Oz Pirate Party Tells the Elderly How To Bypass the Net Filter

mask.of.sanity writes "When Exit International discovered it was earmarked for Australia's Internet filter blacklist, it wanted to ensure its members could access its pro-euthanasia material, but its members share an average age of 70 — not exactly from the tech generation. So Exit International turned to the filter-hating Pirate Party of Australia, which supplied a 'hacker' who taught a crowded room of grandmas and grandpas how to use proxies and advanced VPN tunnels to access Exit International's material — which the Australian government thinks breaches the moral compass of society. Computerworld has the presentation."

Comments

It sure feels odd

[Arancaytar]

It'd feel odd to teach a group of old people how to access information about killing themselves.

But that's the point of the freedom of information - anyone should have the right to seek it out and access it.

Re:It sure feels odd

[anarche]

Yep, crazy world we live in.

Mind you, these people all want to have their life's options explored. They are not all for killing themselves now, just may not want to be vegetable burdens in the future, much like many of us.

How long until Capt. Kevin makes it a crime to either
a) bypass the filter
b) assist others to bypass the filter
c) both of the above.

bloody stupid steve!

Re:It sure feels odd

[mcvos]

It'd feel odd to teach a group of old people how to access information about killing themselves.

But that's the point of the freedom of information - anyone should have the right to seek it out and access it.

Whether a controlled and dignified end to you life should be a moral right may be open to discussion, but at least people should be able to inform themselves on the issue, right?

Re:It sure feels odd

[ultranova]

Whether a controlled and dignified end to you life should be a moral right may be open to discussion, but at least people should be able to inform themselves on the issue, right?

If people are able to inform themselves on an issue, they might make a choice that's contrary to your moral stance. This is especially likely if your moral stance can be summarized as "people should suffer greatly for my peace of mind". That's why places like Australia, China, Britain, Finland etc. want to restrict their citizens ability to access information.

Re:It sure feels odd

[totally bogus dude]

I don't think it really matters. It's already illegal here to assist people to die, so it doesn't apply. No medical professional is going to assist a teenager or divorcee to end their life, and people who would assist with that aren't going to in any way be deterred by a censor.

If someone wants to kill themselves, there's plenty of ways to do it and trying to deny access to anything that discusses it is going to be about as effective as denying sex education to kids in the belief that they'll not have sex if you don't tell them about it.

Re:It sure feels odd

[ScrewMaster]

breaches the moral compass of society.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't ... and besides, the end of a life is not a situation where you can apply too many absolutes.

More to the point, however, I'd say Australia's government has been breaching their society's moral compass for some time now. So has mine, for that matter, and I'm American.

Re:It sure feels odd

[athe!st]

Comrade Kevin is only doing what is best for peace and harmony in the People's Republic of Australia

Re:It sure feels odd

[mdarksbane]

Personally I'm worried about the following dilemma.

As long as enough of my brain and body is functioning to be capable of taking action, I'd probably prefer to be alive. As long as I can talk or type and listen or read there are plenty of useful things I could set myself to.

Once I lose that ability, I'd really rather just off myself.

The problem is... at that point, I doubt I'd be very able to handle it myself. So you'd essentially be asking someone in your family and friends to go to jail for murder.

Personally I'm leaning toward some kind of old folks home suicide pact, where we all agree to kill each other when the time comes. Because, hey, when you're getting close, what's the worst they can do to you?

I watched my grandfather on his death bed beg his God to kill him for over a year. We need to stop this bullshit clinging to lives that aren't ours and allow people to die with dignity.

moral compass?

[sams67]

Currently, as a result of back room deals between the government and the Christian lobby, Australia has a moral anchor rather than a moral compass.

Re:moral compass?

[mrsurb]

Citation needed for these back room deals.

I am a Christian and am opposed to this filter. In fact, many Christians are arguing AGAINST this legislation because we have potentially unpopular views which could be silenced through future use of this scheme: http://solapanel.org/article/conroys_internet_filter_full_of_contradictions/

Re:moral compass?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But... but... but... How else can we pigeonhole people who support censorship? Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that pinning the rest of our political problems on religion is also wrong!

Crazy Australians.

[purpledinoz]

I always thought Australia was a developed country, economically, and politically. This Internet filter craziness makes them seem very un-democratic. What's next? Filtering the opposition party websites? Filtering any websites that has an opposing view of the current government? I don't think that next step is such a big one.

Re:Crazy Australians.

[loufoque]

So, the government asks "do you want the Australian Government to block access to things only sickos would want to see like child porn?" and most people say "yes".

Quite more likely, they ask, "are you ok with the Australian Government blocking access to websites which do not reside in Australia but which content is illegal according to Australian laws?", and they reply "yes" because it makes perfect sense to do so.
Now why they filter things that are nowhere near illegal or why they can add sites without going through the judicial system that would determine whether it is illegal or not is beyond me.

Re:Crazy Australians.

[dorward]

The results indicate that a lot of people actually are in favour of the filter, but it seems to largely depend on how it's phrased and explained.

See Yes, Minister:

Sir Humphrey “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think they respond to a challenge?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”

Bernard Woolley: “Ohwell, I suppose I might be.”

Sir Humphrey “Yes or no?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”

Bernard Woolley: “Is that really what they do?”

Sir Humphrey “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”

Bernard Woolley: “How?”

Sir Humphrey “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.”

Re:Crazy Australians.

[WinstonWolfIT]

Oz is a full on unapologetic nanny state. You wouldn't believe the shenanigans that go on here to save people from themselves, along with hand-wringing when people continue to take risks despite living in a nanny state. "OMG we lowered the speed limit to 36mph and yet young people continue to die in accidents even after we installed 17000 cameras." If a 20yo driver blows .01, it's a 1-year license suspension. It's disgusting. Any sane person on an empty straight 4-lane road will do 45mph -- why is that illegal here????

Re:Crazy Australians.

[timmarhy]

well, i've lived in regional australia for 25 years and i've also traveled the southern states.

your entire post is full of 1/2 truths.

The cronulla riots were triggered by long standing tensions caused by gangs of australian born lebanese attacking people on cronulla beach. the outbreak of violence was sparked by a 13 yo life saver (life savers are an icon here in oz) being brutally bashed by such a gang for telling them to stop harrasing a female swimmer. just like your rodney king riots.

the baby over board saga, that was blown out of all proportion by all involved. i wouldn't be throwing stones about illegal immagration if i was you with your countries stance on their southern boarder....

you'll need to back up your claim about police treating aboriginal deaths the same as animal deaths. i've lived here my whole life and never heard such a claim.

while i traveled the south i came across the most intollerent gits i've ever met. while i agree that australia is a fairly conservative country, compared to the USA they look like left wing hippies. the impression i got from america is that people like to think they are all freedom loving and open minded, when really they just want THEIR kind of freedom.

Re:Crazy Australians.

[taylorius]

It was recorded you know, you can still watch it.

Moral campass

[pickyouupatnine]

Hmm.. government trying to dictate to the elderly what is moral in society. One would think that the elderly would have the most conservative view on what is considered moral.

Re:Moral campass

[QuantumG]

This is Australia, we don't have lobbyists.

We call campaign contributions "bribes" and we call politicians who take them "criminals."

He already copied China

[ciaran_o_riordan]

China's filter is also bypassable. I assume want it that way. The strategy is to ensure that the young and the very concerned have ways to protect themselves individually, to avoid having them motivated to look into organised ways. A classic way to take the wind out of people power.

Australia used to be part of the Commonwealth

[circletimessquare]

now, having its economy dominated by China, it is apparently more like a Southern outpost of the Middle Kingdom. funny though how Chinese cultural understandings of centralized thought domination and control has proven so quickly popular in Canberra

we need to keep an eye on New Zealand, make sure down there all alone in the Antipodes that cabin fever doesn't make it lose it's marbles like Australia obviously has. plus New Zealand has that domestic situation with Mordor being inside its borders

Re:What is Australia thinking?

[Smidgin]

That's not a knife...now that's a knife!

No it's not, that's a spoon.

Yes, I've played knifey-spoony before.

As an Australian, I find it rather depressing that most Americans' "knowledge" of Australia is limited to that single Simpsons episode...

Re:Tech Generation?

[dangitman]

yes but take a look at the tech they grew up with

Let's see - aircraft, cars, spacecraft, telephony, television, radio. All pretty advanced stuff.

Computers: early days that meant guys/girls that could do math in their heads and later days meant huge things that took punch cards

But people in their 70s or older were the ones who fucking made computing happen. For example: Seymour Cray: born 1925. Alan Turing: born 1912.

Who is the "tech generation" supposed to be? People who are 20-30 years old? I wouldn't trust many of them to know the first thing about technology, unless you call "using Facebook" knowing about technology.

Anyway, since when was technology limited to computing and electronics? I know a bunch of 65-80 year olds who could repair a car blindfolded. How many of today's youth can even change their car's oil? How many could debug a computer program?