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!

iiNet Pulls Out of Australian Censorship Trial

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the doesn't-sound-manly dept.

Censorship 77

taucross writes "ISP iiNet today confirmed its exit from the Australian government's Internet filtering trials. iiNet had originally taken part in the plan in order to prove the filter was flawed. Citing a number of concerns, their withdrawal leaves only five Australian ISPs continuing to test the filter."

cancel ×


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

Still 5 too many! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295119)

Time for everyone to start using Tor and I2P for some safety. Or simply SSL to get started. How exactly were they planning to check the content of that? Or are they only filtering on hostname?

Re:Still 5 too many! (5, Informative)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295153)

Re:Still 5 too many! (4, Insightful)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295263)

I want to know why he continues lying saying that the list published on wikileaks is not the actual list when it has been proven several times that it is infact the real list.

Re:Still 5 too many! (4, Informative)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295617)

That might appear to be the case because initially it wasn't: []

Senator Conroy and ACMA initially tried to discredit Wikileaks by saying the leaked blacklist was about double the size of ACMA's list. However, they admitted that both lists shared "some common URLs".

Wikileaks said the disparity was due to the fact that the leaked list was from August last year and contained a number of older URLs that had since been removed by ACMA.

It quickly followed up by leaking a second version of the blacklist, dated March 18 this year, that is approximately the same size as the ACMA list and contains many of the same seemingly innocuous websites.

And the clever part about how they got the list?

The list was obtained by Wikileaks from internet filtering software that parents can opt to install on their computers. ACMA provides its list of prohibited sites to these software developers for inclusion in their products.

Re:Still 5 too many! (1)

kzieli (1355557) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304881)

The list was obtained by Wikileaks from internet filtering software that parents can opt to install on their computers. ACMA provides its list of prohibited sites to these software developers for inclusion in their products.

There is the clinching detail. It was obtained from filtering software. As such I suspect that its actually a super set. Containing everything that the official list contains and then some other stuff which isn't on the official list but has been added by the software vendor, perhaps based on reports from their users.

Re:Still 5 too many! (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352991)

The list was obtained by Wikileaks from internet filtering software that parents can opt to install on their computers. ACMA provides its list of prohibited sites to these software developers for inclusion in their products.

There is the clinching detail. It was obtained from filtering software. As such I suspect that its actually a super set. Containing everything that the official list contains and then some other stuff which isn't on the official list but has been added by the software vendor, perhaps based on reports from their users.

Conroy admitted himself that some of the more controversial items (the dentist, the canteen, the anti-abortion site, the euthanasia site) were on the ACMA list in any case. No-one's saying that the list is completely whacked, just that it contains some items which should be there, with no recourse to getting it lifted.

Furthermore, one point I've thought of afterwards - the problem with the blacklist is that it's got to be distributed to ISPs in order for them to block it - which invariably means future leaks are also inevitable.

Re:Still 5 too many! (1)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#27318555)

It's the same list -- they did some hefty trimming after it was published to, presumably to remove the more controversial links.

Re:Still 5 too many! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295509)

Should you be new to this, here is possibly the best summary of his position that I have found:

Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295161)

I didn't even know we had that many.

As long as that list includes BigPond and OptusNet, that covers 90% of users anyway.

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (5, Informative)

Alicat1194 (970019) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295213)

According to TFA, it leaves Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1. Not exactly what you'd call heavily-populated ISPs.

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (3, Informative)

definate (876684) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295235)

I've heard of Primus... and that's it.

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (1)

sincewhen (640526) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296045)

I wonder if any of these sell themselves as a "family oriented" ISP - That is they embrace the blocking because it is a point of differentiation and thus a marketing tool for them (Webshield in particular sounds suspicious)? If so, and this misguided project comes to fruition, they will lose their advantage.

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296367)

There has already been at least one ISP that offered filtering as a service, ISP level, not the programs they all offer for free. I don't remember the name so I don't know if it is still in business. I used the connection, it didn't work very well.

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303091)

Both iPrimus and Webshield offer filtered web services.

Webshield is a (very) small ISP in Adelaide, filtered internet feeds is their primary business.

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27301935)

I've heard of Primus... and that's it.

The band Primus bought a Ozzie comm company? Doubtful they would have volunteered to do anything with the government, unless it was to discredit this (likely).

Or is it the transformers in disquise, Optimus Primus? Which then begs another q, which is the real identity. Optimus Primus is either some buyer on Amazon [] , or some yank from MySpace [] with a few hot femme friends?

But this all still doesn't answer the base question; why is Australia still even considering this steaming pile or Wallaby feces?

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27307495)

Australia isn't. A few retarded monkeys in the government are still considering it, despite the number of times we've told them it's retarded in all senses of the word.

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (3, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295713)

According to TFA, it leaves Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1. Not exactly what you'd call heavily-populated ISPs.

Careful there. You're citing highly relevant, factually correct, widely available but politically undesirable material. Next thing you know you'll be threatened with an $11,000 fine and slashdot will be added to the list!

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (0, Troll)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296895)

Only Primus has a page on Wikipedia, and apparently they filed for bankruptcy on March 16th.

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (1)

Fuzzy Bo (582964) | more than 5 years ago | (#27305015)

Dude, the Primus that filed for bankruptcy is in Delaware. Delaware is not in Australia. The Primus in Aussie is the one at

Hmmm... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299329)

..and more to the point, iiNet pulled out of the trial months ago. I'm not sure why there's this sudden resurgence of interest, but hopefully someone can enlighten us.

Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27299429)

Highway1, I believe, deals entirely with providing bandwidth for business/corporate clientele. They don't have 'mom-and-pop' customers.

Parent NOT "Insightful" (4, Informative)

LardBrattish (703549) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295347)

Bigpond & Optus are not involved in the trial

Re:Parent NOT "Insightful" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295463)

yep, gp is extraordinarily clueless... they're acting surprised we have more than 5 ISPs? what rock have they been living under? [] plus anyone who's been paying even the slightest bit of attention knows that the trials are a sham with 5 little know isps, and not even one of the "big boys". not bigpond, no optus, no iinet, no way!

They never took part in the trial anyway (5, Insightful)

deek (22697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295163)

iiNet had registered interest in participating in the trial, but they were not selected for first round of testing. Now it appears as if they've pulled out of the whole process completely.

It seems the major reason for the backout is because wikileaks published the ACMA blacklist. There were many URLs on the list which were not associated with illegal sites, but instead, politically undesirable sites.

Hooray for wikileaks! They've proven how easy it is to abuse compulsory censorship, even in a democracy of elected officials.

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (0)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295179)

Would it be possible that iiNet deliberately leaked that list to Wikileaks....?

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (3, Informative)

grim-one (1312413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295199)

If deek is correct and they were never actively participating (this was also my understanding), it's likely they never received a copy of the blacklist.

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (4, Insightful)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295215)

Good for them if they did.

This whole censorship scheme is deeply flawed and morally bankrupt. Any society that feel the need to implement censorship in order to 'function' is already badly broken and censorship will only prolong the suffering and delay the inevitable, making it unavoidable. If there really is a need to prevent access to something, use sound advice and education so the need to access 'the forbidden' goes away. It is this need to will be the downfall of any society that use censorship because the human spirit can never be kept in a cage, no matter how many bars and locks you add to it.

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (2, Interesting)

Full Metal Jackass (998734) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297711)

Any society that feel the need to implement censorship in order to 'function' is already badly broken and censorship will only prolong the suffering and delay the inevitable, making it unavoidable.

Whilst I completely agree with you, you've just given me an insight into what it must be like to be an Iranian or a citizen of Oklahoma.

I doubt that most Australians agree with this legislation. Actually, I think that most haven't thought about it enough to see the seriousness of it. But that's really the point. The filter in its current form has not been put to the electorate for a vote.

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (1)

spankyofoz (445751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27307819)

Things here in Australia are rarely put to the people, as the pollies don't want the unwashed masses disturbing their plans.

Instead there is the concept of a 'mandate', ie. a party is voted in, and can do whatever the hell it wants, until they get voted out.

Politics here is far less robust than in the USA. We have the massive paradox of compulsory voting, and astounding voter apathy.

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27302133)

This whole censorship scheme is deeply flawed and morally bankrupt.

What? The Spanish Inquisition was a blessing to all those it affected!


Despite repeated publication of the Indexes and a large bureaucracy of censors, the activities of the Inquisition did not impede the flowering of Spanish literature's "Siglo de Oro,"
  citation given []

See, even in the midst what of some outragous history re-writers call censorship, some asshats still get to share their crap without being tortured (too much).

In fact, I say, give them George W. Bush, the best person for leading this project. I am sure that within a year or two he could also declare this "reeducation of the masses" as "Mission Accomplished"!

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295541)

The leaked list was obtained by reverse engineering filtering software, which contained the ACMA list. When Conroy lied, and said that list wasn't ACMA's, wikileaks followed up by publishing instructions on how people could extract the list themselves, so people could prove to themselves that Conroy was lying.

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295747)

Can you give some examples of "politically undesirable sites"? What sort of thing are we talking about here?

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (2, Interesting)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295919)

Sites that promote euthanasia, for one, anti-abortion sites for another. Actual URLs I don't have, they are on the list though.

maybe try a new company name? (0)

go_jesse (243193) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295175)


Re:maybe try a new company name? (2, Funny)

alex4point0 (179152) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295227)

More like "Aye-Aye-Cap'n!-Net".

Big caps, low fees, popular with ... people who like Swedish peer-to-peer networks.

Re:maybe try a new company name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296341)

Big caps, low fees, popular with ... people who like Swedish peer-to-peer networks.

To this day, Aussie English keeps confusing me with contradictions.
"Big" and "low" seem to have entirely different meanings over there!

"Naked DSL": Big cap = 65GB+65GB peak/off peak.
"Broadband": Big cap = 60GB+80GB peak/off peak.

They're $A120 and $A140 respectively.

Re:maybe try a new company name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27297945)

Believe it or not, that's a good price. I'm not joking. It's not the cheapest around, but it's a good deal for the service. I've been with two telecoms for extended lengths of time; here's a comparison:

Telstra Bigpond Cable:
- $60/mo = 10GB @ ~10mbps
- 64kbps upload cap
- Uploads count towards your usage (this is a real killer)
- >1 Simultaneous connections only available for $1/mo/connection
- Fast freezone (not counted towards monthly limit) linux ISO FTPs
- Horribly oversold connection, crawls during summer
- Solid connection / good uptime
- Decent availability (wherever cable TV is installed - but cable TV is only in 10% of Aussie households, so it's not as good as in the US) - A somewhat liberal attitude towards piracy (but the upload cap and limit kind of throw a spanner into those works)

iiNet ADSL2+
- $60/mo for [10GB between 12pm-2am + 20GB between 2am-12pm] + VOIP bundle, @ - ~768kbps upload cap
- Uploads are free (NB: iiNet Naked DSL does not have this!)
- Multiple simultaneous connections free (I'm not sure of the limit, but I've done up to 3 at once)
- Fast freezone (not counted towards monthly limit) Linux ISO FTPs
- Fast freezone Linux repositories
- Somewhat oversold connection
- Solid connection / good uptime
- Decent availability (wherever phone lines are installed, but the catch is you have to be within a few kilometers of the exchange)
- A somewhat liberal attitude towards piracy (all the users that get the expensive 120gb/mo plans are pirates)

Like I say, there are others, but a lot of the smaller/cheaper ones have flaky connections (Dodo are notorious for this), or shitty plans, or are less liberal towards piracy, or tiny limits (2gb/mo upload+download anyone?), or poor availablity, or any number of deal-killers. YMMV.

Article correction (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295237)

"their withdrawal leaves only five Australian ISPs continuing to test the filter."

Correction; There were, and remain, six participating ISP's in the trial; Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1

Iinet have only withdrawn their application to participate in the trial.

To put it in perspective, Optus, the second largest ISP still has an (as yet unaccepted) application to participate. iiNet is the third largest ISP. Primus is possibly in the top 20 ISP's in the country, and the other 5 might sneak into the top 200. There are no other notable publicly known applications from other ISP's

Re:Article correction (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297675)

So this has been a very very limited trial. I wonder what they were actually testing then: the technical part of filtering should be trivial, or the public reaction?

By the way what is there in it for the ISPs to sign up for the trial? Publicity?

Something I want to clear up (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295267)

Before I start I want to make it absolutely clear that I am completely opposed to filtering, and I am an Australian.

What I want to point out is that there is a pretty solid chance that the list on wikileaks isn't the ACMA list. If this was leaked from a vendor (eg. Websense) then they may have incorporated the ACMA blacklist into their own blacklist and then a staff member leaked _that_ list.

This would still mean that the entire ACMA list is in the leaked list, but it means that a lot of the sites that are questionable (not illegal but listed) may not be anywhere to be seen on the ACMA list and were added by the third party (the sites everyone is complaining about).

This also means that Conroy stating that "that isn't the ACMA list" is actually true, the fact that it contains the ACMA list is a point that was skimmed over.

Now that wikileaks have some new 'leaked lists' that apparently show a great drop in the number of banned URL's and suggesting a government 'clean up' could easily be attributed to the fact that their new leaked lists are the genuine article, and not a list leaked from a third party with additional URL's.

Just want to put it out there. If the government are trying to ban non-illegal content they should be strung up.. but I just don't want to jump to the conclusion that everyone seems to be jumping to.

Re:Something I want to clear up (4, Insightful)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295393)

On the wikileaks talk page there is a discussion of exactly how to pull the list, using some censorship client (sorry wikileaks is down or I would provide more details). The takeaway I got was that this is/was the list being used to censor. What is more troubling that this is the official list or that the vendors are using some crap they made up to do the censoring?

Re:Something I want to clear up (1)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295551)

IIRC it was ripped using the same WebSense autoupdate mechanism.

Re:Something I want to clear up (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297775)

Any /.er on one of the ISPs involved in the filtering?

If so, a simple shell script could show whether sites are blocked. I suspect a DNS lookup for those domains will either not resolve or resolve to a common "domain parking" address or so provided by the ISP in question. Then way we can see soon enough which sites of the list are accessible from the filtered ISPs and which not. The inaccessible ones that are accessible from other ISPs are on the list for sure. There may be more URLs on the ACMA list of course that are missed this way but at least it filters out non-existent and third-party-added URLs.

Re:Something I want to clear up (1)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | more than 5 years ago | (#27306137)

Any /.er on one of the ISPs involved in the filtering?

I doubt it. Anyone who has enough of a clue to be on /. would run screaming from the plans offered by the ISPs included in this trial. I don't actually know of anyone, let alone a /. member who is using these ISPs. The trial is a farce...

Re:Something I want to clear up (1)

Grail (18233) | more than 5 years ago | (#27337641)

The list was pulled from filtering software, set to "block illegal material only".

I would be far more concerned if the list is a superset of the ACMA list than if Stephen Conroy was flat out lying, since that would mean that a product vendor is taking the opportunity to tell me what I'm not allowed to read, on top of the Government giving themselves that right.

Hate to say I told ya so (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295283)

Thankfully I'm entirely too lazy to go trolling through my comments on Slashdot from months ago where I said that the Government was primarily interested in blocking "hard core" porn sites.. otherwise I think some "nya, nya, told ya so" would be in order for the slashtards who disagreed with me. The kind of porn people regularly access on the Internet has been "illegal" in every state of Australia (but not the territories) for a long time now. Why do people find it so surprising that those-who-like-to-censor would apply the same standard to Internet porn that they do to video tape porn? It just makes sense that they would. People failed to object to film censorship. They failed to object to video censorship. They failed to object to videogame censorship. Now, finally, when they do try to object, the established censorship mechanism of government is too strong.

Re:Hate to say I told ya so (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295369)

no, lots of people objected they just weren't listened to, due mostly to all those mediums being controlled by big media companies who only cared about their vested interests. another more recent reason is verly likely to the attitude "it doesn't matter i have the internet". now that that last resort is under fire and it's become something they can personally contribute to, people are getting involved.

Re:Hate to say I told ya so (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295589)

Meh, the uproar over Internet censorship is much greater than the uproar over film censorship.. this is true.. but it's still just a fringe issue that has no leadership. There's no orator stepping up to take the message to the public.

Re:Hate to say I told ya so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295641)

The question is: Do we really want that?

If we've learned anything from this, it's that trying to find a leader to slap a face on something generally leads to problems. You can't simultaneously promote individualism and then complain it has "no leadership", that's kinda the point.

Re:Hate to say I told ya so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27308575)

if there was are you sure the media would properly report it (even if it was Paris Hilton)??

Re:Hate to say I told ya so (1)

Dracophile (140936) | more than 5 years ago | (#27308903)

It's generally easier to tunnel through internet filtering than through film censorship, though, isn't it?

Re:Hate to say I told ya so (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295777)

It isn't illegal to own the porn or view it in the Australian states. It is just illegal or businesses to sell it in most Australian states. One can still legally buy it from the territories or overseas.

Re:Hate to say I told ya so (1)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296159)

The kind of porn people regularly access on the Internet has been "illegal" in every state of Australia (but not the territories) for a long time now. Why do people find it so surprising that those-who-like-to-censor would apply the same standard to Internet porn that they do to video tape porn?

I agree with your point, but this is a Federal matter, not a State one. The states have happily censored everything for a long time now, but the Feds have stayed right out of it, even when they have the power to stop the Territories selling porn.

Still, your point is a good one. I know far too many people who see the parallel with TV and video and wonder what the problem is with a bit of censorship.

I do find it odd that SBS---which goes to great lengths to explore the pale blue area between porn and erotica is owned by the federal government. If they were really serious about censorship, that'd be a very easy place to start! AH, politics...

Afro-Leninst Obama Bankrupting the USA Tsarkon Rpt (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295295)

Barack Hussein Barry-Soetoro-Afro-Leninist Obama II.

- Chairman Barack Hussein "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption, Rahm Emanuel (Radical authoritarian Statist-Zionist whose father was part of the Murderous Civilian Killing Israeli Terrorist Organization known as IRGUN), Connected to Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat), Connected to Ayers, a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom, Preacher Jeremiah Wright, who is himself a black-elitist who wants all the people who largely "pay the freight" to suffer, 31 million on food stamps, more blacks are in prison and on food-stamps per capita than anyone else. The problem with Wright is simply this: the facts are "racist."
- Obama: Racist, AIPAC-Zionist, Corrupted and a Traitor and a Liar who can't even produce a valid birth certificate (which is not a certificate of live birth)
- Raytheon lobbyist in Pentagon
- Goldman Sachs insider second in command at Treasury.
- Cabinet has had several nominees and appointees with multiple tax fraud issues.
- The head of the IRS and the head of the Treasury, Geithner, is a Tax Cheat
- Lied about no lobbyists
- Lied about having a new degree of accountability and a SUNSHINE period of new laws, he has signed bills with little or no review at as promised.
- Appointed a second amendment violating Rich-pardoning treasonist Eric Holder as AG, the top cop of the USA, a man who helped a fugitive evade justice.
- Has not put a dime in for a single new nuclear power plant but wants to help bridges and roads to promote more driving.
- Obama, Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel have a LOT to hide. They literally lived next to each other, Rahm had (until being Chairman Obama's Chief of staff) Blagojevich's old federal congressional seat. Blagojevich helped Chairman "The Teleprompter" Obama cheat his way to the Illinois senate by getting other candidates thrown off the ballot in Illinois. Why do you think Blagojevich was so mad? Obama DID owe him, big time. Rahm and Obama are using Blagojevich and trying to cut his head off to keep him away.
- Tony Rezko, Iraqi Arms Dealer Nahdmi Auchi, and of course Aiham Alsammarae. Chairman "The Teleprompter" Hussein Obama is so corrupted its a joke.
- Fools and "useful idiots" twist the pie charts by leaving welfare, workfare, interest on debt, social security, Medicare and Medicaid out and focusing only on non-whole "discretionary" pie charts.
2007 high level pie chart, Federal Budget, USA []
2009 Pie chart, detailed, Federal Budget, USA []
- Chairman Obama is drastically increasing spending and creating more entitlements that will make the US less competitive (especially against China, India, East Europe/Russia). This will be a huge disaster and change you can believe in will strap you and your grandkids with more debt. No taxation without representation? Obama is spending money for the next two-three generations and they can't even vote yet, or even have been born.
- An alternative to the dollar and a forex and a reserve currency came up at the last G20 meeting. The world will not take faith in Obama's liar-socialist spending and welfare state, why should the taxpayers (plebian citizen-slaves of a police state).
- The spending going on now vastly eclipses all previous spending. In fact, the massive trillion plus debts is a thing of the 80's onwards. Congress signs the checks, remember that Year after year, as egregious as the pentagon spending is, that the social spending is completely a waste of money and it is unfunded over the long term. Eisenhower built the interstates, the US could build a new power infrastructure with this money but instead is being pissed into creating more of an entitlement system that is STILL unfunded, and without massive poll-taxes and far more aggressive progressive taxes, could NEVER be funded.
- The budgeting being done today were recently reported by a non-partisan auditing commission will lead to about 10 TRILLION in new debt over the next 10 years. Obama is going to double the national debt while doing nothing to address the unfunded debt obligations of Social Security.
- Clinton appointed David Walker of the GAO, he quit, the unfunded debt obligations have rendered the USA insolvent according to accounting standards.
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion []
US Public Debt Unfunded Debt Obligations []
- Most of the world population gets NOTHING from their governments, or a very bare minimum or services that benefit only the upper echelons of society. However, the liar Chairman Obama says we need his universal "state-hospital" rationed health care to be competitive. Bull. China and India give nothing, and they are the biggest threat to the American worker. By forcing healthcare and higher taxes, Americans will be less competitive.
- If you think 60% tax rates end to end (income, accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, excise tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capital gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, misc internet sales tax and many more taxes that I can't recall at the moment) will make the US competitive, along with compulsory programs to provide everyone with health care is going to make the US competitive in the age of India and China, you are a joke.
- As the US nationalizes (read: rations healthcare) to the least common denominator of affordability without regard to efficacy, people with money will simply look into medical tourism so those with money can go to medical parks in India and get real health care. Those who have lived in Canada or in the UK can tell you "free" healthcare is NOT a panacea. If you think this, you are again, a useful idiot. The NHS in the UK has given bad blood and Hepatitis and AIDS blood to people, and Jade Goody who just died was misdiagnosed twice resulting in her death (She was all cleared twice of cervical cancer which she just died of). The NHS in the UK is not able to be sued or held accountable. Neither will Chairman Obama's rationed health care service for America.
- Sorry to bust the socialist bubble-lie, but support of these types of policies will simply lower the standard of living in the USA, particularly for the middle class. At least at the end of the Eisenhower projects the USA got roads to show for the spending, and with this new spending, the USA could have built power plants that get the USA out of the middle east, but the age of government for the sake of government is upon us, and the useful idiots line up and believe empty promises.
The pentagon (and Bechtel, Kroll, Bluewater, Halliburton, etc) could get less than half of what they get today, but that will fix nothing fundamental in terms of government spending. It is simply not enough to make a difference when compared to the Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security entitlements.
See: YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy []
- If Obama thinks its ok to lie to 300 million people about being able to "take care of them" without even being honest about what that care would look like, then being an idiot and believing in Obama is for you.
- The US Government already have over 50% of the budget on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security. Socialists: Good job on that one, its working great. Solution to the current near-collapse-due-to-over-spending: add more unfunded entitlements!
- You Socialist-liars can break my spirit and my financial back to force me to "need" a federal government that is turning this country into a police state and turn it into a quasi-socialist lie, but I will, I must put up a fight. I have kids to educate and feed, and the stuff you sell (which is failing to various degrees everywhere else as implemented) is simply forcing a culture of failure on a once great, libertarian free country.
- I will not be complacent with your "change," and there will be a point where civil war will become an option. See how hard you can push before you get it. How much more than half can the truly productive workers in this country afford to pay. Keep pushing to find out how to start a civil war.
- The socialist-lie of a plan will not work, its not fundable, it WILL destroy the currency to fund it, and its really as simple as this: if this insanity is funded by borrowing from the US's economic and military adversaries then Obama and his socialist cabal is NOT fit to administrate society. Rome fell. Kings who mis-manged their treasuries all fell. Every example of unhinged spending leads to the same result: systemic collapse.
- Obama and his sycophantic lunatics would want to have a civil war to get Chairman Obama's way and force the socialist-lie system on my already tax paying law abiding ass. And as far as "no new taxes" for those under 250k, its a lie, the tax is called inflation, which is set to begin just about now that the Chinese wont want the USA's worthless treasuries to fund the socialist-lie fantasy (one that COMMUNIST China doesn't even try and sell to its people!)
- Chairman Obama's numbers don't add up. There is a $59 trillion dollar hole (UFDO) in social security alone. AIG $150 billion here, TARP $350 billion there. $800 billion for a highly dubious stimulus package. Another one on the way. $59 trillion hole in the balance sheet IGNORED. China saying they aren't going to buy treasuries, Clinton clamoring to find buyers now. $3.6 trillion dollar budget, potential military action on Mexico, Iran still a "terrorist state" at the behest of the AIPAC, spending up, dollar about to fall, inflation over time since Breton Woods extremely easy to document, yet, the socialist-liars question when the numbers (the Federal Government numbers) simply don't add up to the point where if the US-GOV was a company it would be insolvent.
  -How dare the taxpayers question what Chairman Obama's drastic spending increases are going to do to the purchasing power of our savings because Chairman Obama wants to recklessly spend and try to maintain and American empire AND guarantee a standard of living, and Chairman Obama doesn't even want to build a single nuclear power plant to do it? Chairman Obama must be a complete and total lunatic moron.
- Obama is either a negligent idiot or an unhinged maniac with delusional fantasies. Meanwhile, Chainman Obama's tax dodging Treasury Secretary has 17 unfilled positions, the Treasury Dept. isn't even functioning at this point.
- "General welfare" in the constitution was, according to the man who wrote it, Madison, meant to be extremely limited in scope. The federal government per the constitution doesn't even have the enumerated POWER to deal with economic messes. A lot of these "POWERS" were created while there is a crisis to dupe the public into accepting an un-constitutional authoritarian regime as the government and to usurp authority over the people.
- The USA is a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to eat a sheep. Also a constitutional republic isn't about using a barely-majority or a plurality to stuff your (un-fundable disastrous) crap down the disenfranchised other-half's throat.
- With Obama's authoritarian corrupted criminal (aiding and abetting a criminal in flight of prosecution, Rich case) Eric Holder in charge, we won't have our inalienable and enumerated rights to firearms much longer. For a constitutional law expert, Obama must have never read the federalist papers or he would simply hand himself as a traitor.
- The arbitrary expansion of "general welfare" is not only unconstitutional, it may very well lead to a serious conflict on the issue.
- Here is a debate on general welfare and how stuff like this came to pass, but was clearly no intended by the authors of the document of root law.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" (In reference to the general welfare clause)
So strongly did the founders believe that "general welfare" wouldn't be expanded as written:
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton indirectly confirmed Madison's point. (That the "general welfare" clause was "clearly" nota free pass for government)
Hamilton argued that a bill of rights, which many were clamoring for, would be not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Since the federal government was given only a few specific powers, there was no need to add prohibitions: it was implicitly prohibited by the listed powers. If a proposed law a relief act, for instance wasn't covered by any of these powers, it was unconstitutional.
"why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Hamilton goes on to argue that making Amendments (e.g., enumerating Free speech, press and assembly) and enumerating the 'right' would have the following effect:
(A bill of rights) "would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power that is, a power to regulate the press, short of actually shutting it down. "
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison [The US Supreme Court has found the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution to be much more elastic than did Mr. Madison. But as the "author of the Constitution," what does he know?]
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government , and to provide new Guards for their future security. ...--The Declaration of Independence
- Wrong, monetizing failures causes more. Japan showed us this for decades. But hey, Chairman Obama thinks you can fix a problem DECADES in the making with a quick fixer-upper, he is screwed in the head.
- The complaints are with the Federal government (in general) since Breton Woods. The Federal Government and Obama's minions STILL didn't listen to David Walker, a Clinton appointee and former head of the GAO. This isn't about political parties anymore morons!
- Show me a single federal budget that was less than the previous. If this $3.6T budget goes, its never coming back barring systemic collapse.
- The United States Federal Government, The United States Federal Reserve, and the banks which were enabled to continue down reckless paths by a quasi government agency known as the Federal Reserve whose actions are not subject to congress and whose members are unelected. This situation is untenable and unconstitutional.
- Every inflationary road taken in history ends in collapse. Keynesian policies are widely regarded as no longer workable.
- Inflation is a tax: What ignorant tax and spenders don't take into account here is the relative percentages of people's wealth (both net and gross) and the costs of owning and maintaining houses, cars, standards of living.
- Inflation via deficit spending is going to make it such that you will be paying a lot more by percentage of your income to maintain a given standard of living. Obama's arguments are so poorly thought out and seek to blame "Republicans" for the mess, its really simply laughable - the needs cleanup now, not worsening.
- You can't spend your way out of a hole if the creditors (e.g. China) start telling the USA they won't buy. It is that simple. Now America starts to have to collateralize the debt with assets. The USA will be selling off chunks of American assets to back the new debt. One day, it may even be necessary to sell Alaska back to Russia because no one will take greenbacks to prop up a failing version of a modern Rome.
- Ah, here we go with the Matthew Lesko arguments. []
Interest rates were on the rise before the government stepped in with free money for everyone (the fine print of course indicate massive strings attached).
Other economies, for example, India, have the central rates set to far more reasonable/realistic rates (at the moment ~ 8+%), which is still tends to be too low, but shows that if you need someone else capital you need to pay a premium for it, and given that capital is in short supply, it would stand to reason that a premium must be charged for it.
The problem is the unrealistic growth rates of mature economies don't allow for profiting via growth projections (rather than simply earning money). So the government steps in, turns on the free money spigot, gets the interest rates for savings down in the 1-2% range while diluting the value of the whole currency in order to prop up dying companies that ran the business like a Madhoff Ponzi scheme.
- The Republicans aren't solely responsible for the crisis as Obama's minions would have you believe, congress is (no particular congress), the Executive of the US government (no particular one) and the US Federal Reserve System are all at fault.
- Fundamentally, the government is trying to fix the prices of various things to "make it all work." This pulling on the invisible hand is a fools venture. It was predicted long ago the housing collapse (and those, such as myself, in the know, wished while realizing the housing collapse coming that we were wrong for everyone's sake - but the truth is the truth) . It may be that the Austrian (von Mises) economists will ultimately be proven right.
- We are a nation of partially educated whiney grabby idiots, and we got the government that represents this. The Chinese, India and other up and coming nations will show no mercy for this arrogant abuse of our status as the world's forex reserves.
- War and asset sales will continue to be the only option for this scheme until it is corrected at the core. And to say that the government has already averted a depression by doing what they did (most of the monies injected wont be "felt" for some time), is just arrogance and stupidity. Price fixing prolonged the Great Depression. Price-fixing (or attempting to) houses will do the same, but probably worse.
- Obama's minions simply don't care if the US is bankrupted and rendered insolvent, they just want a say in how its done, presumably to "feel safe." Rather selfish.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." AND "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (Possibly Richard Jackson)

- Everyone better realize that inflation will pay a major role in funding un-fundable fantasies, wiping the savers and the middle class out. The problem is, that other countries are growing tired of making our Federal Reserve notes worth something by buying our debt as treasuries. Obama's minions talk about spending, but in order to "get what YOU want" you will sell debt to potential economic and military adversaries? Real bright. What's really sad is that despite David Walker being an authority on these issues, people refuse to even watch him and listen to what he is saying.
- On the success of Canada and its form of Socialism: A huge country like Canada with massive amounts of uranium and tar sands and natural resources and a huge land mass with a scant 30 million people is an order of magnitude less of a problem to manage than a country with 10x its population, a serious leaky southern border, backfiring aggressive foreign policy, particularly with Iran, and the US is competing with countries like India and China whose middle classes are larger than the US's entire population. The top 5 students in every Indian and Chinese primary school out numbers all the kids in primary school in the US. Canada is a idyllic island, the USA is front and center in an all out economic and political clash of ideologies.
- Keynes calls it "the paradox of thrift" and suggested that policies forcing people not to save is a "good idea." The guy wanted people spending all the time, or if he didn't, he never conveyed that to his protégés well enough for them to not do what they are doing. Right now the plebeians in the US are actually stashing cash, and everyone from Obama to the media is trying to get people to spend spend spend. The best thing for the long term is for people to prepare for the coming hell, not set out with no reserves.
- I have seen Keynes invoked to justify nearly every bad move in the past decade, and its warming up to be a potential currency collapse, the collapse of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve notes, and a collapse of the NYSE. And then they invoke Keynes to suggest the best way out of the mess is to spend out of an already near-critically debt massed black hole.
- A house is run like a town is run like a country or business is run like a state is run like a government. If there are things the government is doing that would either force your home into bankruptcy or into jail via fraud charges, then the government and banks shouldn't be operating in that fashion. A certain degree of stretchy liquidity is in order, but in terms of percent of GDP, there is no way of justifying what they US has now.
- Iceland failed at 850 percent debt to GDP. The US is at 350 and rising. It is not a good thing at all.
- What is happening to the dollar as a forex standard. []
- March 19, 2009 C-SPAN - "Let's Quit Destroying Our Dollar!" []
- HR 1207 (A bill to make the Fed more accountable and to answer questions regarding the dollar policy) []

Title: Obama sidetracked by fiscal mess, but presses on []
"Being heard above the din may prove difficult. Lawmakers are wrangling over taxing people who got big bonuses and worrying the president's budget could generate $9.3 trillion in red ink over the next decade."
- Kremlin to pitch new global currency []
Russia proposes creation of global super-reserve currency

Holy crap, even the Russians and Chinese get it. Strange days are here.

" !" -

Re:Afro-Leninst Obama Bankrupting the USA Tsarkon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27307901)

Poor little twoll, doesnt anybody ever listen to you.

Oh thats right your a fucking moron.

I have called 4chan and told them one of the loopy inmates is loose on the internet again.

Herpes (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295593)

I can't understand why any ISP at all (even a tiny one) is signing up for these trials. I mean, it's like the government saying that they're going to inject the ISP and their customers with herpes as a trial run for injecting the whole of Australia with herpes. Herpes brings no value to your business and causes a lot of headaches for you and your clients.

The moral of this story is: Practice safe browsing, and don't let the government stab you with herpes infected needles. If a needlestick happens accidently, seek another government immediately.

Re:Herpes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27295613)

They get some free/subsidised equipment out of it. The stupid ISPs think the equipment is worth more than the loss of customer goodwill. Some of the smaller ISPs, might specialise in providing censored feeds on the mistaken assumption that it is "family friendly", in which case the government is just buying the ISP filtering gear it would have bought anyway.

This isn't a technical problem for the government (5, Insightful)

Dracophile (140936) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295701)

...because we all know that the filter can be circumvented. I'm sure the government also knows this. The problem for us will be political. If the government can have legislation rammed through the parliament, then it doesn't matter even if every ISP drops out of the filter test. They can just ram it through (in principle at least) anyway and make it unlawful to attempt to circumvent it. If they could do it, they would, and no amount of non-testing or technical faults would stop them.

However, given that a) they do not have the numbers in the senate on their own to ram it through, b) there is no way the Greens will support it from the cross-benches, and c) the Lib-Nat coalition seems bent on opposing the crap out of everything the government does out of, well, who knows why those clowns do anything at the moment, I cannot see the return they're getting on the investment of political capital in this scheme. Independent Senator Nick Xenophon seems to have lost interest in the filter lately, so that leaves only Senator Steve Fielding of Family First. This filter would naturally appeal to Fielding, but what on earth does the ALP think they can gain by courting him this way? He's shown that he isn't that interested in dealing with the ALP but is instead prepared to scuttle legislation unless he gets his way.

So what's this really all about? Is it really just some bloody-minded insistence upon seeing the program through to its bitter end regardless of its seemingly inevitable failure on both technical and political fronts? Surely, they'd look less daft just admitting it's a failure now than seeing it through to an end of certain failure? I don't see why they're pressing on with it.

Re:This isn't a technical problem for the governme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296163)

I think the explanation is that, with Conroy having made such a concerted push to implement this filtering, he's now in a position where he can't afford to be seen to back down. This IS politics, after all, so the lack of common sense, consensus and viability is only a minor detail.

As you say, the only support he seems to have in parliament is from Fielding; the rest of the ALP seems to have just stepped quietly back into the shadows on this issue, leaving Conroy on his own.

Re:This isn't a technical problem for the governme (0, Offtopic)

Captain Redundant (1086453) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296467)

...posting here to clear my mods --- sorry, I somehow chose the wrong option from the drop-down...

Re:This isn't a technical problem for the governme (5, Informative)

frglrock (992261) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296241)

Nick Xenophon has gone a little bit past having "lost interest" previously stating his opposition to the filter. He has also stated he isn't convinced the trial should go ahead in its current form: []

"But I think the means of doing it really are very problematic and when ISP after ISP [are] saying that this won't work, it will slow down the internet for everyone, and it won't deal with the issue of the peer to peer networks that paedophiles use, then I think we really need to rethink this."

More importantly though, you seem to be under the impression that Conroy doesn't understand the political problem here. The last sentence from the above article states it quite nicely:

"A spokesman for Senator Conroy says the Minister is still looking into whether the filter would require legislation, or could be implemented through another means."

He's very aware that this isn't going to get through the legislative process. There are obviously other agendas involved that prevent common sense prevailing.

Re:This isn't a technical problem for the governme (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296349)

... so that leaves only Senator Steve Fielding of Family First. This filter would naturally appeal to Fielding, ...

Perhaps the presence of anti-abortion sites on the list will change his mind.

Hmmmm.... (0, Offtopic)

qpawn (1507885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27295799)

"iiNet pulls out"... "another blow for the controversial project"... "iiNet's withdrawal"... "Senator Conroy plans to use parts"...

Very clever, internet... very clever.

Isn't this a bad thing? (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296191)

The one ISP who joined the trial to prove that the filtering scheme is broken has pulled out. Doesn't this mean that a major influence in the scheme's failure has just been dismissed?

I'm sure the Aus government are sobbing their little black hearts out over the loss.

Re:Isn't this a bad thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27304299)


It just means iiNet doesnt have to do jack anymore to prove its a failure.

If only there was some way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296193)

... to bypass this Internet filtering, say that could be run inside a Firefox browser session. That would let us reverse the ROT - I'll say that again - reverse R-O-T. You know; the letters "R", "O" and "T"; if you just could reverse that, then you might have a viable solution, that you could use to bypass all that Internet filtering.

Pity that our govt has almost certainly considered all that, and has a highly intelligent and technically sound way of ensuring that that couldn't possibly work. Gosh these pollies are clever chaps; much smarter than any of us technical people.

Think of the CHILDREN! (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296405)

Won't somebody PLEEEEEEEEASE think of the children!!!

Re:Think of the CHILDREN! (1)

interested pyro (1499899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296483)

how do you mean? if he children want to explore the human body, let them. or take them to a nude beach and bring a book for you to read as they run all over. if you mean that we should think of the impact of pr0n on children, then consider this:

Children who are exposed to nude beaches and/or take a sexual education class are more likely to turn into a normal person

I dont know if sex ed is banned in Australia, but if it isnt, that must be one hell of a double standard also for humor (humour?): Someone should check the pr0n sites the government people are going to....

Re:Think of the CHILDREN! (5, Interesting)

BarryHaworth (536145) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296557)

The sad (and worrying) thing is how these filters fail to work the way they are advertised. An example. I work in an Australian Government office, which has filtering set up on web access and emails. Various sorts of material - illegal, offensive etc. - is proscribed, and automatic filters are in place to prevent it entering the system. The rule of thumb we are told is, if you think your Grandmother would pass it, it passes. If you think she would be offended, don't download/read/send/whatever.

My first brush with this came when I tried to email myself a copy of a text analysis program I had written in a previous job (I had a copy at home). It got stopped, due to "potentially offensive content". After several rounds of emails back & forth, including an approval from my boss, I finally managed to get it released (the means of doing so was by no means easy or transparent). What was the sticking point? Well, the program included some samples of text I had tested it on. What was the oh-so-potentially-offensive text? One of the plays of William Shakespeare...

I confirmed this by sending a copy of the full play (Shakespeare's "All's well that Ends Well") - sorry, it got stopped as "potentially offensive". I leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out just why. (OK, I'll tell if anybody asks).

Since then I have experimented from time to time. The latest "offensive" text I found was the text of the novel "Anne of Green Gables" (yes, the classic story for girls). At least, I think it was classified as offensive, and I think I know why - but all I know for certain is that I sent three different copies of the text, and all three have disappeared without trace, without even a notice of "potentially offensive content". Some things, it seems, are too potentially offensive for government employees even to know about.

I don't think my Grandmother would approve.

Re:Think of the CHILDREN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296847)

/me asks why Shakespeare got blocked.

is it because it contains both the words "sex" AND "ass"? My god! think of the children!

Re:Think of the CHILDREN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27304531)

Are you serious about this? Christ..

Australia follows China's lead, news at 11.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27297937)

This story's getting a bit old, don't you think?

Australia is getting more & more like China every year.

Even the pseudo-open community of Whirlpool suffers China-style censorship, by unknown moderator.

Australia's PM Rudd was very recently reported as CAMPAIGNING for a BIGGER ROLE for CHINA in IMF.

We were once (before his election) happy to learn that Rudd had learned Chinese... thinking that this might help him negotiate more effectively in AUSTRALIA's interests.

Now, we are concerned that he's going down a Chinese road, now, in Internet censorship...

any day now, in embracing the Chinalco buy into an Australian company... to a HIGHER THAN LAWFUL level.

Soon, we'll all be learning Chinese.

(Except for the political implications, learning a language such as Japanese or Chinese - from an early age - might do Aussies some good... better Hindi, we'd suggest... ;-)

So, feeling Australia from a relative newcomer's point of view (ie, not biased by an blinkers-on "She'll be right, Mate!" or "I'm not interested in politics, Mate!" perspective), we are not expecting much on the Aussie Internet front.

There was one company, recently reported to be offering (was it:) WiMAX (?) to fill the many broadband gaps in suburban Australia... WITHOUT depending on Australian or other gov't handouts.

Them, we'll be watching... and hoping to see come to our neighborhood.

Faster speed, telephone line (read: monopolistic Telstra) independent, and - for the moment - fairly cost-effective (with lots of room for improvement, on the Cost axis).

Still, if the gov't pushes its censorship nonesense through, even the Good Guys like that ISP will be saddled with extra weights, just like the fastest racehorses in each race...

Past is Prologue: Once colonists in the British Empire; now, new-colonists to Telstra's legacy & a government bowing to the religious right minority, offering Australians a false confidence in the possibility of a "clean-feed," and slowing the Internet down (perhaps to make online shopping less pleasant, so folks will feel more like "Buying Australian"? I doubt they will.)

THIS fP FO]R GNAA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298005)

LoG on Then the

A union red-neck ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27304203)

Stephen Conroy is a former union leader, and while totally clueless about communications and internet, he is determined to thrust the unpopular filter down the peoples throat. Last week I heart him saying something in public to the extent 'people should trust the government'.
Oh, no sir, you have to deserve our trust first. Right now, you are a union red-neck with his feet solidly planted in something, he does not understand the first thing about.

Blacklist this man! (1)

cavebison (1107959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27308195)

"Stephen Conroy yesterday attempted to hose down concerns ..."

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>