Beta
×

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 Ignoring Problems With Proposed Filters

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the la-la-la-i-can't-hear-you dept.

Censorship 292

halll7 writes with an update to the proposed Australian national firewall we discussed recently. According to the BBC, "The official watchdog, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), has been conducting laboratory tests of six filtering products, and the government plans a live trial soon. ... After its recent trials, ACMA reported significant improvements on earlier studies. The network degradation on one product was less than 2%, although two products were in excess of 75%." Now, Ars Technica reports that "an Australian newspaper has uncovered documents showing that the government minister responsible for the program has ignored performance and accuracy problems with the filters, then tried to suppress criticism of the plan by private citizens." The EFA has a great deal to say in opposition of these plans.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What is going on? (5, Interesting)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 5 years ago | (#25516985)

What is going on with anglo-saxon governments?

They used to be the vanguard of freedom and liberties! Now, they seem to be degrading into a spiral of power-hungry stupid obtuseness!!!

Is it something in the water, or the anglo-saxon culture has run it's course and is now totally decadent???

Re:What is going on? (5, Insightful)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25516997)

power hungry is about it, the governments have realised that they can do what they want, and even if everyone complains, no-one will ever actually get off thier arse and do anything about it like they used to, we are all content to be passive aggressive even though it achieves nothing and the big wigs can do what they want

Re:What is going on? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517371)

What moron modded this troll? I know it's early in the morning but come on.........

Re:What is going on? (4, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518027)

Well there is at least ONE positive thing to come out of Australia: Abby Winters dot-com ----- Of course if the Aussies "turn on" their filter Miss Winters will probably no longer be available. :-(

Re:What is going on? (2, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517139)

He shouldn't be marked "troll" or "flamebait". He's voiced EXACTLY what I was thinking. I just read an article about how the U.S.-FCC wants to gradually phasing-out free television and replacing it with subscription-only whitespace devices. Meanwhile Australia is trying to dumb-down the internet (via filtering) so it's harmless fluff even a 5-year-old could read.

Government is supposed to be "of, by, and for the People" and instead they seem to be working for Google, Microsoft, et cetera.

Of, by, and for the Corporations.

Re:What is going on? (2, Interesting)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517201)

I've said it before, "No representation without compensation," and big business can afford a lot of representation. In this case, I'm sure someone is looking to cash in but I think ideology is driving it. Either that or a politician is trying to look tough on the 'think of the children' issue of the week.

Re:What is going on? (3, Insightful)

bconway (63464) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517223)

No, analog television is already being phased out and replaced with equally free digital television. They're squabbling over what to do with the leftover frequency space.

Re:What is going on? (0)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517807)

There is NO leftover frequency space. Every channel from 2 to 51 already has a digital television station assigned to it. What whitespace devices are about is broadcasting *overtop* of the existing television channels, which is incredibly stupid, because they will block the picture.

Re:What is going on? (2, Funny)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518135)

Regarding your post and your signature, IMO what's incredibly stupid is reserving enormous blocks of the spectrum for something as worthless as broadcast television instead of freeing it up for more useful activities.

Re:What is going on? (0, Redundant)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517737)

Post by Pig Hogger shouldn't be marked "troll" or "flamebait". He's voiced EXACTLY what I was thinking. I just read an article about how the U.S.-FCC wants to gradually phasing-out free television and replacing it with subscription-only whitespace devices.

Meanwhile Australia is trying to dumb-down the internet (via filtering) so it's harmless fluff even a 5-year-old could read. Government is supposed to be "of, by, and for the People" and instead they seem to be working for Google, Microsoft, et cetera. - Of, by, and for the Corporations.

Here is why (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517509)

It's called 'social democracy'.

People are taught/led to either explode or collapse with emotion at the sight or thought of suffering. Instil regret, a bad conscience and the 'humane reflex' from the age of three onwards.

Therefore, they relatively speaking become blind to all other things. Who cares about clause 4.7.4a of the tax laws? If it could help a single child, then burn every tax law!

The individual therefore only has relevance to society if the individual either 1) suffers or 2) is oblivious to suffering. People who neither suffer nor are oblivious to it are not interesting. The only relevant unit of measurement is the group, which is relevant for the purpose of detecting the number of sufferes or the number of oblivious-to-sufferers in it so that either can be "corrected".

Here a human element kicks in, namely that it is far more appropriate to introduce a new protective law than remove an old one. Introducing a law helps protect sufferers or correct oblivious-to-sufferers, it will get you political momentum, and the theme of the discussion will be "how much good can I do?". The doers of good are saints, and everyone wants to be a saint. It is easy to identify at least a number of cases, at least up to several dozen in a 40-million-people country, where the law would have helped. And a SINGLE SUFFERER is as we know too much.

Removing a law is much tougher - because you are dealing with unknowns rather than knowns. You can't know for sure how many will START TO suffer as a result of removing a law. If a filter is in place to protect against accessing child porn, you can't know how much you contribute to child porn by removing it. Therefore, the quest to protect against suffering will virtually always result in the implementation of new laws and regulations, rather than removing old ones. Removing a law will never make you a saint.

This may seem like a joke, but is actually true, and the mechanism of suffering works this way. As 'the group' which is shepherded should not have access to child porn, that means YOU YOURSELF should not have access to child porn.

Re:What is going on? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517519)

I don't know what the problem is. Maybe bin Ladin won and has successfully destroyed the Western culture he hates so much.

I've always rolled my eyes at those people who claim they're tired of the government and it's time to pack up and move. The theory was supposed to be that if we don't like our government, the constitution provides a way to overthrow it peacefully every election year. Either that has stopped working or these countries have become populated with Hitler's descendants (sorry Godwin).

Now I find myself reading over the immigration laws of certain Scandinavian countries and wondering how hard it is to learn Swedish.

Re:What is going on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25518023)

Either that has stopped working or these countries have become populated with Hitler's descendants

I'd stupidly thought this [imdb.com] was just a slightly silly film, not a documentary :-O

Those boys will probably be in their early forties by now and just approaching real power.... OMG!!!!!!11111 OBAMA IS A HITLER CLONE!!!!!!

Re:What is going on? (3, Interesting)

A Pancake (1147663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517713)

This is absolutely nothing more than the result of people buying into government as a paternal figure.

People have made it resoundingly clear that they want the government to protect them. Whether it's from alcohol, cigarettes, violent video games, firearms, drugs, sex or any number of other things which have been, or are curently threatened by, the nanny state.

This isn't bad in itself. The job of government is afterall to do the will of the people. If the majority wants smoking banned and it isn't unconstitutional who am I to say it's wrong?

The problem comes in when we the people fail to demand accountability for these measures. We blindly accept, out of ignorance or apathy, the measures the governments are proposing because 'it's from the government, it must be right' and never demand proof that legislation is effective or efficient.

A politician is not an expert on violent video games
A politician is not an expert on the effects of alcohol
A politician is not an expert on second hand smoke
A politician is not unbiased, is not benevolent, and does not know any better than you what is best for you.

The government is an employee of the people, not a father figure. It's damn time we start treating it that way.

1. We need salary caps that ensures politicians are earning no more than the average man they represent
2. Abolish appointed positions and establish term limits for elected positions
3. Build accountability into the constitution - this would be a multifaceted piece that must include civillian involvement, metrics to measure the effectiveness of new legislation, and the power to enact a sunset clause on legislation that is ineffective or detrimental
4. Legislate criminal penalties for violating the constituion and enforce them
5. Provide an easy path for citizens to challenge unjust laws that does not require being arrestsed to do it (see Canada)

Re:What is going on? (1, Offtopic)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517777)

>>>If the majority wants smoking banned and it isn't unconstitutional who am I to say it's wrong?

You've framed the question wrong. It should be, "Is a smoking ban Constitutional?" I don't know about other countries, but in these United States the answer is "no". The Congress has not been granted the authority to ban smoking. That power lies with the 50 State governments, or the People.

Re:What is going on? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517795)

The reason why governments expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes is simple, although not many people can bring themselves to accept it:

Government attracts the kind of person who wants to control others through force -- tell them how to behave, how to spend their money, what to value and what not to value -- not the kind of person who just wants to mind their own business and live in peace.

It is only natural for the people in this business -- the business of controlling others through force -- to gradually expand their power and revenue over time, making it more lucrative for those in the business. Put it this way: if government was limited to simply protecting against coercion, rather than in the business of employing coercion, then what's in that for the people who make their fortunes in the business of controlling others?

To be sure, this isn't about "anglo-saxon" governments at all. No government in history, democracy or otherwise, has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced its power or revenue. Sit down and reflect on that for a minute.

Fortunately this is not a problem! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25516991)

If you think you can use the internet, think again. The internet contains many things that are not true or false, and therefore could subject their absorbers to the influence of Italian or other nefarious governments. Australia must be on a keen alert against Italian subversion. Therefore some limits on freedom are necessary. All you whiners can go to Sicily, or maybe Jamaica. They have a super internet there with lemon flavors. Where is my car?

They're not actually ignoring the problems... (2, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517003)

They are welcoming them. The next step is to block any content which discusses these problems.

Re:They're not actually ignoring the problems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517073)

Well of course. Doing otherwise would be anti-democratic. In fact, just by admitting you are aware of any short comings could be considered as sedition or even treason.

Most amusing part is that the previous paragraph may as well come to be true and any usage of tor or freenet or similar ships you to a guantanamo bay equivalent without legal recourse. Australia has certainly been removed from my country "shopping list" but I do understand that if this comes to pass it'll eventually land in UK and Europe.

Re:They're not actually ignoring the problems... (1, Flamebait)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518079)

In the early 70s I made several trips to Australia for work, and was blown away by the size of the country, and the wonderful people. For a while, I seriously considered emigrating there... It pains me to see how authoritarian it has become.. And of course, my native USA is right on its heels.. I'm terrified about what's gonna happen to America if (oh hell, its when) Comrade Obama and his neo-communist (was US Democrat party) get in power.. And as the parent poster said, the "shopping list" of alternate countries is getting ever shorter.... I suspect the last 20 or so years of my life (am 58 now) will be in an ever increasing copy of what the old Soviet Union was like..... I cry..

Re:They're not actually ignoring the problems... (1)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517091)

+1 Sad Truth?

Re:They're not actually ignoring the problems... (4, Insightful)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517163)

Bloody hell. This guy makes Richard Alston look competent.

Re:They're not actually ignoring the problems... (1)

Gwala (309968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517541)

I know, scary isn't it? We thought the worlds biggest luddite was the worst of possible Communications ministers.

Well, Labour did come into power under the guise of doing things better...

Re:They're not actually ignoring the problems... (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517187)

Sure you can filter the internet and not let people get to the websites set up about the problems... This doesnt stop someone from printing out fliers and handing them out to people or putting them up on signposts or what not...

Re:They're not actually ignoring the problems... (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517553)

Try it in China and see what happens buddy.

Re:They're not actually ignoring the problems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25518167)

Sure you can filter the internet and not let people get to the websites set up about the problems... This doesnt stop someone from printing out fliers and handing them out to people or putting them up on signposts or what not...

Yeah, but their belief is that police with tasers stop this.

Why... (2, Insightful)

kidde_valind (1060754) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517065)

Why does this surprise anybody? The government has it's mind set on implementing these filters, and all democracy aside, nothing will stop them when their minds are made up.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517263)

So move that government aside and build real democracy [senatoronline.org.au] , made up of our minds [metagovernment.org] .

Universal Internet filter plans detailed (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517077)

"We have buttiduously canvbutted the industry, buttessed what is available and buttembled the finest selection of private contractors for this buttignment. The filters will buttociatively clbuttify all communications and filter then, I can butture you, rebuttemble them with surpbutting exacbreastude in any quanbreasty. Consbreastuents can be rebuttured that a mulbreastude of industry compebreastors will butture quality and keep our clbuttrooms safe. EDS Capita Goatse will not embarbutt us." [today.com]

(Inspired by Daily WTF [thedailywtf.com] .)

Re:Universal Internet filter plans detailed (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517149)

Is this an excerpt from 1984? It seems to have the same nonsense speak that redefines words away from their true meaning (obfucation).

Re:Universal Internet filter plans detailed (2, Funny)

mentaldingo (967181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517309)

No, it's just word filtered...

Re:Universal Internet filter plans detailed (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517329)

See the Daily WTF link and do a Google on "medireview" and "loveual harbuttment".

Re:Universal Internet filter plans detailed (2, Funny)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518065)

My personal favourite is United States Consbreastution [google.com]

OK, here's SP1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517173)

Please replace all occurrences of "s/ass/butt/" with "s/\Wass\W/butt/". Thanks for cooperating.

Re:OK, here's SP1 (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517325)

That'll be three months and another $500,000 contractor's fees. God I love private consultancy!

Look on the bright side. (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517229)

If performance is bad enough, overseas proxies will work better despite the lag time. I wonder if getting around the filter is as easy as running bind.

Your filter script is very funny. I like how that filter ended up shoving butt in everyone's face instead of hiding ass. That's what filters are all about aren't they?

It's the LAW! (2, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517425)

Please consider that people who support censorship are, usually, God-fearing Christians. And God-fearing Christians always respect the Law. As our good Lord Jesus Christ Himself obeyed the Law:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pBUTT,
one jot or one BREASTtle shall in no wise pBUTT from the law, till
all be fulfilled.

(Matthew 5:17, 5:18)

This government a horrible disappointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517081)

I didn't think much of the last government and couldn't wait for them to go. Traditionally I vote labour (which is what this government is) but lately I've been finding it harder and harder to reconcile their values with the values the purport to be in favour of. I find myself wishing these jokers would just get out of office already.

Network degradation the primary concern? (5, Insightful)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517105)

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector. - Plato

Re:Network degradation the primary concern? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517983)

And Plato would know. His Republic is one of the creepiest works in the genre of political thought experiments.

So the govt. is actually AGAINST net filtering? (4, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517115)

Let's see if I've got this right.

The Autrailian government is considering implementing a web filtering system - but they don't want people to know that it doesn't work.

Given that they state (in the cited article) that it will block "all illegal material", then by definition anything it allows through must therefore be legal, The only conclusion I can logically draw from this is that their government is against filtering, blocking or generally censoring the internet - but that they don't want their people to know this. Strange!

Re:So the govt. is actually AGAINST net filtering? (2, Informative)

jnnnnn (1079877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517241)

The answer is possibly that Conroy is only continuing to push the filter because he wants to keep Senator Fielding (single representative of a Christian minority party, holds part of balance of power) happy for several difficult votes ahead.

I can't imagine that Australian citizens will be too impressed if they find their 'net being censored. Actually implementing something that worked badly would be political suicide.

Re:So the govt. is actually AGAINST net filtering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25518207)

ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION

It would seem you are attempting to use Reason. Please drop it on the floor and step back slowly.

Child Porn Out of Control (4, Insightful)

cervo (626632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517119)

Now this is way out of control. I mean I thought the whole thing about a backlash at Child Porn was to protect the children. By censoring the websites you are stopping the consumption of child porn. But how are you protecting the exploited children?

Instead of censoring the whole internet (which must be for some other agenda using Child Porn as an excuse to push censoring) why not focus more resources on finding and arresting the people who create child porn.

I don't mean the people who view it. Because honestly I have had child porn come up on the internet while searching for other things. I immediately close the site, but if you look at the logs I accessed the site. Also in some newsgroups there are tons of child porn pictures. If you say download all messages, even though you open a child porn and are like no and close it right away, it still says you downloaded it. Or even browsing, sometimes a message will have one title but in the end it shows someone young that maybe is 18 but maybe is not you just don't know. So anyway I close that message but I still accessed it. Should I be arrested? Probably not because I am not interested in child porn at all and I certainly don't want to go out and do anything with a child (as far as the difference between 17 and 364 days and 18 that is tougher call if you were looking at women in a bar, but if I knew they were 17 and 364 days I would wait the one day not to worry about some FBI raid :)).

What would be better would be if there is a way for me to report these things to the government authorities easily. In the end I'm sure a lot of people come across Child Porn searching for completely unrelated things, or even searching for adult porn. It seems a waste to not have a way to report these things for investigation. The problem with that is if they just look at every ip in the logs that accessed the site and go arrest everyone, they will arrest a lot of people who came to the website by mistake or who downloaded a newsgroup message by mistake. But if there was a way to report it and they closed down the makers that would be great. At some point there would be so little child porn that people would stop coming across it by accident (mostly). Because the makers of it would take steps to make it harder to find. And the good thing is that people actively looking for it would have a harder time as well....

Also from the way this guy seems so child porn phobic you would thing he was looking at child porn and because he feels guilty he decided he should help filter the internet so he doesn't have the temptation anymore. Usually the most vocal opponents against something actually do it. I remember quite a few Republicans who were very anti Clinton for his affair who ended up having affairs of their own.....And I don't even need to mention the various ministers in the church. Maybe someone needs to investigate this government minster. He sounds awfully anti-child porn, as if he is overly familiar with the problem.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (2, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517171)

Child porn is not illegal, unless it involves actual children. If child porn involved adults who look like children, or computer-generated images (ala the vixens in DOA Volleyball), then child porn is perfectly legal in the USA.

I don't know how it is in Australia, but it should be the same. The crime is the victimization of children, NOT the faked photograph.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517467)

Australia's zero-tolerance laws regarding child pornography include fictional and drawn images.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Australia [wikipedia.org]

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517833)

I used to think of Australia as one of the freest nations in the world (in some respects, even more free than the U.S. itself). What the hell happened???

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25518171)

Women got the vote.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (2, Insightful)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517179)

Child porn may just be the cover story. It's possible that some of these people are really looking to stop child porn. It's also possible that they are being paid to consult with a vendor who has a solution in search of a problem. It's also possible that they hate all porn and want to use child porn to get a foot in the door.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (2, Insightful)

cervo (626632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517477)

I was thinking the same thing and also something else.

1. He's gonna pay a vendor a fortune to implement the filtering. And that is the motivation.

2. Child porn is phase 1, music and movies are phase 2...you can see where that is going....warez and microsoft windows phase 3......

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517643)

No, you're not thinking like a politician. He's gonna get the ISPs to pay a vendor and we know where that cost will go.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518221)

NO, you're not thinking like a politician. If the government pays it is still taxpayer money. And if he pays a big ISP then the isp can contribute to his political platforms. For the little guys yeah the government could care less....but for the big guys it is advantageous to posture to them and get them on your side.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (4, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517193)

>>>I'm sure a lot of people come across Child Porn searching for completely unrelated things, or even searching for adult porn. It seems a waste to not have a way to report these things
>>>

They do? I've never seen any child pornography. Never. I've seen lots of Nudist websites displaying Mom, dad, and child naked at the beach, but that is NOT porn. The human body was created by God, and what Gods creates is not sinful. A naked human is not porn.

If you want to see child porn (read: sex), you have to go into dark corners of the internet. It is well hidden. You can't just stumble upon it "by accident".

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517527)

I think child porn read naked picture without sex is shady enough that I would not want to have even that. Plus if there is any question as to if someone is 16 or 18 I would not want to have that either. There are 16 year olds who look 20. Just like there are 25 year olds who look 15. And quite frankly unless you can prove that 25 year old is really 25 I would not want to be caught with any of it. Not even nudist pictures at the beach. Not with the US government anyway (I think nude pictures of people under 18 are illegal. I seem to remember a case of a high school guy being arrested because his girlfriend sent him naked pictures on his cell phone).

Also in the mid and late 1990's it was a lot easier to websearch for one thing and come up with all sorts of nasty things. I remember in high school that if you ended up with a porn website you had to call the computer lab guys who would come to the computer and inspect and see what you were searching for. Otherwise it would hit their legs and when they found out they would lock you out (I'm not sure how they found out all, obviously some websites have obvious domain names but others do not. www.thisnormalwebsite.com/images/1.jpg is not super obvious.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517615)

By the way here is the link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/08/teen_charged_for_cell_phone_pics/ [theregister.co.uk] it seems that a naked human body under 18 IS child porn. At least in the US. So I guess that makes you guilty of looking at child porn if you look at those images. When I say I came across child porn by mistake I mean those images. I don't think I have ever come across children having sex (or if I have maybe they were close enough to 18 that they looked 18). But I don't think they need to be having sex for it to be child porn.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517893)

>>>I think child-naked picture without sex is shady enough that I would not want to have even that.

Okay. Here's a challenge for you. Go here and tell me how this is morally wrong? http://www.purenudism.com/free-nudist-pictures.html [purenudism.com] ----- I don't see a single image there that depicts sex. These are3 just family photos!

And as I said before, a human body is God's creation. To label God's artistry as "obscene" is an insult to the Creator.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517935)

You've never seen any, but yet you know that it's well-hidden in dark corners of the internet?

I'll grant it was off of some shady TGP sites, but I've hit the stuff in under six clicks from a non-bizarre google image search.

Is this the same Internet I know? (4, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517239)

Because honestly I have had child porn come up on the internet while searching for other things. I immediately close the site, but if you look at the logs I accessed the site. Also in some newsgroups there are tons of child porn pictures.

That's weird, in the 15 years or so that I've been using the Web, I have never, ever, seen one single photograph that could be classified as "child porn".

I have seen some pictures of nude children in nudist camps and beaches, there are many beaches in Europe where whole families go totally nude. There are many so-called "teen" sites, which show nude women with small breasts and shaved pubic region, who could be of any age between 15 and 30.

But I never found one single picture of a child engaged in sex. This must be some different "internets" we are talking about. That, or people have extended the meaning of "child porn" to "any image I don't like".

Re:Is this the same Internet I know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517479)

The problem is the definition of child porn. I was discussing this the other day with someone who works in one internet company that gets a lot of user uploaded content. A lot of the removed content isn't child porn as you describe (sex involving minors), but pictures of minors in poses/situations intended to excite a pedophile.

For example, for normal males (and some females) a picture of Angelina Jolie in a sexy outfit in a very tempting pose would certainly have an exciting result. For pedophiles, the same pose and outfit, but with a 10 year old, would be just as exciting if not more.

Now, the problem is where you draw the line of what non-hardcore pictures are child porn and what are not. The same guy I was talking with mentioned that one of the big problems is that sometimes they are faced with a picture that can be child porn, but ends up being from a famous photographer... What do you do in such situations? The history of the picture clearly proves it wasn't made with intent to excite, but it can have that effect on a pedophile....

Re:Is this the same Internet I know? (3, Insightful)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517725)

So what if it excites a pedophile? Was the child harmed by the photograph taking? Does he or she even knows that someone wanked to that picture?

As long as no one is harmed by the taking of the picture, no censorship should be done, doing otherwise is punishing thoughtcrimes.

Re:Is this the same Internet I know? (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518219)

Actually, by Australian law, even if they are hand drawn pictures (yeah, no one hurt by those) it is still illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Australia [wikipedia.org]

So I guess browsing 4chan will be hard once this is in.

Re:Is this the same Internet I know? (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517587)

As far as I know if they are under 18 in the photo it is illegal. And in newsgroups it is a bigger issue. At least I think. I have been using the internet for about 15 years as well. And especially in the mid to late 1990s it was much easier to find unintended things on searches about completely unrelated things.

Enough that my high school had a policy where if you found such things you had to call a computer lab aid over who would check out what you were searching for. And then clear it. Otherwise you would be locked out if they found it by reading the logs.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/08/teen_charged_for_cell_phone_pics/ [theregister.co.uk] there is no mention of sex there. So I guess naked pictures are illegal at least in the US. So like I said, I would not want to be caught with any women under 18. I guess this also means under the laws you are illegally watching child porn.

Re:Is this the same Internet I know? (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517945)

Stupid Christian. Where do you get off imposing your morals on me??? Butt out bastard.

Re:Is this the same Internet I know? (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518251)

I'm not imposing morality just the laws. I don't want to go to jail :) Whether I agree with the laws or not is another issue. But as long as the laws are the law I have to be in compliance with them as much as possible unless I want to go to jail. The same applies to Marijuana/etc... In reality alcohol is probably more dangeorus than marijuana but unfortunately alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't. It doesn't matter what I agree with. If I am caught with marijuana I will go to jail.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517365)

What would be better would be if there is a way for me to report these things to the government authorities easily.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/ [iwf.org.uk]

That is quite a good resource for reporting child porn. It's not Australian but the internet is international so it doesn't matter who shuts them down.

Re:Child Porn - Reporting It (1)

six025 (714064) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517417)

There are easy ways to report underage or kiddie porn to the authorities. The following site contains a number of useful links, it was the first site listed after a quick Google search:

http://www.kidsread.net/Report_to_FBI.htm [kidsread.net]

Could have hit "I'm feeling lucky" but with a search term like "reporting underage porn" you never know ...

http://www.google.com.au/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK257&q=reporting+underage+porn&btnG=Google+Search&meta= [google.com.au]

Peace,
Andy.

Re:Child Porn - Reporting It (1)

six025 (714064) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517449)

BTW - let's assume you are jacking off to some hot, cute blonde on YouPorn ... and you have a fleeting thought: "hmm, she does look underage" ...

Are YOU gonna stop what you are doing to report it? Or maybe this time it aint so important 'cause you nearly "made it"?

It's easy to talk ... easy to type comments on Slashdot ... it's not always so easy (or "convenient") to act ...

Just sayin' is all ...

Peace,
Andy.

Re:Child Porn - Reporting It (1)

AntiNazi (844331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518013)

2. Adult Porn: If you have received an invitation to an adult porn website visit ObscenityCrimes.org and report the address on their report form. Do not visit the porn web site. You can save the report form as a Favorite site to save time when reporting future invites. It is important to report these websites since they violate federal and state laws. If it is from a foreign country it violates U.S. air waves. Some terrorists utilize porn websites to earn money for Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Many adult sites also include child porn and underage porn, and all involve unwilling porn subjects. Porn models are forced into this crime either at gunpoint, through drugs, or because of economic necessity. Those who consent to it can't wait until its over, are glad to retire, and regret it for the rest of their lives, and many of them cannot bear a man's touch for the rest of their lives.

That place seems like just one more site using "think of the children" to push their own agenda.

Re:Child Porn Out of Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517689)

Instead of censoring the whole internet (which must be for some other agenda using Child Porn as an excuse to push censoring) why not focus more resources on finding and arresting the people who create child porn.

That would require them to get of their arses and actually do some work. There's also a good chance that the great and the good of [insert name of your country here] consume this kind of thing, and would get caught.

The rapid spread of another dangerous ideology ... (3, Insightful)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517133)

The countries of the world seem to be catching a bad case of censorphilia. I can't think of a single reason important enough to warrant censorship in peacetime. Where the hell does this all stop?

Re:The rapid spread of another dangerous ideology (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517243)

Revolution? Presumably at some point enough people will be sufficiently annoyed to get off their asses and do something. Until then...

Re:The rapid spread of another dangerous ideology (2, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517283)

That's because we've never been at peace, we've always been in THE WAR ON TERROR!!!!!111111oneoneoneone!

Re:The rapid spread of another dangerous ideology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517593)

The countries of the world seem to be catching a bad case of censorphilia. I can't think of a single reason important enough to warrant censorship in peacetime. Where the hell does this all stop?

Sorry, it won't. The problem is usually after putting something in place people forget about it. Let's hope that people in Australia oppose it enough to make politicians care about whether they will still have a job in the next election.

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that this same issue is featured on Daily Rotten, on the same day with a story about a mother who forced her child to eat his own flesh and a labrador who got drunk on cask wine. Good work Australia, on this high honor.

What is going on? (-1, Redundant)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517159)

What is going on with anglo-saxon governments?

A generation ago, they used to be the vanguard of freedom and liberties! Now, they seem to be degrading into a spiral of power-hungry stupid obtuseness!!!

Is it something in the water, or the anglo-saxon culture has run it's course and is now totally decadent???

Re:What is going on? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517279)

One [slashdot.org] and two. [slashdot.org]

Mods, be kind! He's been modded down already!

Clever nickname needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517307)

This needs a clever nickname. I'm not clever enough to come up with one, but it seems fitting that it be based on the dog fence:
http://www.pomgonewalkabout.com/Page4.htm

-Lee

Re:Clever nickname needed (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518039)

What does Wil Wheaton [slashdot.org] have to do with this?

If anyone thinks this is about child porn... (5, Insightful)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517339)

If anyone thinks this is about child porn, they are simply fooling themselves. This is about control. The governments of the world want the serfs to know who their masters are and what their place in society is. The easiest way to do that---as China has found out---is to limit the information coming into the country to that which is approved by the government.

This is nothing new: Australia is simply following an ages-old script. The difference between then and now is that you think you have control because you live in a democracy. Let me assure you that democracy and liberty are two entirely different things, and often are at odds. Please see Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed [amazon.com] and Hayek's The Road to Serfdom [amazon.com] for more detail.

The best reaction you can have to this is to encourage yourself and others (especially your own children) to differentiate respect for others' rights from respect for artificial "law", and to show the latter none while deferring to it only enough to keep from attracting too much attention. Defy all rules that have nothing to do with protecting the rights of others, and you are a free man; obey them, and you are a slave.

Terrible (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517375)

At work, one of our filters even blocked microsoft for a day or so.
I get 3-4 blocked sites everyday just by looking at some links from Digg, Slashdot and a links from some newspapers. And this filter is only claiming to block dangerous sites.
I am sure that they have blocked a lot of sites that had infected banner ads at some point but then have left them blacklisted to inflate the hit counter of blocked sites.

Re:Terrible (2, Funny)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517399)

At work, one of our filters even blocked microsoft for a day or so.

You're right, if it's only going to be for a day or so, it's just not worth it!

Re:Terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517539)

Looks like it's doing its job then if it's blocking Microsoft ;)

But jokes aside, I was present in the bidding process where one state-owned company was going to buy a filter solution. The biggest metric that all vendors talked about was the number of blocked sites. They didn't talk about number of false positives or the time it takes for a false positive to be removed from the list, only the number of blocked sites..

I should have had left the company, built a fake company and took part in the bidding process.. I would win easily.. Just download all blacklists for squid available in the net, then for each entry, duplicate it and append common words like 'album' , 'members', 'join' , 'tour' , and quite a few more (just using those as those are what I remember from pr0n sites). Nothing that a bunch of lines of shell scripts can't do to get the biggest list of blocked sites on the face of the planet...

The suppressed letter (1)

The Solitaire (1119147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517389)

For those wanting to read the contents of the letter they tried to suppress, you can find the original here [on.net] . (PDF)

Because it's a sham (3, Insightful)

moxley (895517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517429)

They ignore anything that may set them back because those within these western governments pushing this garbage really don't give a fuck about child porn, protecting the people, or anything. It is all politics; window dressing for censorship and control, a conduit to get an agenda they've wanted for a very long time rammmed through whatever sort of consitutional or other protetctions (including mass opinion) the people supposedly have against these sorts of abuses.

Another interestingly disgusting point when to comes to child porn (and other sexual behaviors that are not criminal but just as denounced by these guys) is that there have been many occasions where politicians, community leaders, priests, leaders of socially conservative movements, etc who are vocal and fervent denoucers and crusaders against such things are caught with this material or, worse, even involved in producing and distributing it.. the nebraska Franklin scandal that the Reagan/Bush whitehouse was caught up in comes to mind....

As a political issue child porn is like terrorism - it's an awful thing, but is also one of those political trump cards - and these slick bastards know it and use it as such.

Whats the solution ? (3, Insightful)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517445)

Serious question. What IS the solution ??

I'm torn on this. The filtering plan is bullshit obviously and I'm also sure that someone
will post the funny "Please god.. won't someone think of the children!?" but heres the rub...

They're my children. MY kids. Not someone theoretical child somewhere that needs saving.
And after 15 years on the net, I know exactly how bad and sadistic some of the content is
out there.

My kids are of the age where they're becoming independent. I've educated them. I've
implemented my own rules of engagement when it comes to my kids accessing the internet at home.

But I can't guide them 100% of the time. They know whats ok, and whats not, but
they're still kids.

I'm lucky in that I was in Uni when the Internet went mainstream in early 90s. I could make
decisions for myself, but for kids these days, the Internet has always been ON.

Its time we stopped bagging the HOW and started thinking about the WHY.

WHY is the (insert your government here) trying to censor the internet ?

The main reason is simple - people are worried about their kids and the ease
with which they can end up in touch with seriously maladjusted, sick and sadistic
motherf**ers online.

Most parents learn that while the world can be wonderful - it can also be a nasty,
mind numbingly horrendous place at times. The internet is representation of that.
All things wonderful, all things horrible, all at the same time. You can't critisize
parents for wanting to come between their kids and the nastier elements.

This is Slashdot - one of the biggest collection of people with the talent and ideas
to find a solution to this problem in the world. SO WHAT IS IT ???
2 internets ? registered and unregistered ? make it an over 18 network ?

How do we use a technical solution to enforce a line in the sand that noone can agree
on anyway ? If the geeks can't find a solution to this dilemma, then ultimately the
politicians will - and we won't like the bonus pack I'm sure.

So, to pose the question: Dont put your head in the sand. The predators are there.
They're real. They exist. Given this, how do we protect OUR kids online ?

Re:Whats the solution ? (1)

dhasenan (758719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517561)

You want to protect your kids online. Fine. Who is going to rape your kids via the Internet?

Be careful about who your kids see in person, if you're worried. But they're going to run in to everything from Tubgirl to 4chan to scientology on the internet; you can't filter it out. Make sure they're well grounded in reality, and they should be able to handle it.

Re:Whats the solution ? (4, Insightful)

Davemania (580154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517655)

How do you protect your kids in real life ? Predators are there and they're real. Do you lock them away and shield them from the real world ? Like the so called "war on terror", it is not a military solution alone, its a combination of economical, social and military etc etc approach. I don't see a technological solution to a social problem. These problems has been around way before the tubes have been laid. My parents have taught me be cautious or avoid strangers etc etc and I am still alive, commonsense and being actively involved with your kids goes a very very long way.

Re:Whats the solution ? (1)

schmidty-au (986962) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517785)

Slightly off-topic, but statistics show that "stranger danger" is a myth. Telling kids to avoid strangers might make parents feel like they're achieving something, but will not, generally, make much difference to whether or not kids will be sexually abused. The vast majority (76% of reported cases in Victoria, for example) of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by an adult male that the child knows (fathers and step-fathers making up the majority of those perpetrators). And there's no particular profile for the child abuser. The only characteristic of significance is that about 90% of abusers are men. Doesn't say much for my gender. I don't have the citations for this info at hand, but I've verified the numbers from my lecture notes. I've got a family law exam on Wednesday, so I have this info at hand. While I don't have the original citation, the lecturer for this unit is a practising family law barrister who has published books on family violence and child abuse, so I am inclined to accept this information as fact. I would expect that the information (and reference to the source) can be found in her latest book: http://www.amazon.com/Child-Abuse-Family-Understanding-professionals/dp/1865087319 [amazon.com]

Re:Whats the solution ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25518159)

Most of the time, I am a kid in my soul, love to play, love to hack everything that catch my every senses and I would say 'yes' to some kinds of protection that could save my soul.

But do I really need some Filters from the Government?

If I am living in an open or freedom society, I think there is no need to filter or censor anything because the system of Democracy will do its job efficiently. And with the term 'open society' I mean the society that open every thought in their mind which some may think this is so crazy reality! But please give it a second thought that since there is no closed mind so why we still need the filter?

The last answer of mine is 'NO' to the Internet filtering.

My soul may be only safe in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Why not just contract the whole thing to China? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517455)

n/t

Re:Why not just contract the whole thing to China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517531)

Most likely because the Chinese system isn't restrictive enough.

Re:Why not just contract the whole thing to China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25517937)

Agreed, I'm an Aussie living in China, and it reads like the proposed system IS more restrictive than Chinas (before and now after the games).

Re:Why not just contract the whole thing to China? (1)

JonDorian88 (1341359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25518185)

They initially did, but China told them that they have their hands full with manufacturing London's opening ceremony for the next Olympics.

Source of filters (2, Interesting)

ebonum (830686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517603)

Disclosure: I am American.

Now that we have that out of the way, I really don't feel the American government should be telling Australian government how to rule their own country ( This statement does not apply to things such as are killing political dissidents ). However, I would have no problem if the US government made it illegal for US government agencies to purchase equipment from any company who supplied a foreign country with this kind of filtering technology. The ban could be extended to any organization who receives any form of government support ( most of the collages in the US and for the next few years the entire US financial system ). Then, companies like Cisco would have to decide if they are going with China and Australia or the US.

There are ways to get what you want ( or this case, to do the right thing ) without directly going to another country, getting in their face, acting like arrogant Americans and telling them that they don't know what is best for their own country.

Conservative = public enemy (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517667)

we are not in thatcher days anymore. even thatcher's time was much more free and liberal than today.

in last 15 years, conservatives around the world have become real public enemies, damagers of the modern civilization. from usa to europe to australia the damage conservatives did to the modern values are beyond reproach. from civil liberties to privacy, there isnt a single field that they have harmed by their increasing levels of bigotry and zealotry.

troll ? not at all. i was a conservative once, long time ago. conservative doesnt mean protecting existing beneficial moral values and ethics anymore, it has become a political viewpoint that tries to suppress and mold people to its own whim.

dont vote conservative. follow my example. we cant afford to risk going back on the eve of 21st century.

Re:Conservative = public enemy (1)

aronschatz (570456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517741)

You must be confusing conservatism with Republicanism.

I'm a conservative. Usually Republicans are conservative... until GW Bush was the President. Now we have neocons instead.

Don't worry, this election will be four years of doing nothing and after we'll have a proper conservative back for President.

nay (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517947)

im talking in general. talking about recent governments of countries including australia, usa, germany, turkey and so on.

Filters? Great, now I don't have to worry...? (5, Interesting)

cliffiecee (136220) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517837)

So, if Australia's filtering, that means I NEVER have to worry about getting in trouble for using the internet! Right?

A while ago, a place I used to work at implemented filtering. I was actually kinda happy about it! I no longer had to worry about going to an inappropriate site, because the filters would stop me from getting there. Great!

Except that, a few weeks later, the CEO sent an email to everyone stating how annoyed he was that people were trying to access the filtered sites. It didn't matter that the sites were blocked. It didn't matter that people never saw the blocked content! The mere fact that we were still adjusting to the new filters caused our CEO to chastise us about our internet usage.

And that's the ultimate insult with filtering- It doesn't matter if it works 100% perfectly. You will be expected to filter your brain as well. If the filter admins see that you're trying to access things that you cannot even access because of the filter, you WILL get in trouble.

It is all about Australian domestic politics (5, Informative)

papafox_too (883077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25517949)

The Australian governments' proposed ISP filter system has little to do with censorship or child porn - it is all driven by Australian domestic politics.

The government requires control of the Senate to get its legislative program through. The Senate consists of 76 members, with the Government (ALP) holding 32 seats, the Opposition 37 seats, the Greens 3 seats, Family First 1 seat and one Independent senator.

The goverement requires the support of all non-Opposition memebers to get legislation passed - with Senator Steve Fielding, the Familiy First senator a vital supporter.

The Family First [wikipedia.org] party is a socially conservative political party. Senator Fielding recieved 56,000 primary votes out of a 3.3M votes cast. However, through preference distributions he gained a quota and was elected.

Senator Fielding has demanded that the government implement porn filters, with ISP filtering being his method of choice.

So, the Australian government is implementing ISP filters, no because they work for filtering porn, but because they work at meeting their political needs. Complaining about the effects of ISP filters on freedom of speech or internet performance will fall on deaf ears - the filters will be implemented because they are critical to the governments tenuous control of the Senate.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?