Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Conroy Still Hell-Bent On Internet Filter

Posted by timothy on from the different-word-for-everything dept.

lukehopewell1 writes "In an interview for the ABC's PM program yesterday, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said that there would be no conscience vote on the Australian government's proposed mandatory internet filter. 'Conscience votes go to matters to do with life and death in the [Australian] Labor Party,' Conroy said. The minister said that the filter debate was not about censorship, rather it centred around refused classification material — an issue up for review in parliament. 'I'm not sure that the censorship claim stacks up. This is about classification systems. At the moment in Australia, there is no conscience vote on refused classification for movies, TV, DVDs or book stores,' the minister said. Conroy then called on the newly installed Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull to justify his position on the filter to families concerned about child pornography. 'According to the latest information I have here from the [Australian Communications and Media Authority], there are 430 child pornography sites on the [World Wide Web] ... that are accessible to anyone...[Malcolm Turnbull] has to explain to Australian families that he is prepared to do nothing about blocking access to those sites,' Conroy added." I hope some Australian and UK readers can help the rest of us understand the significance of conscience votes, though Wikipedia helps.

55 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... before you let them take your guns.

    It's a bit late now.

    1. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give me a copy of netbsd over a gun any day. The gun will just get you killed.

      Tell it to Peter Lalor. It's deplorable how many Australians are so ignorant of our history. While armed conflict is something sane people prefer to avoid, it ought not be avoided at any cost. From time to time in our history ("our" being people with common law justice systems) we have found it necessary to resist the government with force. We tend to keep the (newly constrained) government rather than overthrow them, which is what gives us the continuity of common law. Our legal rights such as Habeas Corpus and our Constitutional monarchy with Westminster parliament was won by force of arms. Hopefully we've come far enough to never need to resort to that again, but it seems foolish to bet your life on it.

      David Hicks was held for 5 years without trial with the approval of our government. Conroy wants to censor the internet. The ABCC has overturned the right to not incriminate yourself so you can be punished for silence. The "anti-biker" legislation is destroying the right to freely associate and also to know the evidence used against you and the right to face your accuser. With these legal changes in place it seems to me that some future government may very well use them to implement tyranny, regardless of any good intentions current politicians may have. Some time in the future it may very well require armed force to address this problem although the vast majority wouldn't say we are at that point now.

    2. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Speaking as a US citizen, I'm sure glad our founding fathers weren't such bleeding whiners.

    3. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      US civil wars were fought at a time when small arms were pretty much all there were. Seriously, try it against nukes and UAVs. See how far you get.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    4. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by u17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nowadays governments are much more powerful, in terms of military might, access to information and control over a citizen. It might have become infeasible to try to forcefully overthrow one. The next step that empowers citizens might just as well be total nuclear war.

    5. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In an armed conflict with out own Government the very best we could hope for is a disaster like Afghanistan.

      For you to say such a thing is a fine example of my statement: "It's deplorable how many Australians are so ignorant of our history.

      Did you not recognise the name Peter Lalor? Could it be that you don't know what the Eureka Stockade was? A small group of poorly armed men took on the government and lost quickly and decisively and were acquitted at trial by jury nullification. Shortly after, Peter Lalor was elected to the Victorian Legislative Council. What we could expect from armed conflict with the government depends on the amount of popular support for our cause. Right now, if you tried it you'd be reported in the media as a terrorist and remembered as such. Given enough popular support the government wouldn't take you on, except it may take a minor conflict for the level of support to be clear to them.

      I believe an armed conflict is the worst possible outcome.

      A lot of people think perpetual servitude is worse than armed conflict. In fact a great deal of our cultural identity is related to that ideal. I respect your right to express your opinion but your view is not representative of the Australian population in general.

    6. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Guns will not do anything to protect you or your freedoms when the govenment can drop a smart bomb on you and your bunker from 30,000 feet. However, getting involved in the political process now will.

      --
      Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
    7. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More importantly, with an all-volunteer force I think it's pretty unlikely that you could get the Army's cooperation in shooting U.S. citizens in a sort of Kent State situation--note that the people doing the shooting at Kent State were conscripts. We're not just talking about asymmetrical warfare here, we're talking about telling a soldier to shoot a citizen. That's a hard sell.

      It may be the common outlook here on /. that members of the military are unthinking, ant-like drones, but in reality that's not the case. I suspect you'd have a pretty hard time convincing a 19-year-old kid to shoot an M-1s main gun at a group of farmers.

    8. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Seriously, try it against nukes and UAVs. See how far you get."

      Nukes aren't on the table.

      UAVs? Go tell the Taliban they have lost and it's time to go home. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I imagine (hope) there are a LOT of US soldiers who would disobey a direct order to deploy a nuclear weapon against a civilian target in the United States, judging it to not be a lawful order.

    10. Re:Maybe you should have held a 'conscience vote' by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US Civil War was the first "modern" war with the might of industrialization and machines pushing the destruction and casualty rates.

      Machine guns, repeating rifles, giant mortars, spotting aircraft, submarines, armored warships, siege warfare, total war, concentration camps for prisoners, the Civil War had it all.

      Were there to be an uprising in the US, nuclear weapons would never be used, like in the Civil War the large segments of the military would splinter off into the rebelling faction and the nuclear sites would simply be sat on by forces loyal to the Federal Government or Pentagon.

      UAVs would be less effective in a US civil war now than they are in Iraq or Afghanistan, simply put the revolting faction knows where the UAVs are and could strike at their basing airfields. The UAV airfields are all in "Red" states (North Dakota, Arizona, Texas and Nevada) and the US is big, theres alot more territory with terrain less conductive to recon from the air.

  2. 430? by YoshiDan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    430 sites? Surely there are more. It's not like a child porn site is going to go around advertising itself is it? God he's stupid.

    1. Re:430? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never ascribe to stupidity that which can be explained by religion.

    2. Re:430? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "That's basically what a conscience vote is for those who aren't familiar - a "we won't kick you out of the party if you don't vote for this" vote. By refusing one, anyone who doesn't toe the line is out of the party. The ALP is extremely strict on this."

      But exactly how strict can they afford to be at this stage? If they kick any ALP member out for not towing the line, they'll lose government. (Even with the support of the greens and all independents the ALP holds government by 1 seat.) And the independents and the greens have not given support to the filter AFAIK. They have merely stated their intention to side with the ALP on budget and no confidence votes. But a mandatory filter system would require enabling legislation.

    3. Re:430? by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm guessing here that the secure gambling connections to offshore sites would be a damn site more difficult (impossible?) to pass through a proxy

      No harder than any other site; but obviously the people who think the proposed filter will do anything at all are banking on the majority of people never trying to circumvent it.

    4. Re:430? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never ascribe to religion that which can be explained by avarice and ambition (love of money and love of power). Religion is a convenient tool but if it did not exist, leaders would use something else instead (like race, color, or creed).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  3. Total control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I swear child porn is the big boogyman to control the internet just as 911 was the big fear monger event to justify totally immoral wars against countries that had nothing to do with the event....

    1. Re:Total control by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It works because it is a real problem. Child porn is a bad thing. 9/11 was a bad thing. There are real terrorists out there who want to kill Americans. Whenever there is a threat, or a serious problem, there will always be hucksters and power-seekers trying to take advantage of other's misery for their own benefit, or to push their own agenda. That's what happened during the McCarthy era: there were actually Russian spies, and McCarthy played on that fear.

      That's why it's so important to not believe every person who can describe the problem, but rather look at their proposed solutions and see if they actually help, or will take you somewhere you don't want to go. Because for any given problem, someone who is offering a solution is trying to twist it for their own benefit.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Total control by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It works because it is a real problem. Child porn is a bad thing.

      While child porn is extremely bad, preventing access to it will not protect Australian families from pedophiles at all - infact, with one method of release denied to them (and no, thats not me condoning access to child porn), they could become more dangerous toward Australian families.

    3. Re:Total control by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>It works because it is a real problem. Child porn is a bad thing. 9/11 was a bad thing. There are real terrorists out there who want to kill Americans.

      I am more likely to get hit be a meteorite, than to encounter a terrorist or child pornographer. These are NOT real problems. Real problems are how to pay the bills, or navigate to work without a car accident, or how to keep the boss happy.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Total control by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My evidence is history itself - you really think there were no pedophiles before the internet came into existence? How do you think they operated then?

      I have also assumed no 'causality' - you miss the fact that you are *not* removing consumers from the market, you are simply segmenting them in the market from their suppliers. What that does to the Thai suppliers is outside the discussion here, its what those 'consumers' do after their supply is removed - do they simply give up on the whole child porn aspect? In a perfect world, yes, but then again in a perfect world they wouldn't exist in the first place.

      Some casual 'consumers' may certainly give up their hobby, but equally there will be those that go elsewhere for their fix - where do you think that their new supply will come from, when they can no longer go outside the country on the internet for their porn? Certainly there will be other channels, and domestically made child porn is one of them.

      I also find it amusing that, while we are discussing the harm that comes to Australian children here, you assume that I care not a bit for non-Australian children - nothing further from the truth could be had. And I also resent your implication that I prefer any child to be harmed.

      Once again, we come back to what this discussion is all about - whether the filter protects the Australian family. It doesn't, and all of my posts demonstrate that.

      In the first case, it doesn't remove any suppliers from the market place - they exist outside of the remit of this filter and thus have a larger market. The argument that if you remove the customer base you reduce the suppliers market is false - many times this has been tried with prostitution and it has failed in every country thus far. They existed before the internet, and they were world wide then.

      In the second case, it doesn't necessarily remove any consumers from the market place - it simply restricts their supply. What they do after that is of question.

      Thirdly, it may indeed foist more harm on the Australian family as those consumers that cannot get their fix from external sources now have to turn to internal sources to fulfill their desires. Some of that internal supply may be smuggled in as before, but equally some may be domestically produced material that would never have been produced otherwise.

  4. I prefer by agendi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Internet still hell bent on filtering Conroy.

    --
    I just can't be bothered.
  5. Re:Conscience votes by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a parliamentary democracy, non-conscience votes are an abomination, IMHO.

    You vote for your local representative, they are supposed to represent the needs of their constituents to parliament. In the UK there's the Whip, in Aus a similar party line thing. what this means is that a few people at the top decide policy and it then gets pushed through on the threat of kicking dissenters out of the party.

    It's so anti-democratic it hurts.

  6. Not really unexpected by glowworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It has always been the case where Senator Conroy has desired this filter, he has long been a pawn of the Australian Christian Lobby. Before the recent elections the party he belongs to, Labor (a middle left party), could have passed it on their numbers alone, however the recent election puts Labor into a minority government position. Even with the Labor parties internal rules saying that all members must vote to the party line they are simply outnumbered, everyone else in government is on record as being against the plan. Now there is nothing to say that Labor can't strike a deal with the opposition party and the independents who make up the majority of the government, say tie it being passed to not putting a price on carbon, but I think the chances of that are slim. A minority government is a very tenuous hold on power. As far as a conscience vote, all other parties are free to vote how they like, members of the Labor party are the only ones tied to the official party line, however for things like Gay Adoption (recently passed) and Abortion (passed quite a few years ago) those rules are relaxed.

    --
    Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
  7. Scare Mongering by muphin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Child Porn is the new "terrorist" if you dont attack them you support them.
    considering the ISPS are VOLUNTARILY blocking these sites, there is no reason for the filter.
    Filter is just an excuse for a hidden agenda for slow and gradual control of information, if its there people will abuse it, ask any psychologist.

    --
    It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
  8. No Conscience? by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Senator Conroy is a religious fanatic, according to any modern definition of the term. This is POLITICS BY FAITH, and if that's what I want well there are OTHER countries for that.

    This policy is ABSOLUTE INSANITY, and if I wanted a country run by a religious NUTBAG then there are also other countries for that.

    His policy of deliberate insanity *almost* lost his party THE ENTIRE ELECTION, and now we have a government balanced on a knife-edge (ie more than likely, crippled beyond your worst nightmares).

    This kind of rampant lunacy only succeeds in countries where only the criminals (and fed gov police enforcement) have guns.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:No Conscience? by dangitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This kind of rampant lunacy only succeeds in countries where only the criminals (and fed gov police enforcement) have guns.

      In the USA everybody has (or is able to have) guns, yet we have much more rampant lunacy going on among our politicians. I've yet to see guns stop any of it.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:No Conscience? by internettoughguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This kind of rampant lunacy only succeeds in countries where only the criminals (and fed gov police enforcement) have guns.

      What the fuck has that got to do with anything? Unless you would resort martyrdom to stop this filter; in which case need to redo your cost benefit analysis :).

    3. Re:No Conscience? by dangitman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_politicians [wikipedia.org]

      And how did that stop any of the lunacy in politics? Many of the assassinations are the direct result of lunatics.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:No Conscience? by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "His policy of deliberate insanity *almost* lost his party THE ENTIRE ELECTION"

      No, this issue wasn't even on the radar of mainstream voters. Those people who know anything about the politics behind it know that it has been going on for over a decade now and will never be passed into law. It's rhetoric just like every US president since Nixon has called for "independence from foriegn oil" but has done jack shit about it, every Aussie PM since Keating has called for "cleaning up the net" but has done jack shit about it. If there was any political will behind the rhetoric then we would have had a mandatory filter back in the 90's when the libs first proposed it.

      "This kind of rampant lunacy only succeeds in countries where only the criminals (and fed gov police enforcement) have guns."

      Yeah right, guns have definitely prevented rampant lunacy from taking over US politics. /sarcasm

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:No Conscience? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AFAIK Australia has had one politician assasinated and that was over some petty personal dispute. Our politicans are not affraid to walk the streets or go for a morning jog on their own and that's exactly how most Aussies want to keep it. When a democratically elected politcian needs a small army to go out in public and do their job then as far as I'm concerned that country has serious problems.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  9. Hasn't got the Numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who cares what he still thinks? He hasn't got the numbers in either House of Parliament to get any Bill passed.

  10. Re:Conscience votes by Slotty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Worst part is policy isn't even dictated by representatives. It's dictated by media frenzy or party hollowmen. The ABC's hollowmen is actually a very realistic representation of governance.... Just not as funny

  11. Re:Why not shut the sites down instead? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because the sites are not in Australia. Having said that free webmail services seem to be major channels for hosting porn so maybe a filter will have to block billions of yahoo mail URLs.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  12. Re:Conscience votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not that I agree with non-conscience voting but the parties expect your reasoning for choosing your local member is different to what you say.

    People, in general, vote for one party or another. Not for the personal beliefs of their local member. Most people have never met or even seen significant campaigning from their local member. Therefore, if a person is voting for a party, they expect their member to believe and vote the same as their party (rather than the other way around).

    If you truly want someone in parliament to vote based on local issues, you should vote for an independent. This is the key difference an independent holds over party-aligned politicians.

  13. Just to put things into perspective by Netshroud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    430 out of >1,000,000,000,000

  14. Classification IS Censorship by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "'I'm not sure that the censorship claim stacks up. This is about classification systems."

    The Australian Classification system is a system of government-run censorship. Media which is refused classification is not allowed to be sold in the country.

    The debate is fundamentally about censorship.

    It is legal to possess and view unclassified and refused-classification material in most of Australia, provided that it is not material which is actually illegal (child porn, for example). What Conroy wants to do is circumvent the ability for adults to decide what they can view. To make it illegal to view online things which are legal to possess in reality. It is censorship. To argue otherwise is completely dishonest.

  15. Re:Conscience votes by Zumbs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where I live, people most often vote for a party, not a person. It is quite seldom that they know that much about the personal beliefs of the local members on the party list. It should also be noted that the only thing stopping someone from breaking party line is that they can be excluded from their party. Depending on the situation their career in politics may also end at the next exection, but they do not lose their seat until a new parliament is elected. Indeed, since the last parliamentary election 3 years ago, 3% of the elected representatives have left their party for another (or for being independent).

    --
    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
  16. what a useless bastard by kiddygrinder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [Malcolm Turnbull] has to explain to Australian families that he is prepared to do nothing about blocking access to those sites

    Conroy has to admit that he's not prepared to do anything to prosecute the creators or help the children being abused in the creation of this material, but really just wants to pretend it doesn't exist.

    --
    This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  17. Overreacting maybe? by devent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    430 child pornography sites. You got to be kidding me. That like what, 0.000000000000001% of the websites worldwide? And for a hand full of sites they have to filter 100% of the traffic and spend millions of Australian $ for it?

    How about a total filter on the catholic church, after all there are 10% of Catholic Priests Were Pedophiles. How about spend more money to protect real children in Australia? There was 5,591 sexual abuse and 11,789 physical abuse in 2008. There were 339,454 notifications but only 162,259 investigations, that's only 48% coverage. How about dropping this stupid filter and spend more money on protecting real children, living in Australia right now?

    But what will happened is that Australia is going to spend millions to block 430 child pornography sites but then they have to cut spending on education and on child protection services.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  18. But it does help by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you censor the entire net, then you DO shutdown the pedo sites. If you lock up everyone who isn't a right wing american KKK card carrier, then you do lock up the traitors. If you ban all Muslims and Muslim symphatizers from the US, you ban the Muslim terrorists as well (you still keep the abortion clinic bombers and seperatists and other home grown nutters).

    THAT is the problem. The holocaust and WW2 did solve the German unemployment problem.

    The REAL question is NOT to ask wether a measure will solve the problem but at what cost it comes.

    Simply put. More kids are killed in traffic then by pedo's. Solution, ban cars. Why doesn't this get proposed? Because nobody wants to surrender their SUV with cattle bar for those hellish suburban roads.

    We CAN hunt down pedo websites. BUT what is the price? Is the loss of freedom of speech and freedom of information worth saving a few kids? Yes? Then hand in your cars keys today... AH, thought so. You want to save a handful of kids from predators but not thousands from car accidents.

    Same with 9/11 and the war against terror. We CAN stop the terrorists, but is it worth the total collapse of privacy and ruining internation trade and exchange of ideas?

    Is the war on drugs worth Mexico being the latest country to slide into civil war? Locking up people who are just addicted enough to risk life in jail for smoking a joint for the 3rd time?

    With extreme measures, we can solve all the worlds problems. But is it worth it?

    So "That's why it's so important to not believe every person who can describe the problem, but rather look at their proposed solutions and see if they actually help, or will take you somewhere you don't want to go."

    It is that last bit that is the important thing. Not wether it will help. That is easy enough. But do we want to life in that kind of world.

    And that is hard. It requires people who value freedom of speech to defend smut peddlers like Larry Flynt. Not because they are pro-porn but because you either stand for freedom of speech for all or for none. Because if you allow stuff to be banned because it upsets people, you end up banning everything because everything upsets someone.

    But that is VERY hard to sell. It is like argueing about the evils of various religious institutions in a religious country. Once a mere questioning of religious practices could get you in serious trouble. Thank god the Catholic and other churces have lost a lot of power and you can't simply be put to death for questioning the pope.

    Right now you can just be cast out for daring to question the wrongness of child porn crusaders. Question this minister and you are automatically pro-pedo. A brave man/woman who dares to risk that. And so he gets away with it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:But it does help by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Terrorism thrives on the ability of a small incident to provoke a grossly asymmetric over-reaction, thus swaying general public opinion against the larger party. A few cases in point:

      - Bloody Sunday of 1920, when the IRA killed 14 British intelligence officers in Dublin. In response, the British Auxilliary units (Black and Tans) shot up Croke Park during a GAA football match, killing 14 civilians, and then executed 3 prisoners of war. This solidified support on the Irish side for the Republicans, and also caused a great deal of distress in England. There were mass demonstrations in London against continued occupation of Ireland at the price of gunning down civilians.

      - Hamas lobs unguided rockets in the general direction of Israel, and usually they land in vacant lots and no one is hurt. Eventually, the IDF rolls into Gaza with tanks and helicopter gunships and starts wrecking shop, then puts up a blockade to try and starve civilians into compliance. This then gets Israel a bad rap in the international press and court of public opinion. Do you really think Likud would be willing to go to peace talks, even with Fatteh, if not for the recent scandal with the murder of civilian aid workers on board the Turkish ships attempting to run the Gaza blockade?

      I could go on. There are more examples, these are just fairly big examples of where the reaction provoked was grossly out of line with the original offense. Frankly, I think that the only way to really defeat the terrorist tactic is to not let them provoke the reaction they're looking for. Basically just ignore them. Eventually they'll do something that really needs to be dealt with, but you don't occupy a country in response to a building. This is why we have a CIA and special forces. Targeted assassinations are a proportionate response. The marines are there to fight countries, not terrorists.

      If we had dropped a bunch of Green Berets into Afghanistan to take out Bin Laden rather than waiting for a month wagging a stick at the Taliban hoping for extradition, then this whole thing would have been over and no one would have said we did the wrong thing. As it stands, the US looks like a bunch of bullies going around stepping on ant hills because the new kid in town didn't know we were supposed to be the toughest kid in the school.

    2. Re:But it does help by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Insightful?

      Totally Retarded!

      If you censor the entire net

      Yes, but that is NOT THE PROPOSAL.

      The proposal is to CENSOR THE NET IN AUSTRALIA , bugger the victims of child pornography everywhere else (pun intended) WE DO NOT CARE about dealing with the problem, only sweeping it under the carpet.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    3. Re:But it does help by rotide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The solution is easy, because there is none. There simply is _no_ solution to "terrorism" besides the total and utter collapse of any and all freedoms.

      Why? Because tomorrow I can be a terrorist. My mother too. How about a random guy out in Montana? Yes, he can be a terrorist tomorrow. Hell, you can turn into a Terrorist in 30 seconds if you want to. All you have to do is start plotting to cause harm with the intent on moving someones political goals/agendas/views.

      See, terrorists aren't armies. They aren't, as a whole, organized. Sure, you get groups of "terrorists", but frankly, ignoring funding, they are probably weaker than the lone McVeigh since they probably communicate and that chatter can be monitored.

      The major problem with the "War on Terror" is that there will _never_ by definition, be an end to it. There will _always_ be another person willing to die, or at least kill, to make a political point. Take the guy who crashed his plane into the IRS building months ago. He's a terrorist. If he really wanted to make an Al Qaeda type bang, he just had to fill his aircraft with something that would go !BOOM! on impact.

      Again, these people aren't part of a standing army with x soldiers. It would be great if you could ask them to all line up in an old school skirmish line and just take them all out in an afternoon. But that will not happen, it can't, because the best part of Terrorism is that they rarely have the same agenda or goals. Terrorists in Somalia will have a different view than Terrorists in the old Soviet Republic or Ireland, etc. They will each attack different targets at different times while truly remaining entirely autonomous. Hell, they don't even care what the other guy is doing as it has _no_ bearing on their goals.

      What is the solution? There isn't one. We need to step back and realize that they will keep coming just as sure as the sun will rise in the morning. Destroying everything we hold sacred to "defeat" the Terrorists only gives them more purpose. Hell, that's half of what they want in the first place. The war can't and will never be won.

      My solution?

      Go back to pre-9/11 security. Keep enough security to hold the crazies at bay as much as you can but otherwise ignore the "Terrorists". Stop throwing away everything we care about for "security" and "safety". Live your life and enjoy it. Or, you can keep buying into the propaganda and help feed the machine that profits from the fear. Seriously, the war can't be won and the only purpose for the huge industry that is trying to "stop" it is pure, utter, profit and power.

      Stop drinking the koolaid.

    4. Re:But it does help by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The solution is easy, because there is none. There simply is _no_ solution to "terrorism" besides the total and utter collapse of any and all freedoms.

      Not even that cannot guarantee safety from terrorist attacks. Anybody sufficiently motivated to cause death and mayhem will find a way. In totalitarian states, of course, they don't need to become terrorists, they just become leaders.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:But it does help by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We CAN hunt down pedo websites. BUT what is the price? Is the loss of freedom of speech and freedom of information worth saving a few kids?

      Are you honestly claiming that if you don't have the freedom to distribute child porn, you don't have freedom of speech ?

      The way some governments want to implement blocking child porn (with secret blacklists) is indeed a danger to free speech. Because it makes it easy to put stuff on the list The Government Party Does Not Like. I certainly don't trust the politicians in my country with the power to do so.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  19. Fix the murders problem by banning news on murders by Aceticon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would forbidding the press to report on murders stop people being murdered?

    'Cause that's equivalent to what Conroy is suggesting: hide the problem not solve the problem.

    It seems to me that if he is so concerned about the problem of sexual abuse of children he should support going after those that do the abuse, not hiding it.

    This angle could be used to pry open his argument.

  20. minister for who? by enter+to+exit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This man is nothing but a fool. Why can't he see that no one _wants_ the filter and that it is simply useless. He has said himself that the "tech savvy" can easily get around what they are proposing. What does "tech savvy" mean to him? - it's all relative.

    Does he honestly think that an undesirable is going to be deterred by a filter that can be worked around? The same man goes around and threatens to filter google because it's videos are RC - it' nothing short of surreal.

    Every possible form of protest has been exercised and they still persist. What else can we do? What ever happened to the idea that laws should reflect the values of the community? The vast majority of AU is apposed to this. Who exactly are they trying to please with this filter? The 'religious nut' demographic can not be that big.

    If this goes ahead we're going to have is an extra government layer to get through to use the internet and we all know how good the government is with technology. We can expect delays and failures that no one will take responsibility for.

    If people want a filter they should buy one, the government can even subsidise it if they want - it'll be more effective anyway (not to mention cheaper). I don't want my tax dollars being spent on censorship policies like this.

    It's ironic that the same government that can be so forward thinking with things like the NBN (regardless of how wasteful you think it is) can be so incompetently backward with it's filtering plan.

    I'm sensing that this is increasingly a matter of ego for him and that is very dangerous.

  21. Re:Conscience votes by kingturkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So there's no official sanctions, e.g. removal of positions or expulsion from the party, but surely an MP with ambition (almost all) would strongly consider the unofficial penalties before crossing the floor. Surely when the ministerial positions are being handed out, being a "team player" would be a strong factor in the decisions.

  22. Australia would have non of it's current problems by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the Aboriginals had just implemented stricter immigration control.
    It's the bloody immigrants i tell you, stealing all our jobs an bushmeat.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  23. Re:I'm curious by srjh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not sure about Abbott, but both the Libs and Nats officially rejected it, and appointing the even more anti-filter Turnbull as Communications minister suggests that they're sticking to that opposition.

    Abbott did make it a difficult choice, and the Libs didn't get my first preference, but the filter is worrying enough to be the most important issue for me (although it was a pretty uninspiring campaign overall from both sides, so that might have had something to do with it). I know the filter is very unlikely to go through now, and I'd have circumvented it anyway, but a government that shows that much contempt for freedom of expression and government transparency needs to be opposed on principle.

  24. Re:big deal by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "[Malcolm Turnbull] has to explain to Australian families that he is prepared to do nothing about blocking access to those sites"

    Is that so eh. Perhaps instead Malcolm Turnbull could explain to Steven Conroy what the Internet is, how it works, and why we all wish Conroy would just fuck off.

    --
    I hate printers.
  25. It depends... by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More fundamentally, for child porn to be made, children have to be sexually abused.

    Depends on the jurisdiction. In the United States, for example, there are people sitting in jail for child porn, directly related crimes, or derivative prosecutions for making or possessing pictures or videos where one or all the following conditions are true:

    ***The actors are kids but are never naked and no sex acts take place.

    ***The actors are verified adults portraying underage characters.

    ***The actors are nonexistent, animated characters.

    1. Re:It depends... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Australian legislators define it in much the same way. Even if a girl's tits aren't big enough you can get into trouble.

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
  26. Cars aren't intended for "twisted action" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Simply put. More kids are killed in traffic then by pedo's. Solution, ban cars. Why doesn't this get proposed? Because nobody wants to surrender their SUV with cattle bar for those hellish suburban roads.

    We CAN hunt down pedo websites. BUT what is the price? Is the loss of freedom of speech and freedom of information worth saving a few kids? Yes? Then hand in your cars keys today... AH, thought so. You want to save a handful of kids from predators but not thousands from car accidents" - by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday September 17, @04:57AM (#33608674)

    THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SO-CALLED "ARGUMENT":

    Your foundation of your argument tries to make apples = oranges, and is therefore weak and fools only easily suggestable idiots who cannot see the diff. in what you are TRYING to "compare" and "make equal in intention" here.

    E.G.-> Cars aren't trying to stuff their tailpipe up a kid's exhaust port, Freaks/twistos/pedophiles, are... get it? (by way of comparison & intent)!

    Fact is, to myself? You actually come off like some pedo trying to defend his "twistedness" in fact, as do others here that tried to use your line of argument! I hope you're not such a person, and if you are not, my apologies on this note, but think about what I just said, BECAUSE of what YOU SAID! Drink that in, & digest it...

    I mean, I.E.-> You appear so "vehemently" against this measure of filtering!

    (Filtering, that yes, can work (for most folks vs. techno jocks that know how to use diff. IP addresses, or proxy servers, or DNS servers for example to beat a filter) vs. kids being exposed to this type of "twisted-ness" in the first place (hopefully that is))

    How do I know this? Well... I use filtering (of a form), via HOSTS files here!

    I use it for better online speed and security too, from a single file, for all of my webbound apps and it works... it works for better speed and security online, and for myself, my workplace, and my friends and family too as well as people that download mine from me, and not a single one of us has had a malware or malscripted website take advantage of us in years/decades (in my case on the latter) because I practice a form of filtering via a HOSTS file (with security information on the known bad sites/servers from reputable reliable sources, and against known bad websites &/or servers + ad banner servers too, because they have been found with malscripted code in some of them, and they cut my speed online to hell and I pay for it (no thanks/bye bye adbanners)).

    Even more hilarious vs. this filter were the replies that said "fix it" or "stop the websites that do it".

    (Good luck on that because all the laws on the planet don't stop malware bearing sites either, and if they do manage to take down one or a botnet? More come up to take that one's place. It's a lot bigger undertaking to entirely (good luck on that especially) trying to take out what SOME 'freaks' want or will make, money involved or not - because of this? It can't ever really be FULLY stopped, as it is like a hydra: Cut off 1 head, another will take its place. You can only do as I do, & that is filter... I am not against bad websites or servers being shut down, but not a lot of effort seems to go into that, so the community online "takes care of itself" and its own, by creating filters like kill files in HOSTS files, ISP/BSP or DNS level filtering, etc./et al instead... and yes, it works!).

    Freedom can be a good thing (OR it can be a bad thing. Especially the freedom to act irresponsibly). Freedom of any kind., and judging by what you're saying, well hey - let's not do anything at all then, let's be that blatantly/grossly irresponsible then!

    Uh, no thanks. I am for filtering personally, because I know it does work for the good in both speed and security online per my example above using HOSTS files to do so here.

    APK

    P.S.=> Personally, I think this ought to be tried i