Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian Government Censorship 'Worse Than Iran'

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-the-people-there-are-so-nice dept.

Censorship 516

An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Government's plan to Censor the Internet is producing problems for ISPs, with filters causing speeds to drop by up to 86% and falsely blocking 10% of safe sites. The Government Minister in charge of the censorship plan, Conservative Stephen Conroy, has been accused of bullying ISP employees critical of his plan: 'If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree.'" Read on for more, including an interesting approach to demonstrating the inevitable collision of automated censorship with common sense.The same reader continues: "Conroy's plan involves censoring at the ISP level to product 'Child-safe' Internet feeds. Initially he said that adults would be able to opt out. He since reversed that position, saying instead they can only go onto an 'Adult-safe' feed censoring 'illegal material', which another senator warned could include 'euthanasia material, politically related material, material about anorexia.' Colin Jacobs of Electronic Frontiers Australia said 'I'm not exaggerating when I say that this model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure [note: forum membership required] than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world.'"

Another anonymous reader suggests this answer to the proposed clone of China's great firewall: "Some of the tested systems use md5 hashes to find illegal content. As proof of concept, how long will it take Slashdot users to create an image with the md5 hash of 5ff742a58529efa02ba00ec8fa2e89bf? This md5 was picked because it is the hash of the current picture of the Prime Minister on his party's web site. A couple of points: The created image should be a jpg. It must be safe for work. It needs the correct MD5. It shouldn't break modern browsers. Its copyright should be free." Any takers?

cancel ×

516 comments

the truth is out there! +5 informative!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25492899)

I submit David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist

And I have the proof

How can one explain the phenomenal global success of one of this country's least talented individuals? There are only three ways.

        * Mr. Hasselhoff actually is talented, but this goes unnoticed in his own country.

        * Mr. Hasselhoff has sold his soul to Satan in return for global success.

        * David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist.

            I vote for the latter -- and perhaps, after seeing the facts involved, the rest of the world will agree.

The Facts First, the obvious. Add a little beard and a couple of horns -- David Hasselhoff looks like the Devil, doesn't he? And the letters in his name can be rearranged to spell
fad of devil's hash.

What does this mean? Well, Baywatch is David's fad. David is the devil. The Hash is what makes Knight Rider popular in Amsterdam.

(I was actually hoping to make the letters in his name spell out he is of the devil, which would be possible if his middle name was "Ethesis," which it might be. I'm sure his publicist would hide such a middle name if it were true.)

Second -- and most importantly -- David Hasselhoff and his television series were foretold in the Bible. Biblical scholars worldwide may quibble over interpretations, but they all agree on this. For a few telling examples let's skip to the end of the Bible. If any book of the Bible will tell us who the AntiChrist is, it's the Revelation of Saint John, which basically describes the AntiChrist and the Armageddon He causes. I'll just give you the verse, and the current theological interpretation of that verse.

Who is the Beast?

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns The Beast, of course, is David Hasselhoff. The Heads are His separate television incarnations. Young and the Restless, Revenge of the Cheerleaders, Knight Rider, Terror at London Bridge, Ring of the Musketeers, Baywatch and Baywatch Nights.
The ten horns represent His musical releases: Crazy For You, David, David Hasselhoff, Do You Love Me?, Du, Everybody Sunshine, I Believe, Looking For Freedom, Night Lover and Night Rockers.
Not only does Mitch The Lifeguard literally "rise out of the sea" on Baywatch, but David's musical career has mostly occurred in Europe, a metaphoric rise to fame from across the sea.
Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. Of course, this is a reference to his third head: Knight of the Phoenix, the first episode of Knight Rider. In this episode, "Michael Long, a policeman, is shot and left for dead. The shot is deflected by a plate in his head, but ruins his face. He is saved and his face reconstructed. He is reluctant, but agrees to use K.I.T.T. to help the Foundation for Law and Government fight criminals who are 'beyond the reach of the law'. " Knight Rider has been shown in 82 countries.
Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. The following blasphemies are actual quotes from David Hasselhoff -- I read these while he was 42 years old.

"I'm good-looking, and I make a lot of money."

"There are many dying children out there whose last wish is to meet me."

"I'm six foot four, an all-American guy, and handsome and talented as well!"

"Before long, I'll have my own channel -- I'll be like Barney."

"(Baywatch) is responsible for a lot of world peace." which the Hoff said at the Bollywood Oscars. Don't believe me? Read the original article!

And here's a blasphemy that came from David's recent (Feb 2004) visit to the Berlin Wall museum. I couldn't have made something this great up by myself. He was upset that the museum didn't spend more time devoted to his personal role in the fall of Communism. You can read more about it here, if you don't believe me.

The Second Beast: Television

Rev 13:11-13And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

        The Second Beast, with it's dual antennae, is obviously the Television -- merely a pawn in Hasselhoff's underworldly regime. His stereo speaker (the dragon's voice) spews forth the blasphemy of Baywatch until He has caused all people of the earth to worship and watch Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. How well has he done? Baywatch is now seen by about one billion viewers in 140 countries -- the most watched series ever.

You probably never knew this, but the entire historical purpose of television has been to attract a worldwide audience for the eventual syndication of Baywatch. And how does it accomplish this global distribution? Via satellite - from heaven to the Earth.

Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. How does television work? By giving life unto Hasselhoff's image. I'm pretty sure the second part hasn't happened yet.

Lifeguards: Denizens of the Underworld

These biblical revelations will show that the lifeguards on Baywatch are foretold as servants of the Devil. (Need I say who that is again?)

Rev 20:11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them

Rev 20:13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them...

        Doesn't this sound like an exact description of what the lifeguards on Baywatch do? They sit on their big white wooden throne, and watch out over the sea -- waiting for a dying person to get cast up.
Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek to find death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

        One word: CPR

Rev 10:2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, Sounds like a lifeguard, eh? Standing on the beach reading a paperback?

Rev 17:3-5 ...and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

    and if that wasn't enough, try
Ezekiel 23:17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

        The fabled "Whore of Babylon." Well, people have been calling Hollywood "Babylon" since long before I was making web pages. And of all the women in Hollywood, whose wedding night video is the most popular? Hmmm.... Did someone say "Barb Wire?"

Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more Do you know any merchants who invested heavily in the acting career of this "whore of Babylon?" I've seen that "VIP" show of hers, and I'd be weeping if I had spent money on the merchandising rights.

Rev. 18:21 ... a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea,...

        Speaking of lifeguards chucking rocks at innocent people, listen to this excerpt from a recent lawsuit against his Hasselness: "while Plaintiff was in the audience of the Rosie O'Donnell Show, Defendandt DAVID HASSELHOFF came on stage and threw a stack of cards depicting himself into the audience, striking Plaintiff in the eye. . . [he] should have known that throwing cards into an audience could cause injury to the audience."

Rev 18:14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. He stands to lose money in this lawsuit -- or maybe even all those dainty and goodly things he bought.

The Number of the Beast

The Bible shows us another way to prove a person is the AntiChrist, namely through numerology. Rev 13:18 says: "Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

That's a bit cryptic, to be sure. One score is twenty, so threescore is 60, the number of the beast is 666.

Now, the way biblical scholars and numerologists usually convert the names of men into their numbers is through a simple numerical code. Let's assign the 26 letters of the alphabet the numbers 1 through 26. It looks like this:

a 1 i 9 q 17 y 25

b 2 j 10 r 18 z 26

c 3 k 11 s 19

d 4 l 12 t 20

e 5 m 13 u 21

f 6 n 14 v 22

g 7 o 15 w 23

h 8 p 16 x 24

Now, we take the letters from Mr. Hasselhoff's name, assign numbers to them, and calculate his number.

D A V I D H A S S E L H O F F

4 1 22 9 4 8 1 19 19 5 12 8 15 6 6

Now, since thirteen is such a fitting number for evil, let's multiply the first 13 numbers together. The total (65,874,124,800) is approximately 6.6 billion. Tack on the remaining 6's from the end of his name, and you've got yourself the mark of the beast.

Another tactic you could use would be to add the letters in "David" (I think you should get 40) and the letters in Hasselhoff (99) and then multiply them together. 40 x 99 = 3960. Now, 3960 is 660 x 6. And of course, 660 plus 6 is -- again -- the mark of the beast.

Not enough proof for you? Well, let's see what else the winning combination of the Bible and numerology have in store for David.....

As he explains it in his interview, David Hasselhoff first decided to act at the age of 7 when he saw a local production of Rumplestiltskin. His acting debut was in Peter Pan. Knight Rider ended its run in 1986, when Hasselhoff was 32. Baywatch debuted in 1989, when Hasselhoff was 35. His first televised role was as Snapper Foster on the Young and the Restless at the age of 19. If we look at the 37th chapter of the 19th book of the Bible (Psalms) -- at verses 32 and 35, we notice an interesting phenomenon. Take a look:

32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.

35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Viewers of Baywatch may have thought they were watching the good leader Mitch Buchannon -- whose main job as head lifeguard is to watch over the righteous babes at the beach, and save them. According to the Bible, he is really trying to slay them. But can we be sure that the show in question is actually Baywatch? Well, count the number of letters in Rumplestiltskin and Peter Pan. 15 and 8, right? Now look at those bible verses again. Find the 15th word of verse 35 - and the 8th word from the end of verse 32. Put them together.

35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.
32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.

Re:the truth is out there! +5 informative!! (-1, Troll)

jeff419 (1112781) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493343)

By far the best comment I've ever seen in my life.

Too bad the joos control the media and don't take stories like this public.

A friendly warning from an American (1, Troll)

MWoody (222806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25492923)

If you guys have large oil reserves, HIDE THEM QUICKLY. Say they all dried up. Being white will only keep US Republicans from attacking for so long, and "worse than Iran" is not something you want associated with your country right now.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (1, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493015)

Canada has a huge surpluss of oil and we're not invading them.

Let's play devil's advocate for two seconds.

1 - We haven't financially gained from invading Iraq. Quite the opposite. The war has cost us greatly, and we have no control over Iraqi oil anymore. We help guard it, but we don't own it.

2 - Republicans don't go to war more then Democrats. Both parties voted to go to war. People seem to forget that polls showed that US citizens, as well as many of the world supported going into Iraq immediately after 9/11 on a false premise that Saddam had ties to 9/11. Bush pushed for diplomacy and intel. That intel concluded that Saddam had no ties to 9/11. A warmonger strikes while the iron is hot, not pushes for diplomacy for a few more years.

3 - Clinton while in office bombed 4 different countries without pursuing diplomacy in any of those cases. He didn't ask permission, talk to the UN, consult with allies, or give warnings. He just bombed. The funny thing is that few people argued because it was over so quick, where as a land war is costly and lasts for years.

I really hate the notion that Republicans are more likely to be war-mongers than Democrats, not because I agree with all Republicans, but because the assertion is foolish.

I also really hate the notion that Americans are war-mongers. In almost every use of American forces, they were requested by the UN, and in most cases (embassy evacuations, small peace-keeping missions, etc) the military is used briefly, and without bloodshed. For instance, when troops were issued to Liberia in 2003, they prevented bloodshed, but you don't hear about things like that.

Please, stop ignorant trolling. It isn't funny, and it only spreads FUD.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (4, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493273)

Yes, nobody argued when we went to war because Bush _lied to us_. They knew Saddam had nothing to do with it. In fact, if you go back and look at their speeches and documents, they were _extremely_ careful to never specifically say that Saddam was responsible - they just implied it. Something like 80% of the soldiers in Iraq _still_ think they're there because Saddam was behind 9/11.

And speaking of Clinton, Bush knew 9/11 was coming. Clinton's administration warned him and his administration about it. So what was one of the first things he did when he got in office? Severely downsized our counter-terrorism forces. He knew it was coming, and he actively worked to make it easier for them to do it. And then, when it happened, he lied to the American people and to Congress to get them to approve what he wanted. Bush never pushed for diplomacy, Bush used the attacks to get what he wanted - and he still is. He pushed for diplomacy and intel? Really? He booted the UN out! How is that pushing for diplomacy and intel? He did just enough that he could say he tried. He did just enough so that people like you would be able to say he did something.

And yes, Clinton did some bad things too. I'm not a huge fan of him either. But nothing he did even begins to compare to Bush.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (2, Informative)

Jimmy_B (129296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493313)

2 - Republicans don't go to war more then Democrats. Both parties voted to go to war. People seem to forget that polls showed that US citizens, as well as many of the world supported going into Iraq immediately after 9/11 on a false premise that Saddam had ties to 9/11. Bush pushed for diplomacy and intel. That intel concluded that Saddam had no ties to 9/11. A warmonger strikes while the iron is hot, not pushes for diplomacy for a few more years.

I can't stand to see such blatant deception moderated so highly. Bush and his cabinet pushed for war, and manipulated intelligence to make it look more desirable. No one ever suggested that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11; rather, Bush's administration manipulated evidence to falsely suggest that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He most certainly did not push for diplomacy.

3 - Clinton while in office bombed 4 different countries without pursuing diplomacy in any of those cases. He didn't ask permission, talk to the UN, consult with allies, or give warnings. He just bombed. The funny thing is that few people argued because it was over so quick, where as a land war is costly and lasts for years.

People didn't complain because he had a legitimate reason to attack in those cases. That's the difference.

WMD did exist and it has been proven (0, Flamebait)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493513)

WMD did exist. Talk about old rhetoric.

Actually Bill Clinton came to Bush's defense saying that for years first hand he saw plenty of intel proving the WMD existed. That is why he justified bombing Iraq. Heck, he also bombed Sudan on the basis that Sudan was developing WMD for Iraq. Over 30 different countries came forward with their own intel on Iraq's WMD. The UN Security Council unanimously voted over 75 times finding Iraq in violation of the terms of the cease-fire.

In case you forget, the terms of the cease fire authorized military force if Iraq was not COMPLETELY COMPLICIT in the terms. 75 violations is authorization in and of itself. Driving Kurds into the mountains and attempting genocide is authorization in and of itself. Shutting off and food and water to towns while building dozens of personal palaces is authorization in and of itself. The well being of 30 million people is authorization in and of itself. Recent statistics show Baghdad today is safer than Detroit.

Two weeks before we went into Iraq, Bush held a speech saying that we'd go into Iraq in two weeks. Immediately after that, we watched caravans of vehicles leave Baghdad heading for Syria and Colin Powell immediately said that we'd likely never find the huge stockpiles now as they were leaving the country.

Despite that we still found missiles filled with Sarin gas, documentation for WMD, storage facilities for WMD, training manuals for WMD, etc.

Never mind that both parties universally said that Iraq had and pursued WMD for over 11 years. Never mind the entire world said Iraq had WMD.

Clearly, one person made up the story years later, and people believed the lie retroactively before he was in office.

Your logic makes so much more sense, that you were modded up.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (3, Insightful)

palemantle (1007299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493367)

"People seem to forget that polls showed that US citizens, as well as many of the world supported going into Iraq immediately after 9/11 on a false premise that Saddam had ties to 9/11."

Whoa whoa. Maybe US citizens did want to go to war. But I distinctly remember *world* citizens - even the ones from countries that did send troops - being overwhelmingly against the war.

Here's what Europeans thought for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Where's your proof? And you accuse someone else of being an ignorant troll and fo spreading FUD.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493535)

Not in the weeks immediately following 9/11. On September 13th, the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution against Iraq, even though Iraq hadn't done anything new, but members of the council were drawing conclusions because Saddam publicly praised the terrorists. Many suggested the security council was immediately ready to approve military action against Iraq if the US wanted to pursue it.

Your article suggests people were against the war in 2003, which is true. What I'm suggesting is that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, several leaders were vocally drawing links to Iraq, even though they had no proof.

The sentiments changed greatly because we pursued diplomacy instead of immediately charging in on trumped up charges when support was higher.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (3, Insightful)

ZeroConcept (196261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493397)

You assume the plan was to benefit Americans by invading Irak. It was quite the opposite, the plan was to use tax money to finance operations while profits went to private companies, this is not a new concept.

Understand that modern warfare is ultimately governed by profit of the few at the expense of the masses, the economy was artificially inflated to mask the cost of the war.

Sadly, it is only when personal pockets of comfort are affected that the public at large start to question their government, when is too late.

And even then excuses will be made to defend the mental image that the exploited cling to, it was not my country that did this to me, it was something else.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (5, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493451)

I also really hate the notion that Americans are war-mongers.

Perhaps not the American people, but the American government (with the consent of the people) certainly seem to be war mongers.

Look how much money they US spends on war compared to the rest of the world [armscontrolcenter.org] (more than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined!)

Have a look at the number of countries with a US army base [current.com] (willing hosts or otherwise).

These is not really the actions of a peaceful country.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493453)

We haven't financially gained from invading Iraq.

Define we. I heard quite a few companies friendly with the Bush administration profited quite well.

People seem to forget that polls showed that US citizens, as well as many of the world supported going into Iraq immediately after 9/11 on a false premise that Saddam had ties to 9/11.

Which Bush didn't do. Unless your definition of immediately means waiting 2 years.

Clinton while in office bombed 4 different countries without pursuing diplomacy in any of those cases.

Did he do so under false pretences?

Re:A friendly warning from an American (4, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493051)

We're talking about Australia here. You know, the country that rides along every time the Americans 'go it alone.' But not to worry, we're well ahead of you. We invaded ourselves a couple of years ago to save America the trouble.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (5, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493083)

It'll be coming to the UK within a month or two and it will be here in the US not too long after that. Don't get too smug:/

Re:A friendly warning from an American (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493281)

We've got better than oil, we've got uranium...lots of it.
That's practically the same as having already blown up America as far as invasion motives go.

Re:A friendly warning from an American (3, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493411)

Plus we illegally invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The Americans need to punish us.

posting link to unrelated penny arcade comic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25492925)

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/02/09/ [penny-arcade.com] [penny-arcade.com]

please mod funny, i need the karma :(

Re:posting link to unrelated penny arcade comic (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493151)

Somehow, I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Come on already (5, Insightful)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25492937)

Pretty much everyone in Australia knows this is not actually going to get implemented. The Australian EFF are just enjoying having their moment in the sun. There's no reason to have another story on the exact same topic every few days.

Re:Come on already (5, Interesting)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493073)

That and Conroy is too busy getting caught rigging Senate hearings over Treasury issues. My worry is he'll push this to get some cover from the other stuff-ups.

Re:Come on already (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493347)

He's already getting cover from the incorrect slashdot summary, from now on he can screw things up and blame it on the conservatives.

Re:Come on already (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493395)

You mean in a 'they did it, it's too late to back out' way like the Defense muppet that bleated about Super Hornets but bought them anyway.

Re:Come on already (5, Funny)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493117)

An amusing quote from the relevent Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] :

Internet censorship in Australia is largely the province of the Federal Government and its laws on Internet censorship are, theoretically, amongst the most restrictive in the Western world. However, the restrictive nature of the laws has been combined with almost complete disinterest in enforcement from the agencies responsible for doing so.

Re:Come on already (5, Insightful)

Legume (257598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493139)

Pretty much everyone in Australia knows this is not actually going to get implemented.

I wish I could share your optimism. I'd guess most people in Australia are more-or-less oblivious to the whole thing. "Anything that stops those nasty paedopiraterrorists is a good thing, right?"

Re:Come on already (4, Interesting)

teh moges (875080) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493141)

Actually I don't know that. Sure, labor governments have a long history of not finishing projects either on time or at all, but this project is just stupid enough to actually be implemented.

I voted for them at the last election, based mainly on their other policies. I knew that the filtering was something they were going to do, but if I had of know it was going to be this bad, I would of changed my vote.

Conroy has to get with the times and to stop using the 'nothing to hide' argument (in another light here: if you don't agree with us, they you are a pedo).

I'll point out here, but this is aimed at Enderandrew's post a couple down. Australian's don't have the right to free speech. We have a concept of free speech and there are some laws supporting it, but its nowhere near the level that America does.

Conroy's flawed argument (5, Insightful)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493489)

Conroy has to get with the times and to stop using the 'nothing to hide' argument (in another light here: if you don't agree with us, they you are a pedo). That itself is a completley flawed argument because of the way child porn is distributed. The internet is used to move porn yes, but its largely not through HTTP/HTTPS, and there is no kiddyporn.com webserver to be blocked. ISP WEB filtering won't work. With services like SFTP, Tor, DC++, bit torrent and other encrypted forms of transmission and private networks, these filters will make no difference at all. I've written to Stephen Conroy and his office by letter and email at least a half a dozen times and received nothing but silence on the issue, even my local member doesn't respond on this issue. I also don't understand why this is such an issue, the previous government launched an internet saftey awareness campaign and offered FREE content filtering applications for every Australian if they wanted it, and this program was not well received, highlighting the fact that really most Australians don't care or are satisfied they can control their children's access without them. To me this appears to be nothing more then a government initiated campaign to restrict our access to information, and if it passes, this will be a very sad day for Australia.

Re:Come on already (0, Redundant)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493497)

I don't know that this is THAT bad. Sure it'll suck to have a slower internet, but perhaps that will simply encourage the government to lay down better fibre.

Even if it did... (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493287)

The issue here is to stop people access child porn. While I hate to be a black sheep, if you take speed away from a speed addict, they turn to meth or cocaine. You take ecstasy away from an addict and they turn to heroin.

What will pedophiles turn to if you take child porn away from their browsers at home?

Personally, if something like this ever went through, I would become more worried about kids on the street.

Put offenders into rehabilitation, or stop their contact or do something with a little common sense. This sort of knee jerk reaction solves nothing and generally creates more trouble than anything.

Re:Even if it did... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493377)

That a very insightful response. You should write this to a minister. Maybe something like..

"After you have taken away the child porn and the man goes out to molest a mother's daughter because he can't get his "fix", what do you have to say to that mother?"

Re:Come on already (2, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493305)

So we should ignore everything that we don't think they'll actually have the balls to do? Sorry, but that logic makes no sense to me. The entire reason it won't get done is because people will get so outraged over it. If nobody says anything, they'll figure nobody cares and do it.

That settles it! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25492947)

It's time to pick up stakes and move to Iran, that fabled land of freedom and tolerance--a shining country upon a hill.

Parent post is not off-topic (2, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493237)

The parent post is caustic, but on-topic, and even insightful. The title of this story is, "Australian government censorship worse than Iran." That is a strong -- and odd -- claim indeed. Why would the story compair censorship based on a religion against the arbitrary censorship of a fear-mongering government? Apples and oranges.

Furthermore, I disagree with the title. Forced filtering of the internet is nothing like government control of political speach. If the Australian government were forbidding discussion of certain key political figures, or of certain religions, the claim world hold. As it stands, this is pure FUD.

Free speech (5, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25492955)

It is an absolute. Either you have it 100%, or you don't have it at all. And the idiots who think that censorship stops child pornography neither understand pedophiles nor censorship. It is akin to DRM, where you don't stop the problem (pirates/pedophiles/whatever) and instead punish everyone else.

If you're upset by kiddie porn, then treat the problem. Don't shut off the internet.

Re:Free speech (5, Insightful)

deep_creek (1001191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493059)

kind of like actions against guns...

Re:Free speech (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493089)

If you're upset by kiddie porn, then treat the problem.

And how exactly do you propose that governments go about doing that?
Because I assure you, they'd be very interested in the answer.

Re:Free speech (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493135)

I wish I had the answer, but if I were in charge I'd start with medical and psychological studies into pedophilia, and while sex offenders are the group most likely to repeat their crimes once released from prison.

Locally I keep seeing cities passing laws saying sex offenders can't live in their towns. I see sex registry laws that are doubly-unconstitutional (ex post facto and double-jeopardy). The current plan seems to be shoving sex offenders away and pretending like that will solve anything.

Chemical castration has worked in extreme cases, and if there is a medical issue with these offenders (biological or psychological) then you will most likely need to treat that problem. Instead of publicly vilifying these people, encourage them to seek out medical treatment anonymously before they victimize others.

Re:Free speech (1, Flamebait)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493269)

Executing pedophiles would be a good start.

Re:Free speech (0, Redundant)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493417)

I wouldn't go so far as executing them, but you can do interesting things with a carpet knife. I'm a father of two, and certain responses are wired in.

But I believe censorship is one of those things that starts out as a good idea then ends in repression that multiplies injustice rather than reduces it. The message gets corrupted over time. You can't stop living simply because life is dangerous.

Re:Free speech (2, Insightful)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493285)

And how exactly do you propose that governments go about doing that? Because I assure you, they'd be very interested in the answer.

Uh, no. That last thing any modern government wants to do is eliminate a source of fear in the population.

Re:Free speech (5, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493309)

If you're upset by kiddie porn, then treat the problem.
And how exactly do you propose that governments go about doing that? Because I assure you, they'd be very interested in the answer.

Find the people who MAKE it. That's when the damage is done, and the crimes are committed. If some people enjoy looking at such images, that may be repulsive, but no body is getting hurt. If you want to ban that, why allow gore and splatter movies and serial killer novels? Or disturbing (to your) news photos?

Catching sad lonely guys who whack off over images on their PCs does absolutely nothing except make the cops feel they've done something. "500 arrested in Internet pedophile bust" makes a great headline. And except for destroying the lives of the 500, is nothing more than that.

It's exactly like most responses to terrorism, (harassing Muslims, confiscating nail scissors and shampoo) completely futile in addressing the real dangers, while creating immense collateral damage.

Re:Free speech (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493333)

Human experimentation. To quote Walter in Fringe "The only thing better than a cow is a human. Unless you want milk; THEN you want a cow!"

We're in need of test subjects no ethics group will complain about.

The solution is prevention (1)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493387)

To solve the problem of child pornography, you need to combat the problem at the input, not the output.

There were pedophiles before the Internet, censoring everything will just make them not talk to each other, but they will creep around kindergardens and masturbate... or worse.

It is a a sexual deviation and if they keep it in their head it's alright. People can have weird kinks and I don't care. It's the small percentage of those with the deviation that actually cross the line and ACT their fantasies that are the real problem.

You need to make sure there is help and that they know it's their for them in case they choose to seek help. You need to talk about it in school. You need to educate people about that as much as possible. This is what we call "prevention".

Sharing pictures or not, these guys will still be around... as they were at the dawn of mankind.

Re:Free speech (1)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493409)

Being unable to present an alternative idea doesn't make the initial idea any more right!
For example, if I claim that internet censorship stops murders, wars, child pornography, Kane, Sauron and obesity, doesn't make me right if I ask you: "then what does?"

Re:Free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493511)

And how exactly do you propose that governments go about doing that?
Because I assure you, they'd be very interested in the answer.

The recent darkmarket bust (and the operation ore sting before that) are the way to go.

honeypots are massively more useful in this situation than filters.

if you filter the internet, to stop a paedophile from accessing child porn - you leave them to pursue their interests in society at large. If you use the internet intelligently to CATCH a paedophile, then you remove the threat to other potential victims.

Re:Free speech (4, Informative)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493095)

You are correct. Australia doesn't have free speech, and never pretended otherwise.

Re:Free speech (0, Troll)

Merusdraconis (730732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493233)

If it comes down to fighting government bureaucrats over stupid censorship decisions, or having Fox News able to broadcast all the thinly-veiled hate speech it wants and hide behind free speech when people call them on it, I'll take the bureaucrats, thanks.

Re:Free speech (4, Insightful)

Haoie (1277294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493125)

By that definition, any country that censors anything in the media/press, too, doesn't have free speech.

So then, how to "treat the problem"?

Re:Free speech (0)

firstnevyn (97192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493271)

Australia has no enshrined right to free speech.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Free speech (1, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493181)

Indeed. Child porn wasn't even illegal in the US until 1977. Why should it be illegal?

If a person under 18 takes a nude/suggestive picture of themselves and sends to their girlfriend/boyfriend, why should that be a felony with the long term repercussions of registering on the sex offenders list?

I suggest it would be better if the images were be perfectly legal, but usable by police as evidence of child abuse if that appears in the picture.

In the US we have gotten way to tolerant of censorship: campaign finance reform, the FCC fining people for showing a female nipple (isn't that sexual discrimination, since a male nipple is perfectly OK?), the FCC fining some people for their speech, child porn, "obscenity", using perfectly innocent words like niggardly [wikipedia.org] , and such.

Re:Free speech (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493239)

Kiddie porn is already illegal EVERYWHERE, and most people in every society frown on it. It still happens. Censoring the internet and inconveniencing the rest of us will not stop perverts from going about their sick business. After all, they didn't always have the evil web to assist them, yet I think child pron predates the WWW. Shall we put up checkpoints at every intersection next, to prevent the flow of contraband?

I'm a proponent of rehabilitation and I feel that sentencing here in the US is generally too harsh - the deterrence factor we count on isn't there if the certainty of being caught is not high. Pedophiles are particularly disturbing because their rate of recidivism is remarkably high. They know what they do is 100% wrong, they are typically very careful and secretive so as to avoid suspicion, and if they are caught they still don't stop. Censorship won't stop them, only incarceration for life will. This is a war like the overly-simplified "war on terror," in that it must be fought but can never be won. So I have a real problem with the 99.9% of the population who are generally law-abiding having to suffer. I won't go into more detailed criminology, but censoring or filtering the internet will not end anything, and will merely drive kiddie porn, gambling and hate speech back offline.

Re:Free speech (1)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493549)

but censoring or filtering the internet will not end anything, and will merely drive kiddie porn, gambling and hate speech back offline.

And even that assumes that the filtering actually works

Re:Free speech (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493537)

News to Enderandrew: You don't have free speech according to your definition.

Preimage collisions? (1)

42forty-two42 (532340) | more than 5 years ago | (#25492961)

A preimage collision on MD5 (as requested in the article) is quite difficult. If you don't insist on controlling the actual hash value, but instead just make two files with the same hash, then it'll work.

As an aside, do these filtering technologies handle HTTP chunked encoding properly? How about if you deliberately chunk more than necessary?

The real story is more interesting (5, Insightful)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25492985)

The real story here is not that the government wants to censor the internet, but that the government has moved to gag a critic of the plan [smh.com.au] .

I think the anonymous reader in the final paragraph of the summary needs to read up a little on the MD5 vulnerability. It's possible to generate two files with the same hash containing a 16-byte block of differing code (where you have no control over the contents of that block in either file), but the rest of the file needs to be identical to the original. That's fine for dynamically generated HTML or even executables where a decision could be made on the contents of the varying block, but doing anything useful with jpeg is a pretty tough ask. Or are they suggesting we brute force it?

Re:The real story is more interesting (5, Informative)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493207)

I happen to know Mark Newton, the guy they want to gag.

Good luck with that!

The only way to shut him up would be to hit him with a brick. Good on him!

Re:The real story is more interesting (2, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493345)

Well their efforts so far have been successful, in a Canberra kind of way.

Re:The real story is more interesting (1)

Kanasta (70274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493385)

With a jpeg you have freedom to add crap to the exif tags, wonder if that's enough?

Well, there's my /. post for the day, 'slow down cowboy!'

Here's my internet filter solution (5, Funny)

Dracophile (140936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25492997)

  1. Cup your hands. That's the filter.
  2. Pour water into your cupped hands. That's the internet.
  3. Drop some blue dye into the water. That's the naughty bits.
  4. If any blue gets through your hands, you lose.
  5. ???
  6. Profit!

Re:Here's my internet filter solution (2, Funny)

ChuckMorris (1391875) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493085)

You forgot to steal underpants so your solution will fail.

Re:Here's my internet filter solution (1)

Dracophile (140936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493149)

Please don't give the Australian government any ideas like that!

Re:Here's my internet filter solution (1)

ChuckMorris (1391875) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493469)

That would kind defeat the whole purpose right? Take the internet away from the perverts and then make everyone walk round with no underpants... Analog porn...

Re:Here's my internet filter solution (2, Funny)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493429)

When I got to step 3, I let the water slip through my fingers in order to pick up the blue dye dropper. None of the blue dye made it through my fingers. Do I lose?

hellow worlder (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25492999)

fir1sr post yup in this shinker argle flab my vacant dickwad

People get the government they deserve (4, Insightful)

leereyno (32197) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493003)

In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

The idea of censoring the internet, especially for the laughable justification that its "for the children" simply indicates to me that the people of Australia need to start taking responsibility for their government and elect candidates who will not pull this kind of crap.

Don't get fooled into thinking that "the government" did this. It was the people of Australia who elected politicians who are doing it. It is up to the people of Australia to un-elect those politicians, by force if necessary.

Re:People get the government they deserve (2, Insightful)

blake1 (1148613) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493065)

When the choice is consistently the lesser of two evils, rather than the election of a deserving party, this becomes difficult. Not to mention compulsory voting, which causes people who don't have a valid opinion to vote out of ignorance.

Re:People get the government they deserve (1)

mgiuca (1040724) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493183)

That's stupid.

The previous government were trialling the same system. This one is just continuing it.

Voting just gives us the right to pick whose face we see on television feeding us his crap.

"By force?" You want the people of Australia to storm the capital?

Re:People get the government they deserve (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493235)

And if we don't elect 'politicians,' who would we elect? It's an entrenched system where anything short of revolution gets you the same 'best government money can buy' that you had before. What exactly are you advocating?

Re:People get the government they deserve (4, Interesting)

catsidhe (454589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493257)

Ahh, yeah. Actually, we voted out the previous Government Most Likely To Censor The Intarwebs in favour of this lot, on the basis that of the two evils this one was lesser.

I mean, sure, I'd love a Greens-majority parliament -- I even voted that way -- but given achievable goals, getting RatBastard Howard the hell out of power was pretty good too.

Now we just have to convince our not-as-bad-as-the-other-lot parliamentarians exactly how stunningly bad this idea is, and that this was not one of the things they have a mandate for.

(Actually, that's one of the things that pisses me off most about the party-based government systems: you can't vote for specific policies, you either pick the Liberal package, or the Labor package (Labour/Tory, Dem/GOP, whatever). If one party is better than the other on most accounts, and has some really stupid ideas as well, then -- given that the other party has its own stupid ideas -- there's no way to tell them "Don't get cocky, we voted for you on the basis that you don't try that"... until it's too late. Or unless there is a huge popular outcry, which is what we're doing, so if you're going to bitch about us 'taking responsibility' for our government, then watch closely: this is what it looks like.)

Re:People get the government they deserve (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493519)

One of the best summaries of the situation I've read. Thank-you.

Re:People get the government they deserve (1)

passiveNecro (1070344) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493443)

and when there are no candidates "who will not pull this kind of crap"?

Re:People get the government they deserve (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493475)

It is up to the people of Australia to un-elect those politicians, by force if necessary.

Well, we never have had to resort to violence in much more tumultuous times than these. I doubt it'll come to that.

That's what you get with Rudd and Labour (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493039)

You should have kept John Howard in office!

Silly Ozzies!

My first Federal Election (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493041)

Hi,

First time posting a reply so be kind :)
The Australian Federal Election last year was the first one I had actually voted in (I'm 21).
I am now sad to say that after watching what has occurred in australia in relation to the NBN (National Broadband Network) and this...filter, I am seriously believing that I made the wrong choice in voting for Labor.

This is an absolute disaster...I was always under the impression that no matter who got into power here, neither side would actually attempt such a radical censorship let alone be completely willing to implement it.

Does anyone have any ideas on what little me can do to perhaps turn this around? Writing / calling Conroy or my local MP perhaps?

Kind Regards,

Eliminatrix

Re:My first Federal Election (4, Informative)

cailith1970 (1325195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493133)

Write to Conway directly. If he cops enough backlash from enough people, and from a wide enough cross section of the community, then he's going to have to reconsider his position.

The ABC has an article up about it now, and a lot of people have vented on it http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/24/2399876.htm [abc.net.au] . Contact details for Conway's office is there. It's also suggested that you write to your Federal Member. The more people the better.

Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Ministerial office
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002
Tel: 03 9650 1188
Fax: 03 9650 3251
minister@dbcde.gov.au
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/contact [dbcde.gov.au]

Re:My first Federal Election (1)

Kyro (302315) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493165)

Call your local MP's office.
Write to your local MP. (Find their details here at http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/ [aec.gov.au] )

Call Conroy's office.
Write to Conroy.

Tell your friends and family about it, draft up a letter for their concerns too.
We need to get it as easy and quick to oppose as possible for every day Australians.

Check http://nocleanfeed.com/ [nocleanfeed.com] for more info.

Re:My first Federal Election (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493375)

Yeah, harass Conroy. Does anyone have any idea if it worked with Alston or Coonan?

i just went to the shitter (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493055)

and i shit out an obama.

Child pornography? (3, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493079)

After reading the article, it seems like the entire point of this law is to prohibit users from accessing child pornography.

Here's what I don't understand: why should the overwhelming majority suffer because of a few perpetrators? And ultimately, blocking child pornography accessibility doesn't help the root of the problem. The offenders will still be there. It's like blocking conventional pornography to fight the sex addicts, but people won't stop being horny just because of that.

If... (1)

skam240 (789197) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493091)

If people equate freedom of speech with bot having ones internet connection choked by monitoring software, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree.'"

Dear Federal Government: Bring It On... (4, Insightful)

Talez (468021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493113)

Anything outside of Australia I'll route over a VPN to a VPS in the states.

Re:Dear Federal Government: Bring It On... (3, Informative)

Merusdraconis (730732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493249)

Just like we have to do already, with the fucking stupid "this video is not available in your country because we're scared of the world outside the United States".

Re:Dear Federal Government: Bring It On... (1)

DarkAxi0m (928088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493335)

dont worry, thats easily solved,

VPNs are now banned and VPSs are illegal!

what you use one for work? to bad

Think of the children!!!

conroy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493153)

conroy is in the rudd labour government

I wonder ... (1)

Non-Newtonian Fluid (16797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493157)

... if this will become Australia's "Prohibition".

What percentage of the population supports this, anyway? Anyone have any figures?

Re:I wonder ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493473)

It doesn't matter what percentage of the population supports it. We have two nearly identical parties, differing essentially only on fiscal policy. As long as Kevin Rudd and the Australian "More Chickens in Every Pot" Labor Party keep finding new and interesting ways to throw money at those who haven't earned it, the majority of Australians just won't care.

(That said, I don't think they'll be re-elected in two years time, but that's more to do with the Labor Party's fuckups in the various state governments)

It doesn't matter which of the major parties is in power - this policy will continue. And probably fail, in time, but for now it's going to be a royal pain - 10% of legitimate sites is a distinct understatement, methinks, when one considers the sites that will be blocked because they are deemed to be of an unacceptable political nature, etc, etc.....

(You're probably an Australian yourself - this post is for the benefit of those who aren't)

Re:I wonder ... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493525)

I wonder...if this will become Australia's "Prohibition".

Possibly, if child pornography becomes as popular as alcohol in the next couple of months.

Communist rises again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493171)

Communists will follow other communists is my theory, for those who don't know up until 1992 the ALP (Australian Labor Party) was known as The Communist Party of Australia. It seems slighlty suspicious to me that Rudd and his minister(to a lesser extent) love to visit China (merely read a Parliament agenda or trip layout, Rudd is there quite a bit) and to me its seems he is buddying up with old communist theories and running with Chinas Idea of censorship. Does the old saying 'For the People' ring any bells? because that old communist saying seems to be running true here, I sincerely hope the people who voted for the dumbarse are sorry. He just another Puppet on strings, Howard controlled by Bush, Rudd by China.

Re:Communist rises again (2, Insightful)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493265)

Who the hell modded this interesting? This is an absolute and complete fabrication. Nothing but pure slanderous bullshit.

Re:Communist rises again (4, Informative)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493487)

You're quite incorrect.

The Australian Labor Party was founded in 1891 as a centre-left, social democratic party representing the trade union movement. The Communist Party of Australia was founded in 1920, never found electoral success and disbanded in 1991.

Email I wrote to the minister earlier today: (3, Interesting)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493187)

Two fundamental design features of the multiple networks that make up the internet are "transparent encapsulation", and "path redundancy". The upshot of this design is that no filtering mechanism can prevent *simple* circumvention. None. It is simply not possible given the way in which the technology is implemented.
For the case of parents attempting to stop children looking at pornography this is not a drastic issue, as children likely will not know how this circumvention can be achieved.
Once you are attempting to filter out "illegal content" however, you have entered a whole new realm of pointlessness. If someone is attempting to access illegal material on the internet, they are presumably already technically savvy enough to find such material, and so will have no problems at all circumventing any filtering mechanism.

The point being, the government is currently opening itself up to vocal criticism over the implementation of a filter that will not actually do anything. That does not seem particularly clever.

Presumably it will get worse once the money has been wasted on the filter and videos explaining how to circumvent it start popping up on youtube.

I sincerely urge you to rethink this technologically naive and fundamentally flawed plan.

end

I realise some of this is mostly just magical handwaving. But I was trying to get my point across.

proof of concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493211)

As proof of concept, how long will it take Slashdot users to create an image with the md5 hash of 5ff742a58529efa02ba00ec8fa2e89bf? This md5 was picked because it is the hash of the current picture of the Prime Minister on his party's web site. A couple of points: The created image should be a jpg. It must be safe for work.

I think it would be more effective if the image was not safe for work :)

MD5 is not that broken (3, Informative)

Jimmy_B (129296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493213)

As proof of concept, how long will it take Slashdot users to create an image with the md5 hash of 5ff742a58529efa02ba00ec8fa2e89bf?

Barring a major advance in cryptography theory, at least a millenium. While the MD5 hash function has been broken, in the sense that you can generate two files which collide with eachother, this only works when you generate both files; generating a file to match a particular hash is still infeasible, and if it were feasible, MD5 would be completely abandoned overnight.

Re:MD5 is not that broken (4, Insightful)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493315)

True enough. But as a filtering mechanism it clearly shouldn't even be an option. How hard would it be to write an apache module that adds a random seed to every file served? Seriously.

Has anyone considered (1)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493223)

According to at least some (scientific) experts, completely eliminating "kiddy porn" may in fact raise the sexual assault rate against minors by removing a release valve for those predisposed to such a thing.

Not that censorship is effective enough to cause such an event.

Standard Operating Procedure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493253)

If you want to push through Patriot Act-like legislation, play up the security angle.

If you want to push through censorship legislation, use child pornography as your ramrod. Anybody who opposes the bill will be a pedophile!

As a person in AU (5, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493261)

This is deeply worrying. Not only is it insane, it's, ultimately, Kevin Rudd (the Prime Minister) being a damn hypocrite. Just before the federal election the news media made a big deal of "catching" him visiting an adult bar (strip joint) in Japan or something. His response was something along the lines of he is an adult and can make choices and it was harmless. Now that he is in government there is this insane vendetta to censor the internet. Further, censor anyone who is critical of the plan. The Minister in charge of this (Stephen Conroy) is clueless. Unfortunately the rest of the elected government seems just as clueless and agrees with his recommendations. I don't think that it's been said, but I would guess that circumventing the draconian filters may also be made illegal (or at least the attempt might be made). We already have shitty broadband; what the fuck is mandatory filtering going to do to our already inflated prices and absurd monthly download limits? /rant

for the children officially the new Nazi ender (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493277)

When you have an argument with someone you can always tell you have won (or at least it is over) if they resort to calling you or something you are discussing Nazi's. We have to do it "for the children" is the new Nazi.

Australians: Idiots or Morons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493481)

The problem with Australia is I can never decide is it full of morons or is it full of idiots. Any ideas?

No Haven (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493505)

There was a book I liked as a kid called, "Alexander's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Day." Bad stuff kept on happening to the protagonist, and he kept on threatening to move to Australia. At the end of the book, someone pointed out to him that Australia sucks, too.

Just when I started considering relocating to Oz sometime after I graduate, to get away from all the American bullshit, you guys come out of the woodwork and remind me of that book.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...