      Conroy is Public Enemy #1. He has committed electoral suicide for himself and his Government. I really do think they have no idea exactly how unpopular this policy will be.

      The really sad part about this is that practically no-one knows and most of those who do believe it will never happen or affect them. As for voting in the Liberals, with Abbot placing hard-liners in the cabinet that will never happen. I'm afraid out political system is becoming as screwed up as Britain, the Labour party will always have majority, the Liberals will become as ridiculous as the Conservatives and the Nationals are one racist policy shy of being the BNP.

      Our best hope is that Conroy keeps getting flak about the NBN (because that's what people are paying attention too, not filtering) as that will cause Rudd to replace him at the next election, He's already promoted backbencher, Kate Lundy to what is essentially Conroy's understudy.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Remember - it's the Government, not Australians by keeperofdakeys · · Score: 1

      here is his blog http://www.greebo.net/

  17. "technically competent users" are a lot these days by ihavenospine · · Score: 1

    This will work till the next pedo scandal. Then the average citizens will ask themselves where the hell their taxes are going.

  18. clearly a humbug reason for filtering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Why did the Government cease providing free PC filters when ISP filtering will not be available until 2011?
    The PC filter program experienced low take-up and very low ongoing use. It was therefore closed to new users six months earlier than originally planned.
    Only around 12.5 per cent of the approximately two million households with dependent children and an internet connection are estimated to have tried one of these filters, and less than one per cent of these households continue to use their filters."

    1% of the population still uses this filtering ...
    12% has tried it out ...
    this means:
      88 % of all people didn't even want to try it out,
    out of the remaining 12%, 90% of those who've tried it out dumped it afterwards ...
    conclusion: 99% of your population do not want filtering, the other 1% can still filter their own PC by installing the software on their own PC.

  19. Re:Leave australia Alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They won't invade Australia because they already speak english and they're in the sphere of influence of the british crown.

    Invade? Did somebody say oil??

  20. in democracies by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    they are one and the same

    the opinion of one asshole senator is not the majority voice of the australian people. so the problem will work itself out eventually

    in nondemocracies, such a retarded filtering policy could be established by fiat, in spite of what the people really want. and so in nondemocracies, the government and the people really aren't the same

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  21. Whoosh. by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Apparently the GP wasn't emo enough for Runaway1956 to get the joke.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  22. a short story by thehostiles · · Score: 1

    The EU decided to censor things on the internet. I was concerned, but didn't speak up because I wasn't from Europe The Britons decided to censor things on the internet. I was worried, but didn't speak up because I wasn't from Briton. The Australians decided to do it too. I was scared, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't Australian. When they did it here, there was nobody left to stand alongside me

    1. Re:a short story by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      They know people might think this way. That's why they're negotiating treaties in secret, so they can try to foist restrictions on us all simultaneously.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    2. Re:a short story by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You can "speak up" all you want on these things as a non-citizen of these places, but it's not going to do much good. Why would these other countries' governments care about what some random person says about their policies on an internet forum? The only people who actually have any power over an elected government are the people who elect it. Unfortunately, the main problem with democratic governments is that if the voters are stupid, ignorant, naive, or apathetic, you get a crappy government. That's why democratic governments really don't work all that much better (or even worse) than the monarchies of previous centuries, except in very small countries with highly-educated citizens. For instance, the USA had a much better (i.e. non-corrupt) government back when only landholders were allowed to vote.

  23. But if it's to protect the people ... by ScientiaPotentiaEst · · Score: 1
    ... from hackers, thieves, terrorists and child pornographers, they'll roll over and accept it. The general media will no doubt paint it as such (old media typically hates the series of pipes - it circumvents them).

    There'll be some whining among fringe groups such as us here on /. But we'll do nothing more than that. We'll go back to wanting those very same censoring governments to "protect" us similarly (job security, health care, global warming, etc.). We give the Devil his power - and we're surprised when he uses it against us.

    I generalize of course. But the pattern is clear and repeating. Sadly.

    1. Re:But if it's to protect the people ... by thehostiles · · Score: 1

      yeah, if the content was illegal (such as child pornography or terrorists) the government could just take down the website by tipping off another government and doing a police raid. this is about control of things that were, until now, legal. such as file sharing websites and hacking tools

    2. Re:But if it's to protect the people ... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      .. from hackers, thieves, terrorists and child pornographers, they'll roll over and accept it.
      Of course, the "Christian Lobby" wants to extend the filter to cover much more than that.

  24. i was wondering how a thread by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    about something the australian government is doing wrong can be spun into an attack on the american government

    why do you have such a giant hard on for the usa?

    do any governments besides washington dc actually do anything wrong in the world worthy of your condemnation?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  25. Links/contact details for protest groups ? by SirKveldulv · · Score: 1

    Are there any existing groups dedicated to opposing this ?

    I'd like to do something constructive to help make sure this sort of BS doesn't end up as national policy.

    Conroy, if nothing else, is persistent, so the problem isn't going to go away after 1-2 rounds of failure.

    1. Re:Links/contact details for protest groups ? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Pirate Party Australia seems like a good place to start.
      Especially as you dont have to worry about whether their issues on health care, the environment, taxation, abortion or the like align with your views or not.

    2. Re:Links/contact details for protest groups ? by cailith1970 · · Score: 1

      Alas, Conroy is merely the dog doing the bidding of his master. Who is quite happy for him to be the "public face" of it, and knows he's passionate about it and will put up a good front for the REAL puppetmaster who wants it to happen...

      --
      I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
    3. Re:Links/contact details for protest groups ? by SirKveldulv · · Score: 1
      http://www.nocleanfeed.com/ is the organised protest group/movement over here.

      Personally I'll be voting for the pirate party giving preferences to the sex party in the next federal election.

      And no, I didn't vote for Rudd in the first place either.

  26. well australia did give us freud and mozart by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    and i always liked "the sound of music"

    maybe the usa can loan arnold schwarzenegger back to the country of his birth, to clean things up in australia, terminator style?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  27. Where's Sir John Kerr when you really need him? by argent · · Score: 1

    That is all.

    1. Re:Where's Sir John Kerr when you really need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, we've only had one single national leader in the last 30 or so years. His name is Wayne Kerr!! :-P

  28. Religion: by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

    Apparently to me, the implication is that a "good Catholic" should support censorship because it leads to a more "moral" society.

    Harmless?

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  29. Riiiiight... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed

    Riiight...

    Protip: Darknet, tunneling proxy, EPIC FAIL. ^^

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  30. Time for heads to [politically] roll... by Smegly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Send a clear message in next Aussie elections... Pirate Party Australia.

    1. Re:Time for heads to [politically] roll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with the motives behind the Pirate Party, I wish they didn't have to use such a loaded name. I think that will be just too high a barrier for some who will make incorrect assumptions about what the party stands for.

  31. Mates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do know why Aussies call each other "Mates" don't you?

    It's short for inmates.

  32. Would rather have Graham Kerr... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I needs me some Galloping Gourmet dishes cooked with lots of clarified butter.

    1. Re:Would rather have Graham Kerr... by argent · · Score: 1

      Yes, but he'd need way too much sauce to dissolve parliament.

  33. What the hell happened down under? by moxley · · Score: 1

    I grew up knowing of Australia as this country that is about the same size as America - with a very free and independent spirit.

    Then, in the mid 90s they come down with drastic firearms legislation, and now all we hear about is how obsessed with censorship many in the government there are - censoring film, games, etc to that point that some games aren't available or have to be changed, and they are trying again and again depite heavy Aussie and worldwide opposition to censoring the entire internet.

    Is it just the same shift to authoritarianism that has occurred in almost all western countries? Is there enough outcry and clout among the public to put a stop to this stuff?

    1. Re:What the hell happened down under? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Then, in the mid 90s they come down with drastic firearms legislation,

      I smell the stench of rabid gun nut about your post.

      Frankly, the gun ban was the only decent thing the Howard Gov did!

    2. Re:What the hell happened down under? by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      I smell the stench of rabid gun nut about your post.

      *sigh* so you are all for drastic overhauls in legislation from single events? Over time the rules are getting tighter and tighter. The anti-gun lobby are slowly winning, only a matter of how long until we are like the UK and cannot privately own firearms.

      The one or two firearms I wouldn't mind owning, I cannot for various tiny reasons (barrel length 1cm too short etc etc) but never the less have found on the black market. I still don't have them entirely out of principle. To get one illegally is to give in to being made a criminal for enjoying a sport. Do you think less moral people would have the same issue? The only ones you punish are the honest ones.

      I've had the qualifications to get my firearms license for more than a decade, yet I have not because after all is said and done it's just too limiting.

      Thankfully I grew up liking the military and discipline and some years ago joined the army. As a side benefit I get to go target shooting on occasion without so much hassle.

      People should not have to join the military to enjoy a sport. Personally I think half the problem is so much of the population has never handled one, all they see of it in movies is people shooting each other left right and centre.

      The public's perception of firearms is what needs changing, but unfortunately, the media loves drama and 'omg lets save people from the dangerous criminals' gets more votes than just putting people in jail when they commit crimes, I hate it when people assume everyone is too stupid to handle freedom.

    3. Re:What the hell happened down under? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Yep, it was a really great move which has saved many lives.

      There is plenty of evidence that Americans cannot be trusted with guns. See US murder rate.

      I have by the way fired 1000's of rounds at a shooting club some years ago.

      Shooting is as much a "sport" as chess and cards are-not at all. Sport is simply yet another excuse to allow idiots to own guns.

      I would like to see ALL guns banned from society with a mandatory 10 year sentance for possesion of them. Life for second offence.

      Sport-bullshit.

    4. Re:What the hell happened down under? by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Yep, it was a really great move which has saved many lives.

      The only statistic that changed when the laws were introduced, were gun related suicides, however other forms of suicide increased to make up for the difference, so that is moot.

      Shooting is as much a "sport" as chess and cards are-not at all.

      The olympic committee would disagree with you in regards to both chess and shooting, as do I, but I'm sure this would not change your opinion.

      I would like to see ALL guns banned from society with a mandatory 10 year sentance for possesion of them. Life for second offence.

      Because that has been so effective in the UK at reducing violence. I fail to understand why people blame the tools instead of the person. Remove legal firearms and knife violence goes up (also firearm violence too funnily enough).

      So what do they do, up the penalties for having a knife with you anywhere to four years jail. So they try to remove the knives (nearly impossible task) what next? Cricket bats? the ultimate bludgeoning weapon.

      I am reminded of one of my favourite quotes

      "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H L Mencken

      It is thoughts like yours sir, that are the problem with society, to you it's never the persons own responsibility, but that of the government to protect people from themselves. I sincerely disagree.

  34. Welcome to "net neutrality" by bonch · · Score: 1

    This is what governments do when they're allowed to regulate internet traffic. This is exactly what I was arguing can happen in discussions on "net neutrality." You don't want this kind of government control over your public medium.

    1. Re:Welcome to "net neutrality" by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Net neutrality is about your packets arriving on time.
      Nothing to do with a faith based filter via a political deal.
      Every isp should have its packets treated in the same way, so should your p2p app :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  35. Does this mean by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    That Aussies will be able to sue their ISPs for spam?

    If they are taking control of the content being sent over their networks I think it's only fair.

    Hurray Australia!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  36. Dilbert by Tokolosh · · Score: 1
    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  37. They have to do this by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I've seen a documentary about an Australian called Michael Dundee. He went to New York and just couldn't live in a civilized world.

    Basically the whole island is full of bad genes from all the old British criminals. Give them a bit of freedom and they live like animals.

    They have beer cans and knives much larger than any normal human would need. You just can't trust people like that.

    1. Re:They have to do this by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      It's not the cans you have to worry about...

      The ironically-named 2-litre (70.4 imp fl oz; 67.6 U.S. fl oz) "Darwin Stubby" is available in Australia's Northern Territory. The Darwin Stubby was first introduced in April 1958 with an 80-imperial-fluid-ounce (2,270 ml; 76.9 U.S. fl oz) capacity.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_bottle#Stubby

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  38. Cameras everywhere by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    This is not much of a surprise. Australia has more speed and stoplight cameras than anywhere else but England. You are not trusted. Why should we trust you with the series of tubes known as the intarwebs ?

  39. My letter to the Australian senator by LiteralBoy · · Score: 1

    I have written a satirical letter to the Aussie senator in question, and have now posted it on my blog. Feel free to take a look: www.jamesdeagle.blogspot.com

    1. Re:My letter to the Australian senator by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for us Australian's, Senator Conroy won't see the humour or satire in your letter at all and will read it as deadly serious. If we're lucky, he won't consider your suggestions, but if we protest about it, he will. And then try to tell us we're all supporting kiddy porn. *sigh*

      --
      ... wait, what?
  40. whooo by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ooosh

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  41. Boycott by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    Direct action of millions of customers canceling internet service would quickly force the ISPs to push legislators in the right direction. I suggest you organize the boycott before you cancel, however.

  42. Getting out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bye Australia! I apparently have this long to leave the country and find somewhere else to live

  43. Conroy is taking public submissions (link) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conroy is taking public submissions on his planned censorship here: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/all_funding_programs_and_support/cybersafety_plan/transparency_measures
    Write and tell him what you think!

    Also, sign this petition: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442

    And twitter your support with @nocleanfeed and #nocleanfeed

  44. Re:Leave australia Alone by keeperofdakeys · · Score: 1

    They won't invade Australia because they already speak english and they're in the sphere of influence of the british crown.

    Please, the crown is more of a figure head then anything. The crown's representatives don't exercise there power much either.

  45. Trust me on this... by akayani · · Score: 1

    The state of the nation here is that they can't get opposition support for an ETS but they will have no trouble getting this one though. Basically they want to discourage fucking so they can implement further immigration policies that attracts millionaires for overseas. ;) The opposition don't believe in fucking either unless it is fucking the environment which is OK because after all we only contribute to 2+% of world GHG. The fact that we are THE highest polluters on the planet per head of population is conveniently ignored. What is most rank about this is it's a no choice filter based on a list that is secret with disclosure a jail-able offence. It will lead to one outcome, proxy servers that are driven by porn kings and a huge increase in spam and virus threats.

  46. Yay! Christian Nazi Net is HERE! by dogzdik · · Score: 1

    The great thing about all of this religious or "culty" guff, is that all the sheeple groveling in their steeple, they all have "opinions" about what their deity is "saying" and righteously so, but the deity in the last few thousands of years of "omnipotence", has never once put in a personal appearance. You know like if "JC and the Space Cadets" were a rock band - the clueless would have caught on that while the promoters claim that they play in gigs all over the land, but they have never turned up; while the clueless and stupid keep rocking up and buying the tickets. Losers. So the same overlording us with more holier than thou drivel, is projected into the area of computer games and internet sites. Again while people get slaughtered for fun and profit in the movies and the real world, playing computer games doing the same stuff is just not on? Why? Am I surprised that the people thrusting their liturgical loins at the censors office for "standards and decency" are not trying to put the shackles on those who choose to have their own autonomous opinions, by declaring them to workers of the devil, sorcery and witches - starting with the jabbings for the devils mark. Am I even further surprised that this is now extending into the Great Australian Firewall. Perhaps those who cry loudest are those who look forlornly upon the promises of the bible, such as Ezekiel 23: 21 "whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions." I mean who wouldn't want that or to be getting that? I mean thank god Conroy is standing up for real Christian family values. Jesus said in Revelation 2:22-23 "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." So Jesus wants to kill our kids - that's cool cause it is Jesus. Timbo says I Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." So all the women ought to keep their traps shut. I mean it's in the bible - so it must be true right. And God digs killing pregnant chicks by knifing them and smashing their kids brains out on the ground; so the christians have got this family values stuff down pat: Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." So Conroy and his catholic buddies have got this right - we have to be protected against them out there on the internet and subjugate ourselves to the righteous christians showing us how their god loves us and how we ought to be kissing his ass, on the basis of their say so. Oh did I mention that the old testament is a scammed copy of the Code of Hammurubi? The King of Babylons state laws - and the first 6 books of the bible are bare faced rip offs of this, just rebranded to a diety instead of the king? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_code_of_Hammurabi.pdf Yep gotta remember them good old christian family values, the true word of god is the bible... except that getting nailed for copyright and plagarisim wasn't invented then.

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  47. Christian Nazi Net is HERE!!!!!!!! by dogzdik · · Score: 1

    The great thing about all of this religious or "culty" guff, is that all the sheeple groveling in their steeple, they all have "opinions" about what their deity is "saying" and righteously so, but the deity in the last few thousands of years of "omnipotence", has never once put in a personal appearance. You know like if "JC and the Space Cadets" were a rock band - the clueless would have caught on that while the promoters claim that they play in gigs all over the land, but they have never turned up; while the clueless and stupid keep rocking up and buying the tickets. Losers. So the same overlording us with more holier than thou drivel, is projected into the area of computer games and internet sites. Again while people get slaughtered for fun and profit in the movies and the real world, playing computer games doing the same stuff is just not on? Why? Am I surprised that the people thrusting their liturgical loins at the censors office for "standards and decency" are not trying to put the shackles on those who choose to have their own autonomous opinions, by declaring them to workers of the devil, sorcery and witches - starting with the jabbings for the devils mark. Am I even further surprised that this is now extending into the Great Australian Firewall. Perhaps those who cry loudest are those who look forlornly upon the promises of the bible, such as Ezekiel 23: 21 "whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions." I mean who wouldn't want that or to be getting that? I mean thank god Conroy is standing up for real Christian family values. Jesus said in Revelation 2:22-23 "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." So Jesus wants to kill our kids - that's cool cause it is Jesus. Timbo says I Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." So all the women ought to keep their traps shut. I mean it's in the bible - so it must be true right. And God digs killing pregnant chicks by knifing them and smashing their kids brains out on the ground; so the christians have got this family values stuff down pat: Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." So Conroy and his catholic buddies have got this right - we have to be protected against them out there on the internet and subjugate ourselves to the righteous christians showing us how their god loves us and how we ought to be kissing his ass, on the basis of their say so. Oh did I mention that the old testament is a scammed copy of the Code of Hammurubi? The King of Babylons state laws - and the first 6 books of the bible are bare faced rip offs of this, just rebranded to a diety instead of the king? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_code_of_Hammurabi.pdf Yep gotta remember them good old christian family values, the true word of god is the bible... except that getting nailed for copyright and plagarisim wasn't invented then.

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  48. petition and a love letter to conroy by kobold2 · · Score: 1

    sign the petition against it:

    http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=892

    AND

    let mr conroy know what we think:

    Parliament Contact: Phone: (02) 6277 7480 Fax: (02) 6273 4154

    Email: senator.conroy@aph.gov.au

    Electorate Office: Suite 1B, 494 High Street Epping Vic 3076

    PO Box 1067 Epping MDC Vic 3076

    Phone: (03) 9408 0190 Fax: (03) 9408 0194 Toll Free: 1300 131 546 Toll free number is only available in Victoria

    Secondary Office: Level 4, 4 Treasury Place Melbourne Vic 3002

    Phone: 03 9650 1188 Fax: 03 9650 3251

    Crikey has a reasonably accurate guide on how to avoid receiving a standard response that doesn't address your concerns:

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/

    I'd add that it doesn't hurt to CC the PM's office because they keep correspondence statistics tracking controversial issues too.