Slashdot Mirror
Google, Yahoo and Others Fight the Aussie Filter
TheFrunj writes "In the wake of an attack on Australian Government websites comes a statement from a joint group of companies banding together to oppose Senator Conroy's infamous Internet Filter. AtomicMPC has posted the statement up on their site: 'We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.' Backed by the weight of the Inspire Foundation, Google and Yahoo, this is a good sign for the local and international community that will hopefully spark some positive reaction."
So Australia can't filter but China can?
How about people actually started parenting their children? I'm sure as hell not going to let the kids go online alone until they are old enough to do so responsibly. Just like I don't let them watch TV programs and movies out of their age group. Or how I actually spend time with them and talk to them about stuff. (Even a three-year-old can have a proper conversation if you actually listen and support with asking questions.)
So when will people get off their collective asses and stop trying to find ways to escape responsibility and offload it to whatever solution happens to be popular at the time?
I man can dream, can't he?
(And no, I can't control what they do at their friends etc. etc. But there are risks with crossing the street too.)
.: Max Romantschuk
The btards have already assured me that they are going to stop this, just like they totally destroyed Scientology.
The problem is that we all have a different definition of "safe."
When I was growing up, my parents had a definition that included things like: good nutrition, outdoor exercise, avoiding physical violence, good hygene, "look both ways before crossing the street," etc.
Today's parents seem to be almost monomaniacally focused on sex and terror.
I don't know what that means long-term, but I don't think the Australian government, Yahoo, or Google should be helping us find out..
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
And even though you can't control or watch the kids at friends or the teenagers out on the town, the best way to have responsible kids is to respect them, not to be too harsh, take interest in them and talking to them about everything.
They will grow up respecting you and they will want to tell you things and they will (statistically, though I'm not gonna pull out any link, so trust me or not) avoid doing stuff that they wouldn't want to tell you.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
...and will not listen to reason, as he has repeatedly demonstrated. I'm not entirely clear what that agenda is, beyond being a douche. Perhaps he's in bed with the media organisations, and the filter censoring kiddie porn is only a side issue, while the real game is filtering music/tv/movie downloads. Perhaps he was teased as a child and this is his revenge on society. Either way he is an irresponsible man and I hope he's now infamous enough that people will vote him out at the next election (though I suspect I hope for too much).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
It only has 20 million people that can easily go back to more civilized countries. By letting Australia get flooded we won't have to worry about climate change so everyone wins.
"'We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.'
So? I read that as they support measures to filter the internet. For the children?
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
All this thinking about children these people do just doesn't seem healthy. They're probably using all this as a cover so they can think about children like ...that. To be safe we better lock them all up as pedos for thinking about children so much.
If you take it out of context it would seem that way, but RTFA. Still, this is a very poor summary for that reason.
or you could just let them do whatever the fuck they want. even porn gets old eventually. at least for a while. maybe a few hours. or minutes... sorry, gotta go!
weinersmith
When you have 4 kids, 2 of whom have learning disabilities and cannot hold a conversation to talk about "stuff" at 12 years old, as a parent you tend to focus on those 2 kids, leaving the 2 others a bit more alone. Sure as hell you cannot be on their back 24h a day.
But thank you for your /.otter advice on parenting. I'm sure that you have an extensive experience on that matter, and you're at the right place to discuss such things.
The actual statement can be found here: http://www.alia.org.au/internetfiltering/Core.principles.for.effective.action.for.a.safer.internet.pdf
That's absolutey true in a Disney movie.
In real life, children, especially teenagers, are mentality disfunctional, and will do anything and everything you don't want them to do. They can sense it like sharks sense blood. But, you think,they follow my bad habits so that blows your theory out the door Mr. Dumb Ass AC!
Well, here's the thing, your kids will rebel unless it's a bad habit; then they wanna be just like you Dad. Gonna be like you.
They only good think about children is making them.
Congratulations on spawning. Here's your cookie.
um 1 word - KIDZUI
See, but now you're saying that because of the 2 you don't have ANY time. Is that true? The OP did NOT say anything about how much time would need devoted, simply mentioned that some time. Yes you have two children with additional needs but it sounds almost like you are trying to make an excuse for why the other two might not have proper parenting. Would such work if say one of those children injured themselves in the home and if questioned you said "I'm sorry but I was taking care of the other two children, I did not have time to make sure that one was safe." Parenting is one thing, being on the child's back constantly is a wholly different thing. For the more harsh argument, if you have issues managing the two children with disabilities then why do you have 4 children? (i'm not sure on the order of birth/twins/triplets/quadruplets in the situation)
I do what I must because of what I must do.
How about people actually started parenting their children? I'm sure as hell not going to let the kids go online alone until they are old enough to do so responsibly. Just like I don't let them watch TV programs and movies out of their age group. Or how I actually spend time with them and talk to them about stuff. (Even a three-year-old can have a proper conversation if you actually listen and support with asking questions.)
So when will people get off their collective asses and stop trying to find ways to escape responsibility and offload it to whatever solution happens to be popular at the time?
I man can dream, can't he?
(And no, I can't control what they do at their friends etc. etc. But there are risks with crossing the street too.)
The issue isn't one of parenting (or the lack thereof), but that the democratically-elected Australian Government has made the decision to filter Internet content without the mandate of the people. That is, the Government is going to filter content "for the people's own good - despite what they people may actually want". The "it's for your own good" argument has been used many times before, but in the end, it's all censorship and usually flawed.
Of course, the major flaw here is that the filter (if imposed) will probably catch educational / information content as well as nasty stuff. The Australian Government has conveniently overlooked this point, presumably with the idea that "it's for your own good, you know". It's as equally flawed as the previously elected Australian Government empowering the Australian Broadcasting Ombudsman's office with the ability to shut down offensive websites.... which only worked if the website was actually based in Australia. The first website that was shut down as a result of this law simply moved the content overseas and went on, business as usual. I think they were down for about an hour.
However, to return to the issue at hand: Whilst I certainly agree with a "positive parenting" approach, the censorship of the Internet by the Australian Government is essentially seeking to remove the need for parents to oversee their children's activities on the 'net - regardless of whether the parent wants it or not. This is not democracy in action, it's almost draconian in nature - hence Anonymous' protests.
Umm, those are your babies. It's your job to raise them and yours alone. You are not a victim here so start parenting and stop sounding like one.
long winded rant> Long story short, you can't really convert the world into a safe environment for kids, without trying to and making the world safe for all human beings. That would be a real government job. Other than that, you can put in all the filters, censors, and spies you want, and achieve only partial success at best, creating a vibrant information-black-market in the meantime. Just look at drugs, alcohol, piracy, MP3, and porn. Desired by many, but filled with silly, ineffective rules, prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations, all a waste of time. So, lock the kids up into a disneyland censored world, or teach them to be smart, learn about how things are, defend themselves, and let them go outside and grow up. I'm not advocating throwing two-year-olds into downtown red districts and say "ok, just walk home alone". But expecting the city police or secret government to just tell every drug addict and nutcase along the way to shut up and watch in respect the passing children with blinders or magical-beauty-filter-goggles, but otherwise continue business as usual, is pathetic. If they wanted the world safer, they should do something about it, call the UN, Unesco, the Dalai Lama, human rigthts people, ask what to do, and not call the spies and the police, who are just part of the problem of everyone against everyone. -- /long winded rant>
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I can hack the aussie gov http://www.cpiu.us/contact-us I am Director of Software Engineering.Fake Name. you will never stop me. want me to wiki leaks every person in the Australian gov and the entire protocol, Every cover up including ports? I have ports listed. There will be no stopping me. EOF
All cows eat grass!
Let me throw a piece of reality back at you -
You either chose to have four children or you're an idiot. I'm going to assume that you're not an idiot for the sake of this discussion and assume that it was your choice.
If you chose to bring four lives into this world without the ability to deal with it, that is, to be blunt, your own fucking problem. You are the irresponsible one, and I don't see why any of the rest of us need to be forced by our government to live with censorship laws to "protect the children" just because you're an irresponsible nitwit who wanted to have four kids. Frankly you should probably be apologizing to the rest of the world for having four kids when you by your own admission seem to only have the ability to properly raise two.
I've got one of my own and I know kids can be a handful. That's why we have one. Uno. One kid. One kid that we can focus on and make damn sure we can handle it. We did not rush out to have four kids. We might have a second one once we know whether we can handle one or not. But to think that you might arrogantly go out and have four kids without bothering to figure out if you're going to be able to handle it just stuns me. Unless you're an idiot. In which case I apologize for the rant.
Here in Canada, we have a very simple system of keeping children safe in the real world. We make their parents legally responsible for watching their children.
Why can't we (Canada, Australia and everywhere else) make the parents legally responsible for watching their children online? This way the government wouldn't need to do internet censorship.
Parent poster's point still stands:
raise your fucking kids. If you don't wanna raise 'em and be responsible for 'em then don't fucking have 'em.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
Let parents worry about what their children are exposed to. If they're not already doing that, it's neglect, and perhaps something else should be done about the parents' carelessness. If the government don't want to be attacked, let them filter their internet connections however they want. Censorship of the general populace's internet connection isn't necessary for either of these cases, and should not even enter into the equation.
Twinstiq, game news
The real problem is that the filter will not prevent the technically savvy (including child pornographers, terrorists and other criminals) from using the Internet do distribute and exchange whatever they like. Even the Great Firewall of China doesn't prevent those with the know-how from circumventing it. So it will inconvenience the average user with its rather questionable goals of keeping Australians safe from bad stuff, but will not in fact cause great problems for a lot of the very people it claims to be aimed at. But, as with China and Iran, the point is not so much to prevent the savvy users, who have a wide array of tools at their disposal to sneak past the censors, but to make the average user believe not only that their communications can be censored, but ultimately that there is all-knowing eye. For China and Iran, of course, it's the regimes themselves that need to foster the appearance of this level of control, for Australia, it's a government that wants to cozy up to the religious vote who see this as a way to enforce their notion of Christian principles.
That Australia seems keen to join the ranks of China and Iran is pretty damned sad. What's even sadder is that apart from whatever authoritarianism and pandering this feeds, it's yet another example of security theater. It might have some limited Darwinian effect; the duller-witted child pornographers, terrorists and other criminals who use the Internet being foiled, but this will simply be another mousetrap easily outwitted by a smarter mouse.
Even if Australians don't mind their liberties being eroded, they should be mad as hell at all the money and resources being wasted on a project which is utterly worthless if the bad guys so much as set up an encrypted VPN tunnel.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...but you didn't here. It from me.
There, fixed that for you.
-- thinkyhead software and media
I am going to let my children watch whatever they want, and play whatever they want. This is how I was raised. I always had the freedom to watch horror movies filled with all sorts of gore, and play the same type of games (then again, games back then didn't have much in the way of gory bits).
Talking with your kids, though, is certainly helpful.
Exactly. The "for the children" arguement is overused as a whole. It will only stop people who don't truly WANT to get around it.
Especially with technology progressing as it does people WILL find ways around the filter as they develop more skills. Look at what happened in Iran with the elections. They tried to shut everyone out and BAM new technology and skills went right around it. The resources, time, etc are all wasted on things like this when they could be used to better educate people on what is out there, and encourage children AND adults to know what to avoid and the consequences of actions, instead of simply putting a wall up and hoping noone finds a way to climb over.
I do what I must because of what I must do.
You've no business playing the "hurr slashdotter don't know nothin' 'bout raisin' no kids" card, as you obviously know little enough about it that you COULD benefit from a random slashdotter's advice. This is proven by the fact that you think that there is any aspect of raising your kids that is anything less than 100% your responsibility in every possible way.
I would go one step farther and say that if the poster is not an idiot, then they have committed premeditated child abuse.
You either chose to have four children or you're an idiot.
I got the statistically improbable option: I have double twins. :D
But like most hardship you can make if work if you are serious about pulling through.
.: Max Romantschuk
I am going to let my children watch whatever they want, and play whatever they want. This is how I was raised. I always had the freedom to watch horror movies filled with all sorts of gore, and play the same type of games (then again, games back then didn't have much in the way of gory bits).
We tried letting our kids (3 and 5) watching more aggressive programming for a while. This was very quickly reflected in their behavior.
So I'm choosing the way I was raised, not allowing my kids to see stuff that is deemed unsuitable. (Not that I'm being fundamentalistic about it, but as a general rule.) That being said I'm also not going to have any issues with said kids getting into whatever horror&gore / kinky hardcore porn / whatever once they are old enough to truly separate fantasy from reality.
.: Max Romantschuk
That's what my parents did. And it worked.
The first action on protecting the children from the evil internet from the government proposing this ridiculous filter was to eliminate the previous government's subsidised filtering software. The situation before was that you could get free internet filtering software installed on your PCs at no cost because the government paid for it so you could protect your children. Despite being highly publicised through ISPs and advertisements it had a very low take up rate. In this action the government clearly demonstrates that they have no interest in protecting the children. This proposed filter has nothing to do with protecting the children.
Children are not likely to be harmed by seeing porn online or most of the other content. They are more at risk from sick predators that seek on children on social networks and instant messaging systems which this filter does nothing to address. Spending on the filter will be used as an excuse to take money away from law enforcement, increasing the risk to the children.
The filter is about scoring some cheap political points by treating all Australians like children.
Ouch. Mega burn. As a father of one who will wait several years to figure out what that one means before having another (which will also probably be the last), I wholeheartedly agree.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
First off, yay to the /b/tards - I had been watching this a few days before it started and am proud of them.
Second, this is from a long time ago and a view I whole-heartedly agree with.
Written by the Rotten.com Staff,
The definition of obscenity, according to the Supreme Court and known informally as the Miller test, is:
* must appeal to the prurient interest of the average person
* must describe sexual conduct in a way that is "patently offensive" to community standards, and
* when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value"
Certain people (including parents and schoolteachers) have complained to us and stated that rotten.com should not be "allowed" on the net, since children can view images on our site.
One US schoolteacher wrote us a very angry email that complained some of her students had bookmarked images on this site, that our site shouldn't be on the net, and other claptrap.
This is our respone. The net is not a babysitter! Children should not be roaming the Internet unsupervised any more than they should be roaming the streets of New York City unsupervised.
We cannot dumb the Internet down to the level of playground. Rotten dot com serves as a beacon to demonstrate that censorship of the Internet is impractical, unethical, and wrong. To censor this site, it is necessary to censor medical texts, history texts, evidence rooms, courtrooms, art museums, libraries and other sources of information vital to functioning of free society.
Nearly all of the images we have online are not even prurient, and would thus not fall under any definition of obscenity. Any images which we have of a sexual nature are in a context which render them far from obscene, in any United States jurisdiction. Some of the images may be offensive, but that has never been a crime. Life is sometimes offensive. You have to expect that.
The images we find most obscene are those from book burnings.
Please remember that no child has access to the Internet without the active consent of an adult. And absolutely no child should be left on the Internet alone. Supervision of children remains the responsibility of parents and teachers, as it always has and always will.
The rotten staff, April 1997
Right: simple answer to a complex problem - always attractive.
This would be wonderfully useful in a world where children transition from naive to responsible overnight but here in the real world it takes a few years and during those years they need to learn and grow by experiencing things a graduated step at a time.
Congratulations on spawning. Here's your cookie.
Isn't a cigarette more traditional?
Ah, the new Slashdot debating style.
The other poster said he had less time to spend with two of his children, focusing more time on the two with learning difficulties.
You heard that he spent no time on two of his children, and then used your failure to understand what was said to construct a fantasy world in which filibuste was responsible for serious injuries.
I love this style of debate. It's used by politicians, bad businesses and lawyers. It's only good for bolstering weak points and for polarising opinion - that is, it's everything we hate in politics. And now we see it in Slashdot, where it puts another nail into the coffin of the 'community.'
On top of all that, the accepted meme at Slashdot is that parents should watch their kids more frequently, and that people just don't take responsibility. Bad laws are attempted because of parental failure. When that's challenged, posters like filibuste are drowned in a deluge of invective from posters who just don't seem to like other points of view.
Lastly, most of the responses to filibuste's post have the assumption that the first two children had obvious learning difficulties. Even if it was the first two, I'm pretty sure such issues are impossible to spot for a while, and maybe, just maybe, they had some more kids because they love children and even if they did realise, thought they were fine to work through this. As indeed they seem to be based on the very short post - the kids who need more attention get it.
Shatteredstar, your post is not insightful. The mods got this very wrong. Moreover, you have no shred of understanding or compassion. You should think more before you post.
"Isn't a cigarette more traditional?"
Procreation and recreation aren't the same thing.
You can have recreation without procreation despite what certain people tell you.
---
Censorship Feed @ Feed Distiller
Heh, that's exactly what I was thinking while reading his comment. I wholeheartedly agree with his sentiment, but he's created a false dichotomy - it's quite possible that the individual whom he's addressing gave birth to quadruplets.
I am one of 12 children in my family.
My parents had absolutely no problem providing proper supervision, parenting, and care for all of my siblings and myself.
I have to say, as much as I sympathise with you having 2 children with learning difficulties, that if you cannot properly parent 4 children than perhaps you just aren't that good at parenting.
Perhaps you should look at getting assistance. That doesn't mean you get to be lazy and have the government remove freedom from everybody else just because you can't handle your own household.
I'd suggest you start with spending less time on /. and the internet - that's at least an hour or two each night which you can use to look after your children instead of trolling popular forums with your own inadequacies.
will do anything and everything you don't want them to do. They can sense it like sharks sense blood.
Sorry, but no. Read GP again.
Yes, if you become the "bad guy" and are constantly on their case and giving them reasons to rebel, then yes, they will try to do things just because you don't want them to. However, that most likely means you fucked up.
After all, if your theory were correct, we'd be seeing a lot more suicides -- the ultimate thing you're not allowed to do, the ultimate way to get back at your parents.
Well, here's the thing, your kids will rebel unless it's a bad habit; then they wanna be just like you Dad.
So, what, they consciously go after things that are your bad habits, and things you don't want them to do? How does that make sense? Are you suggesting they want to be bad for the sole reason of being bad?
They only good think about children is making them.
Well, if you're right, the battle is already lost. You cannot control your kids 24/7, and the more you try, especially if it's just "because I said so," the more they're going to fight back.
There is an alternative, and contrary to your claim, I've seen that "Disney movie" approach work several times, including on myself.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
A number of factors are likely to keep Stephen Conroy in after the election this year.
In Australian election ballots for the senate we select one box above the line or number all the boxes below the line. To elaborate: below the line we number all of the possible candidates in order of preference (and we have to number all of them in order for that vote to be valid. Above the line we choose one political party who will be choosing the below the line preferences for those voters. Such preferences are selected based on the principles of the political party, on a reciprocal basis or for attempted political gain. This was how we ended up with Steve Fielding.
Due to the extreme number of senate candidates in Australian state and federal elections (last time I voted in the South Australian state election I think there was 46) most people elect to have their favoured political party choose their preferences for them. Based on the traditionalist attitudes of voters that revolve around biases, prejudices and/or traditionalism (my family has always voted for party X) the parties with the most senators tend to be Labor and Liberal, Conroy being a Labor senator who was elected even during the years that the Liberal/National Coalition had a majority in both houses of government.
As I now live in Victoria I'll certainly be voting in favour of candidates that are not him in the election some time this year. However I don't trust the preferences of other parties, nor do I want to re-elect members of the party of fear and xenophobia, so I'll be voting below the line.
But you can count on the majority voting above the line.
But thank you for your /.otter advice on parenting.
I believe you are mistaken, sir. It's only on topics relating to the appropriate naming of atheist organizations, and the proper way to consume mollusks, that the /. Otters give advice.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
My Grandmother had nine (9) surviving siblings (5 others died before their first birthday). She describes both of her parents as loving and having spent a lot of time with her. My Grand Uncles and Aunts all have similar descriptions.
My Great Grandfather was a coal miner who worked 6 days a week for 12 hours a day. My Great Grandmother cooked everything from scratch, repaired the home (as in carpentry), made all the cloths by hand, washed them by hand, and cared for livestock at times when they had a milk cow. By all accounts (Aunts/Uncles/Grand parents/diaries) both had an active social life as well.
If you really have so little time after dealing with just two of your children that you don't have time for your other two children I really question your use of time. Surely there is a way to involve all four children in activities. Surly there is a better way to manage your and your children time.
If you can find the time to troll on Slashdot you can find the time to supervise your children.
Now wash your hands.
Maybe you shouldn't have had 4 kids then?
Anyone up for spamming the content complaint sections of the acma website? i've been sending links to rick astley vids under the label of "child pornography".
The requested fragment "#main-articles" doesn't exist, so don't go lookin' for it.
So it will inconvenience the average user with its rather questionable goals of keeping Australians safe from bad stuff, but will not in fact cause great problems for a lot of the very people it claims to be aimed at.
That's not the only hang up, nor is it the primary one - the issue at the heart of this is that the ACMA blacklist, which would be at the core of the filtering, isn't available for review - a site can be put on the blacklist without notification, and removing sites from the list is an arduous process. There is no independent oversight of this list, and contrary to claims by Conroy it does not only contain sites which are clearly illegal - Wikileaks ended up on the list when it posted a leaked version of the list. It's this potential stifling of free speech by the government without recourse or independent review that has caused issues amongst a wider range of people.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Did the submitter READ that quote?
That's not opposing the legislation, it's commending it!
Here's what you do -- you devote all of your attention to the two kids who are able to carry conversations and learn on-par, and you take your two retards and keep them chained in the basement with bowls of gruel for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Alternately, you could sell your retards off to a traveling freakshow, or on the black market for a grand apiece. Surely there are plenty of Jewish and Russian businessmen who are looking for a discount on household slave labor. And retards have super-strength, which makes them good for construction or private security.
And why is that our problem? Because you decided to have 4 kids you dont have time to look after properly makes it OK for the state to infringe on our liberties?
This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
I think once a government, ostensibly from a liberal democracy or otherwise, decides that it is going to take an active role in censoring a medium, it's rather irrelevant whether they show people the black list or not. Whether your chains are visible or invisible, they are chains nonetheless, and by all appearances, the Australian people seem little concerned. What's the point of a list of blocked sites, when the populace doesn't seem to care that government has formulated a list of sites that the populace shall not see?
To some extent I do blame the media, which, intentionally or unintentionally, has primed a lot of citizens of supposedly free and liberal democracies with the underlying notion that the Internet is an inherently dangerous place, where molesters and terrorists lurk on every page waiting to pervert the young and where gangsters hide illicit transactions within innocent-seeming communications. To be sure, these do happen, but all these "news magazine" programs (largely hysteria-driven frothing-at-the-mouth sessions designed to produce ratings by invoking paranoid schizophrenic-like reactions in the viewers) are not interested in actually reporting the rates of Internet crime versus, say, mail crime or hell, Main Street crime. To listen to the 20/20-style programs the world over, you'd think pedophilia, terrorism and sophisticated crime in general didn't exist until the age of modern communication.
It isn't just the Internet, either. These irresponsible pseudo-journalists literally have most of the Western world terrified that every time they're children leave the front door there are a near-infinite supply of perverts and maniacs waiting to rape, murder or twist children. Every time some child is abducted anywhere in a 3,000 mile radius (and sometimes, if the circumstances are sufficiently lurid, much further afield than that) the 6 o'clock news is dominated by it, as breathless on-the-scene reporters recount every vile detail, followed by child safety experts explaining how children must be programmed to believe that every adult is out to touch their woo-woos or slit their throats, and probably both. The fact that most molestations are committed by people known to the child rarely, if ever gets mention, because, of course, telling parents that it's more likely Daddy or Uncle Billy are perpetrating a sexual crime against the kiddies won't sell a lot of advertising.
The Internet gets picked on because it's relatively new, still very poorly understood and much easier to whip parents and voters into frenzies. You can sell five minutes on the 6 o'clock news pretty easily and cheaply by throwing up a child-abuse expert whose qualifications in Internet crimes probably amounts to checking their email five times a day, along with some faded-out images of child porn sites, along with Sheriff Brown/Jones/Rogers/whatever, who is quite happy to get his mug on the news telling us how the Internet kills. Of course, it's just as cheap to do one of the "news magazine" programs where they lure a few pathetic sex freaks to a house to meet teenangel5 or whatever, only to find out its some failed would-be anchorman and some cops ready to lead him off to jail.
They say we get the government we deserve, and well, Australia, you must be a right stupid sheepish bunch to have deserved Rudd and his band of Super-christian liberty-hating political hooligans. Don't bitch now, just wait twenty years until the government has to clear newspaper articles. You'll wish you were living in Beijing by that point.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If parents are too lazy to learn how the internet works (and laziness it is, if they really cared about their kids they would put in the effort to learn) and still want a computer there is still no reason to inhibit the internet usage of everyone. IOW, the filter should be opt-out. This has been the argument all along. "Oh, but precious little Tarquin might see boobies on an internet connection somewhere else!!!!" And he might find uncle Bob's jazz mag collection too.
Forgot:
"and laziness it is, if they really cared about their kids they would put in the effort to learn or pay someone else to do it and not expect everyone else to pay for your convenience
You could also have less children. In a modern society, affording to pay for feeding, clothing, raising, and educating a child such that he has a decent chance at success (here defined as the ability to adequately prepare several of his own offspring) is no mean feat. Obviously too, the more children you have, the less time you're going to have to spend on each one individually. Maybe four children is just a few too many, in flibustre's case.
I'm not unsympathetic to the difficulties of raising children. However, I am unsympathetic to people who bite off far more than they can chew, and then proceed blame society for it.
Is that any reason to go looking to the state to enforce censorship on an entire country? So that you can have the freedom to not install an internet filter on your own computer?
The government is not running on the assumption that a filter will save all the children, although it certainly is in their PR arsenal. What the government is doing, in their own eyes, is simply closing a loophole in the law. Australia has tough censorship laws *already*, the internet is just not filtered at this point. The government is simply seeking to apply its existing legal framework to the internet.
But this raises the far more important issue: Australia has a draconian censorship framework which needs to be brought into the modern age. The mere fact that the government applying their ratings rules is immediately seen as great wall of China style censorship is indicative of how out of touch the local censorship laws are with contemporary society. This sums up the far bigger problem that critics face: Conroy see this whole issue as applying the law in its intent, the way it is meant to be applied (closing a loophole), in order to get the government to view it any other way would require the government to be convinced it censorship framework needs to be loosened up, R18+ for games would be a nice start!!
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is grand...
As a parent (soon to be grandparent) I am not allowed to spend the time I would like with my children. I work, so does my wife. We tried the stay-at-home parent bit. It equals poverty and hardship in today's world. It is a neccessity to put food on the table & keep a roof over our heads.
Also, my kids go to school (I know, I could home school but I have to earn income so how would that work?).
I have to cram my family life into a few hours out of each 24. Despite this my kids are moral, literate and creative. Part of their education now comes from the net. That's just the way it is today. At what age would you deem it safe to allow your kids to go online alone?
It is better to block what they should not be seeing bacuse it is simply impossible to be there all the time. At the same time you also need to establish moral discernment in your children but how would you do that. In my experience too many people regard what feels good = "right". It helps to have fixed standards (like the biblical 10 commandments) that are easy to teach and understand (even if the wording is now somewhat outdated).
Just my 10 cents
I realize that you can't watch your kids all day. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise.
You must realize that this is no justification for taking important freedoms away from adults. It is equally unrealistic to expect otherwise.
I would go one step farther and say that if the poster is not an idiot, then they have committed premeditated child abuse.
+1, Insightful. Oh crap, I've run out of mod points. That's odd, hasn't happened in months. Anyone else care to do the honors?
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Yup.
Oh, I suppose I should say more :)
The issue of a mandate is a very relevant one.
I'm all for ISPs filtering the 'net...if I ask them to. You should be able to ask your provider to add a particular type of filtering to your service and thus be free to roam unhindered by the outside world and alternate views and opinions (no, I'm not talking about the alternate views supporting child porn etc, don't be stupid).
If you really want this, you should be able to have a 'no fuss' service provided.
Personally I believe that current legislation needs updating and improving and more money given to the Fed Police to track down child abusers, their groups, 'net friends etc.
I don't believe the Fed Govt should filter the whole damn Internet as it arrives in Australia. This really is extreme and ineffectual, doing nothing to prevent the problems they claim it will address.
Added to this, if a psychologist/sociologist wished to do research on 'offensive sexual practices' (or whatever the 'other' category is which doesn't include abuse of children or others) and was interested in what was currently happening within a given community, this filter will prevent them (I'm not talking about academic material available within a library). It would also prevent drug harm minimisation experts accessing community material because this too will be filtered.
Yes, I have kids. Yes, they have puters. No, I don't watch them all the time. Yes, I can work out what they're doing. Yes, I can install filters it at home. No, I don't want to. ...but if I were Fred Nile(1) and his fellow travellers, it would be the best thing possible...he won't see ANYTHING! LOL
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Nile
I rebelled against my hippy drug dealing parents by becoming a straight edge capitalist nerd! I never want to be like them.
"Don't ask me, i'm just a girl"
I wish what you said wasn't true.
- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane person
There are mental health laws which can be used to keep someone in a secure hospital if they are a danger to society, and prisons for those who actually abuse children. Also, looking at RC material != dangerous to the public.
- you can't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate, that is where the government has to step in
The operators of pay pron sites aren't interested in children because they can't pay, they just drain bandwidth for no return. teenagers are more likely to use ad-supported sites, and should figure out that clicking on ads is a bad idea.
Parents are not internet experts. They do not have the skills to implement content filtering. The experts are the internet companies; but they have a vested interest in not filtering. So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies (but parents don't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best).
The AU government used to offer a home filter, the current government scrapped it. Before that, only 5% or so of families used it, even after several ad campaigns. Most comprehensive anti-malware suites include a filter, which can be trivially configured using a point-and-drool interface. Circumventing this filter is no easier than circumventing an ISP-level filter, and it probably is harder (since at home, proxies, google translate, and so on can be blocked as well).
Filtering is an imperfect science. A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc. There will be sites blocked which should not. Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual, I can't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly wasn't there a mere 15 or so years ago.
I don't see how that makes an arbitrary blacklist any better. Just because you won't notice the pages are missing doesn't mean those interested in issues such as anti-abortion or pro-euthanasia campaigning wouldn't.
Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business. Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.
It isn't a source of return, it is a pointless nuisance, especially since single pages can be blocked.
It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs. Magazines are controlled this way - the creator (hence profit maker) and distribution chain (the other profit makers) had to meet Australian standards. The most obvious example is 'sealed section' magazines and their location within newsagencies. The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.
There is a difference between classification, which is purely informational, and censorship based on such classification. I have no problem with banning R, X, and RC material on television, for example, nor with having a watershed to prevent MA and M material being shown during times when children are likely to be watching TV unsupervised (3PM-6PM in particular). The same with magazines: ordianry newsagents have to sell porn mags under plain covers, adult shops don't need to because anyone going into one would know what they are going to see, and children shouldn't be there. Nonetheless, it isn't that hard for an under-age teenager to get into one (buying anything would be another matter, of course), but the difference is that they are deliberately seeking out the material, not passively being shown it.
The internet is anal
Nah, while some kids will follow right up to the goody two shoes path* , there is just as often children who will follow all the way down to the bad to the bone at the end of the character continuum.
Take a look at my very scientific behaviour scale.
Goody Two Shoes
^point of annoyance
^roughly middle
most people about here
^hard work from here on in.
Bad to the Bone.
It isn't that people are inherently evil. I believe that it is easier to be bad and/or difficult without reason, at the very least it is easier to be selfish; it takes effort for most people to be exceptional, well behaved and a pleasure to be around*.
Hence, most efforts to turn children into the metaphorical angels only results in fairly good people. Hardly anyone actively tries to turn (their own) children in to their own definition of evil, because it generally doesn't take much effort.
Of course this only relates to behaviour, not to intentions. The scale doesn't measure the evilness of excessive subservience or other alleged character defaults that may result in an evil outcome. It does assume that people can be 'too good'# just as people can be too happy**
* Would nominating myself as an example of an exception be evil?
** Just thinking of every aerobics instructor I ever knew... *shudder*
# It is scientifically doubtful that their intentions align with their actions
Please ignore the following.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
My internet connection is not for you to advertise on. If you want to advertise to me on my bandwidth, you can pay for it.
Furries make the internet go.
"won't somebody think of the parents!"
Here is another hard bit of reality for you: No number of disabled kids or overworked parents makes compulsory internet filtering a good idea.
But with all that fucking going on, it tends to raise the odds of having them!
What imaginary world?
I have a kid, not 4 admitedly, but I do have a kid, I've got some idea of the kind of time and energy this takes.
Let me lay it out for you. If you're not parenting your kids, you're a shitty parent. I don't care what your excuse is, kids with disabilities, your own disability, if you can't parent your kids, you're a shitty parent.
That's not to say that all laws designed to assist parents are bad laws, but no law is going to replace you as a parent, and if you can't give your kids the attention you need you are, and I repeat, a shitty parent.
Website: http://projectfreeweb.org/
Forums: http://freeweb.whyweprotest.net/
Promo: http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3015/fixedfreeweb.png
i thought it was insightful (besides the forgivable typo)
cheers
What's so difficult about this concept:
Children SHOULD NOT BE USING the Internet. Computers of course, as long as they exercise too, but Internet no. Children should be socialising IRL not chatting to each other online. Children should be learning things about the real world, having difficult ideas explained, not being fed schoolyard opinions at home as well as at school. Children's peers should not be as important as their (hopefully positive) adult role models (hopefully their parents). Children should find joy and imagination in nature, books, art and music, not the Internet. Sure those things can be found on the net - if you're looking for it. But mainly no.
Take a walk down a busy street with your kid - by the time you get home, s/he will probably have questions that you're glad you can explain in person. The Internet is NOT FOR KIDS, period. Just the chat on most game servers is not for kids.
That position will sound extreme, but as long as I can do an image search on google for "breasts" and get this, ..
uh.. so like I was saying.. extreme position.. What?
It's not like you can return them...
Same here as well as bad sleeping and nightmares.
Once she reaches 18 (probably younger depending on how she develops,) she can watch whatever she wants to.
It is not a fair comparison to compare what we were allowed to do as children to what our children are allowed to do. Things are much more accessible due to the Internet. I may have sneaked a look at soft porn when I was a kid, but only when I was at my dad's house (who had cable) and none of that compares to what is out there today.
I do not agree with the idea that a parent should tell their kids what is right and then let them do whatever they want. That is unfair to the child who can not fully appreciate long term repercussions. I do agree that communication is key, but there needs to be a line drawn for who is the authority. That lesson is also important in life for when the child joins the workforce. (You can tell how your co-workers were raised based on their whining and expectations at work that they should be able to do whatever they want.)
That said, I do not think it is the government's place to decide what is and isn't appropriate for my child to think/watch. I do share the same values as our leaders.
It's bad enough that the schools are so politically involved now a days. Throughout the election, I had to hear about how Obama was the best choice because he was "nice" and McCain was "mean." When I would ask her what she thought of the candidate's views, she would state that her teachers did not go over that, just who was more polite.
I wish I could mod you up.
I would love to stay home (or have my wife stay home) and raise my kids but that is not possible. We "make do" on two incomes.
We are living in a world in which "right" is determined by what feels good and - as a result - each generation is more surrounded by depravity than the previous one.
And (before someone brings up Hitler,) I do not define depravity by atrocities. We have always and will always have bad people.
The problem is the scale of what is right and wrong has shifted so far in the wrong direction that wrong looks right and right looks wrong.
Another one who reacts before reading.
Filibuste said he spent more time with the kids who needed it, not all his time. There's a huge difference, but people are falling over each other to castigate him for their perception of his post.
Like the others, you failed to understand a simple post.
The imaginary world was the one in which one of the other kids gets some serious injury due purely to a lack of parenting. As if kids are under the watchful eyes of their parents every second of every day. No parent can do that, and no child wants it.
Again, you failed to understand a fairly clear post.
The vehemence of your response leads me to question your ability to parent a child. Heaven help the poor kid should he or she be misunderstood.
Here's a titbit for you - parenting is different for every combination of child and adult. You don't define what it is for you, except to say that not doing it (whatever 'it' is) makes someone a shitty parent. No matter how good a parent you are, there will be someone who will call you a shitty parent by their standards. There are whole nations that parent differently to you, probably most of the world. To them, you're a crap parent who coddles your kid, or who is overly harsh, or who stunted their mental growth or whatever. To someone else, you're a shitty parent.
Not very nice is it? But then you're quick to judge others, so you should remember that they can judge you just as harshly. You're not special, not amazing and most likely not a role model for parents across the planet.
Perhaps you can calm down, drop the absolutist attitude and just read the posts instead. No-one died, no-one was hurt, everyone seems fairly happy and they're all just getting along. Everyone gets the attention they need, but some need more than others.
I find it amazing that people want to attack someone before they understand, or even read, the original post. It must be the whole "think of the children" thing. Although it's derided on Slashdot, a lot of posters talking about parenting do all but say the line. They're certainly as fervent as any weirdo religious nut when it comes to their personal view of raising children.
Actually, the UK already does have this kind of filtering, similar to Australia's - most notably seen recently with the censorship of a Wikipedia page.
Of course I'm glad to see companies opposing this, but from someone in the UK, I have to wonder - did they make similar statements against the UK scheme? Much of what they say in their statement applies to countries such as the UK, also.
Actually I don't coddle my kid, nor do I suggest people do that.
The original criticism wasn't saying that you should spy on your kids 24 hours a day(that's daft), but that you should take responsibility for what they watch on tv and view on the internet. That's basic supervision, not coddling. Then Filbuste said that he couldn't provide that basic level of supervision for his two non disabled kids due to the time it takes to focus on the disabled ones. There is no excuse for being a shitty parent. When you have a disabled kid it's hard, really hard, but it doesn't remove your responsibility to adequately parent your other children.
Parenting is hard work. There's a lot of hard decisions, a lot of mistakes made, a lot of things you regret. Every parent fails their kid to some degree at some point. I haven't yet, but I have no doubt that I will. That doesn't excuse me from responsibility when I do. It's my job to look after any children I may have. Filbuste isn't doing that, and he's making excuses for it.
I feel the need to respond to this again, as I have inadvertently let this become a personal attack which wasn't my intention.
It's possible that Filbuste wasn't responding to the original post in the way I believe he was. It's possible he interpreted the original post as 24 hour monitoring which isn't possible. I meant my post to be more general and I apologize.
+10,000 Insightful
Seriously, that was one of the best speeches I've heard in a while. and it came in the form of a /. comment. nice job. if you ever run for public office in the USA look me up on your fans list and i'll campaign for you.
And looking at my ex it also seems some people want procreation without recreation.
while some kids will follow right up to the goody two shoes path
That's a caricature, and not terribly close to what's going on. I'm not suggesting these kids do everything exactly the way their parents want all the time. I'm suggesting they generally grow up to be good, well-rounded people, without their parents having to watch their every move.
It isn't that people are inherently evil. I believe that it is easier to be bad and/or difficult without reason, at the very least it is easier to be selfish...
Easier in the short term, but not in the long term, which is one of the many lessons you teach your kids when you teach them why to be good. "Because I said so" isn't going to cut it.
Hardly anyone actively tries to turn (their own) children in to their own definition of evil, because it generally doesn't take much effort.
Hardly anyone tries, so I doubt you have any evidence on which to base that... And no, anyone could turn their kid into an asshole. I would think it takes talent to make someone evil.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Very well, I'll break down my statements more since you would rather attack the style and me rather then simply the statement.
Firstly filibuste's post appears defensive and antagonistic to a degree effectively making the 'point' in a manner that makes it sound very much as an excuse and not an explanation.
Statements like "as a parent you tend to focus on those 2 kids, leaving the 2 others a bit more alone. Sure as hell you cannot be on their back 24h a day." seem more angered and insulting then openly willing to discuss the situation. It even gives the idea that the other two are being left alone more and as we are left to infer the extent of this then we cannot make an accurate judgment but as with most things involving children we tend to take the more detrimental view. The final statement in that about "Sure as hell cannot be on their back." seems to imply that talking to them or spending time with them is seen as "being on their back" as most times people resort to such hyperbole statements when they do not want to give any sort of rough estimate of time, or have no concept of it. The whole statement seems more indicative of the poster not wanting to spend the time talking as they feel the former obligations take precedence over the latter.
You seem to assume that I am advocating that the parent must spend all of their time however filibuste's comments seem to have a manner that point toward a focus on 2 and a lack of desire or dislike of the idea of having to spend additional time if any with the other two. While filibuste is likely just making do as best as possible the method and manner of the statements do not contribute to that view and instead portray a person that favors two for time, and not the others and expresses it in an 'excuse' form.
You then go on to attack the community and politics and other posters as well. You say that my post is not insightful and that the mods got it wrong, and then you go on to attack me?
Would that not make your post also not insightful and flamebait?
My post I worded rather carefully as to not outright say filibuste was neglecting or harming or not spending time with the children.
You'll note my comment has statements that say things that it sounds "like" he is making an excuse or that. I did make a disclaimer for the harsher argument on it which most were likely expecting and I made the small disclaimer to let those who thought not to see such a harsher view could not read it.
I have quite a bit of compassion overall however I make arguments and comments to try to point out aspects I see that do not seem to fit with a person's statements.
I also question your judgment in this situation as you have another moderately flaming post as well directed at Eskarel. You make such claims as attacking the posts or commenters being horrible and deplorable yet you yourself seem on a crusade to attack and insult other commenters, moderators, and the community as a whole.
I do what I must because of what I must do.