Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Aussie Gov't To Introduce Bill That Would Require ISP-Level Censorship

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the lovely-people-shame-about-the-government dept.

Censorship 200

bennyboy64 writes "iTnews reports that the Australian Government has announced its intention to introduce legislation that will make ISP-level filtering mandatory for all refused classification material hosted overseas. The Government intends to amend the Broadcasting Services Act in August 2010 to enforce the filter, and expects the filter to be operational within a further twelve months. 'The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed' Senator Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said." This despite, as reader Sharky2009 writes, the trial run showing that "a technically competent user could circumvent filtering technology based on ACMA’s blacklist."

cancel ×

200 comments

what the fuck. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443882)

Is there a way to vote this guy out of office or something?

Re:what the fuck. (1)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444376)

Well, his next bill will propose that adults are not only incapable of choosing what is and what isn't appropriate to be played or viewed by themselves and their children, but also to choose who chooses what is and is not appropriate.

Re:what the fuck. (1)

besalope (1186101) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444592)

The next step would be to declare all the inner political policy making as inappropriate to view by the general public, thereby cutting off any hope the Aussies have of knowing what their government is doing. If you can't legally know they're doing evil, how can you want to vote them out?

Time for heads to [politically] roll... (4, Insightful)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445536)

Send a clear message in next Aussie elections... Pirate Party Australia [pirateparty.org.au] .

Re:what the fuck. (1)

preperat (94952) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444804)

No, his next bill to be entered into parliament is "Do you want to vote this guy out, ppl who vote yes, will be declared unreasonable and the gov will make decisions for them" :/

Re:what the fuck. (0, Troll)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445338)

No, I am sorry. They are working on a bill that will abolish elections in Australia. The bill will say that ant other parties are opposed to protecting the children. Anyone who opposes the bill is obviously a child abuser.

I wish you a good safe life down under.

Re:what the fuck. (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445424)

Because he's a dictator acting on a whim, right? The thing I want to know is who is supporting his ideas? Do the Aussies have some conservative/religiously motivated party down there like we do in the USA?

Would this block web stores? (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443898)

If the lone holdout Attorney General gets his way, Australia will ignore comments from the public [slashdot.org] and continue to refuse classification to video games that have been rated mature in other regions. Does this mean Australia will start blocking Amazon, eBay, and other foreign sellers of mature-rated video games?

Re:Would this block web stores? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443982)

Well, since Australia, as we all know, is entirely populated by criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, I can clearly not choose the unfiltered internet in front of me.

Re:Would this block web stores? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444038)

Well, since Australia, as we all know, is entirely populated by criminals

Totally, I mean look at that monster Josef Fritzl. What kind of wackjobs are living down under anyways?

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444132)

You must be an American. That was Austria, you fucking muppet.

Re:LOL (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444386)

Please don't assume we are all that stupid...

Re:LOL (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444946)

Welcome to the Internet -- don't feed the trolls

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30445232)

Trolling australians with Fritzl will never get old.

Thank god you aussies are dense as bricks.

Re:Would this block web stores? (1)

pleappleappleap (1182301) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444242)

**WHOOSH!!!**

Re:Would this block web stores? (1)

Gravitron 5000 (1621683) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444394)

Inconceivable!

well australia did give us freud and mozart (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445050)

and i always liked "the sound of music"

maybe the usa can loan arnold schwarzenegger back to the country of his birth, to clean things up in australia, terminator style?

Re:Would this block web stores? (1)

avm (660) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444362)

I'm not sure I've seen a more apropos movie quote... Kudos AC.

Re:Would this block web stores? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444116)

I'm guessing the Australian Postal Service (or whatever it's called) will also implement "deep packet inspection".

Re:Would this block web stores? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445452)

Australia Post already does this. I've had quite a few packages arrive which have obviously been opened in transit for someone to have a good snoop inside. After all, 1984 is so 25 years ago...

What's Next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443902)

Maybe they'll tell us what we can watch on TV too.

Wake up Australia (5, Insightful)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443920)

I can't believe you're still swallowing this bullshit by the buckets. It's time you did something. Get those people out of parliament, elect new officials!

Re:Wake up Australia (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444072)

We voted out the last government, who at one point tried to introduce Internet filtering (they currently don't support filtering), and now this government wants to do it (who went to the election proposing voluntary filtering). We're fucked either way eventually when one of these bunches of cocks decides it's a good idea and has the numbers to push it through.

Re:Wake up Australia (4, Insightful)

BlortHorc (305555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444848)

Yes, sadly so, we need to introduce a new law. Must be at least this technically literate to hold a ministerial position governing technology. Sadly, that would exclude essentially all currently elected politicians, as well as the vast bulk of the potential electoral fodder.

This is essentially the end result of having a technological society where technological education is not mandatory. They require you to learn English, so you can speak to people, but the don't require you understand technology, so that you can understand the society you live in.

As a consequence, at best, the pollies are neophytes, and at worst luddites.

Re:Wake up Australia (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445234)

The Greens, despite their reputation as being a bit luddite have proven themselves surprisingly literate with Scott Ludlum putting up a great fight against the laws, practically being the lone voice against censorship in the senate.

Re:Wake up Australia (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445526)

We're fucked either way eventually when one of these bunches of cocks decides it's a good idea and has the numbers to push it through.

Well, fortunately our illustrious government hasn't had such an easy ride lately at getting the numbers to do anything, and there's plenty of opposition to this filter, so there is still hope that sanity will prevail.

Re:Wake up Australia (5, Informative)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444102)

Believe me, Australians are not asleep. Senator Conroy has chosen to barge ahead regardless of any public outcry. Fortunately the Labour Government do not hold enough power in the Senate to push this through with out the support of the opposition and the Independents/Minority Parties, which they just aren't going to get. Independent Senator Nick Minchin and Greens Senator Scott Ludlam have both been very vocal in opposition to Censorship in Australia. The Librals (the other major party) seem to be fighting the Labour party at every turn, so I suspect their support will be limited. I think if it doesn't pass, the worst outcome will be that Labour will use this as a slander campaign to paint the opposition as supporting "Child Abuse".

Re:Wake up Australia (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445328)

Labour, and pushing laws through that no one wants including their own supporters.

That sounds familiar.

Ah yes, I remember now, it's like our Labour party here in Britain trying to push through ID cards despite the opposition being against it and half their own voterbase being against it leaving them around 10% - 20% support for the scheme with 80% - 90% being opposed (yet ~35% still being stupid enough to vote them in each election which is all they need for 100% control under first past the post).

If it's any consolation the sensible amongst us have been fighting Labour's totalitarian ideals here in Britain for 10 years now, but finally, after all this time it looks like it might be beginning to pay off. They're finally just now looking at abandoning the ID cards scheme by the sound of it and the party is in ruins with defeat almost outright guaranteed next election in May or so.

Keep up the pressure, and never fall for their "family friendly" values argument, as family friendly ultimately just seems to mean "dictator with an excuse". Hopefully we can do away with the international scourge which are Labour parties for good.

Re:Wake up Australia (1)

wadeal (884828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445362)

Except you forget who just became leader of the Libs? Mr Ultra Conservative. Were fucked.

Re:Wake up Australia (4, Interesting)

zsau (266209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444202)

There hasn't been the opportunity to since they made it obvious they would stick to their idiotic promises and drop their useful ones (i.e. since they got into power). You realise we can't just get new elections every news cycle. (Although the Prime Minister can call elections for the House of Representatives almost as often as he likes, it's terribly inconvenient and if they do go early (or, as early as you're suggesting they should've gone), people are inclined to vote them out just for dragging them out to the polls one more time than is necessary.)

In any case, even if we could, the other lot aren't any better... Most people would rank this (known) temporary inconvenience as a lot less bad than the (unknown) evils a government ran by Tony Abbott, Leader of the Liberal Party, would bring.

In the last case, we have a Senate and the Australian people are generally not idiotic enough to give the Government unmitigated power there. I expect the Liberal party will oppose it on the basis that they're the opposition, the Greens will oppose it on the basis that it's neither left nor liberal, and the independents will probably vote quite randomly on the basis of stellar alignment and what their advisors tell them people think.

So ... don't say stupid things like that. The least you could do before commenting on our political system is inform yourself of the absolute basics of how it works. And in this particular case, almost every political system in the (developed) world works comparably.

(If you really *were* telling us to use pitchforks, then either you're completely unrealistic, or completely crazy. In any case, whoever said "those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" was obviously crazy and/or making use of hyperbole and/or hadn't thought about his own position, and if you're an American you've probably been brainwashed into both believing that and not acting on it. Our society is so great, and so free, precisely because we complain and wait until its time to vote instead of getting out the guns and pitchforks and executing anyone in Parliament)

Re:Wake up Australia (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444416)

"those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

just because you are not smart enough to understand the quote doesn't mean that the person who said it was crazy. first get yourself educated then you can make comments on one of the smartest minds of the 19th century.

Re:Wake up Australia (5, Informative)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444538)

That would be Benjamin Franklin who said that, I believe, and I don't see anywhere where he is suggesting the wholesale slaughter of those who oppose liberty.

Re:Wake up Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444556)

That's the exact same predicament America is in right now, too. Coinki-dink?

There hasn't been the opportunity to since they made it obvious they would stick to their idiotic promises and drop their useful ones (i.e. since they got into power). You realise we can't just get new elections every news cycle.

Where's Sir John Kerr when you really need him? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445060)

That is all.

Re:Wake up Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444248)

Funny.. for a second there I thought you were talking about the United States...

Re:Wake up Australia (1)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444584)

You thought we have a parliament?

Re:Wake up Australia (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444282)

I can't believe the Obama administration went to Australia for broadband advice.

Re:Wake up Australia (3, Funny)

Jeeeb (1141117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444452)

Who says we are?

The Labor party (Current government) was meant to be liberal and reformist. The alternative is the Liberal party who despite there name are mostly socially conservative Christians. They just finished voting out Malcom Turnbull their former leader who was clearly too liberal and replacing him with Tony Abbot a Christian conservative who suffice to say holds a number of opinions that don't exactly resonate with the more liberally minded.

Anyway despite that I say fuck the Labor party. I'll vote for the Liberals next election. Maybe for 3 years it wouldn't be the perfect government. But it's better than voting for the status-quo of simply being ass-raped by greedy bastards.

As for young people the best way to make a real difference on this is to talk to your parents and grandparents (If they're still alive). Your vote alone isn't worth as much as the votes of both your parents and yours combined.

Re:Wake up Australia (3, Interesting)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445462)

The Labor party (Current government) was meant to be liberal and reformist. The alternative is the Liberal party who despite there name are mostly socially conservative Christians.

I refuse to believe that there is a whole continent-sized country with two and only two political parties. If you can confidently vote for neither the Labour nor Liberal parties, why not try one of the following options:

  • Vote for a third party;
  • Run as a third party candidate if no third party candidates are available in your district;
  • Spoil your ballot paper.

Don't vote for the "not quite the worst" party: use your vote responsibly.

Re:Wake up Australia (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444926)

Ha! What good has it done in the US?

Conroy is a Traitor. (4, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443940)

The new leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, is an outspoken catholic. His party has opposed the ISP-based filter in the past, so it's just possible this nasty piece of trash legislation is an attempt to politically embarrass him.

If he opposes the bill, the government can accuse him of hypocrisy. If he supports it, he faces rebellion in his own party.

But if it is brinkmanship, Conroy is playing with fire. There could be a very serious electoral backlash from this.

Re:Conroy is a Traitor. (0, Redundant)

SupplyMission (1005737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444004)

If he opposes the bill, the government can accuse him of hypocrisy.

I don't follow. How would it make Abbott a hypocrite if he opposes internet filtering?

Re:Conroy is a Traitor. (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444122)

I don't follow. How would it make Abbott a hypocrite if he opposes internet filtering?

I believe the GP meant to imply that proclaiming oneself as Catholic and speaking out against censorship could somehow mark one a hypocrite. I assume the anticipated knee-jerk reaction would consist of "He says he's a Catholic, but he doesn't want your children to be safe on the Internet" or something along those lines. I suppose the natural response would be "The responsibility falls to the parent, not the Government", though that doesn't win over as many voters as one would like.

Re:Conroy is a Traitor. (2, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444184)

How would it make Abbott a hypocrite if he opposes internet filtering?

This is politics. There will be posturing.

If Abbott opposes the filter, various family groups will be trotted out to express horror that he endorses pedophiles having access to filth on the (uncensored) internet.

Re:Conroy is a Traitor. (1)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444850)

It's sad because this is true everywhere. And while I'm preaching to the choir, I have to ask, how is child pornography already not censored? If you find a site that (regularly, as in, not some random douchebag on a forum posting it as a shock image) hosts child porn, you can alert the ISP or the cops and the site will be taken down and, if possible, its creators arrested. How much more censored can it get?

Re:Conroy is a Traitor. (1)

pleappleappleap (1182301) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444262)

Apparently to me, the implication is that a "good Catholic" should support censorship because it leads to a more "moral" society.

Re:Conroy is a Traitor. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444356)

The implication is that a Catholic politician is not really free to make his or her own decisions, as their bishop can instruct them to do things on threat of excommunication (look at Bishop Tobin's instruction to Rep. Kennedy in RI).

Religion: (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445100)

Apparently to me, the implication is that a "good Catholic" should support censorship because it leads to a more "moral" society.

Harmless?

Re:Conroy is a Traitor. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444316)

hasn't stopped the opposition from accusing those opposed to "clean feed" to have a "pro child-pornography" stance

Re:Conroy is a Traitor. (1)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444486)

This political nonsense makes the Jacob Zuma/Malema crowd in South Africa look like amateurs.

Thank God SA's not the only country with idiots in power...

Leave australia Alone (-1, Troll)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443962)

Mod me down but while I think Australians should be able to access the internet and communicate freely I think they should be left alone to work out their own problems. Australia has been under attack for a very long time and you have to bear in mind the US relationship with the Pacific region hasn't exactly been hmmm how shall we say very fair. The US has been happy to triain death squads at the school of americas http://www.soaw.org/ [soaw.org] [soaw.org] and fund the over throw of democractically ellected goverments (Chile, Nicuragua, Guatmala most recenly the atempt in Venuzuela and not to mention Syrian and Iran) so you could see the leader ship in Australia might be a little paranoid.

LEAVE AUSTRALIA ALONE! (2, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444020)

How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Australia after all it has been through!
Leave Australia alone! Right now! I mean it!

Re:LEAVE AUSTRALIA ALONE! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444648)

Making fun of Ozzies is mandatory for Americans. After all - many of the criminals shipped to Australia were first and second cousins to the criminals shipped to the American colonies, right? If we didn't bash each other verbally, we'd resort to bashing each other physically. ;^)

Whoosh. (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444822)

Apparently the GP wasn't emo enough for Runaway1956 to get the joke.

Re:Leave australia Alone (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444060)

They won't invade Australia because they already speak english and they're in the sphere of influence of the british crown.

Re:Leave australia Alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444718)

They won't invade Australia because they already speak english and they're in the sphere of influence of the british crown.

Invade? Did somebody say oil??

Re:Leave australia Alone (3, Informative)

LordAndrewSama (1216602) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444130)

I think people would be right to mod you down.

Firstly, Australia & America have been friends since WW2 when the shock of the british defeat by japan in the asian theatre(most importantly, the loss of singapore) lead to australia moving further from britain to america for defensive pacts, which would lead to trade, etc etc.

Secondly, that has _WHAT_ to do with internet censorship?

i was wondering how a thread (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444894)

about something the australian government is doing wrong can be spun into an attack on the american government

why do you have such a giant hard on for the usa?

do any governments besides washington dc actually do anything wrong in the world worthy of your condemnation?

national character? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443968)

I have to admit, this is not what I expect to see from Australians. Perhaps from Europeans who prefer their governments to make peoples' personal decisions for them, but not from Australians.

Not that we're better here in the 'states - we're sliding down some very similar slopes over here as well, maybe just a little bit behind. Maybe it's just that very few any more really care about being free peoples, and would rather have the convenience of a nanny state to protect them and make them feel safe.

Re:national character? (3, Insightful)

zblack_eagle (971870) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444076)

Us Australians don't want this except for the lunatic fringes that exist (as they exist in every other country). However, like everywhere else politicians here like to pull the tough-on-crime/think-of-the-children card when it comes to appeasing the large number of voters that favour 'shoot first and ask questions later' responses to perceived problems

Re:national character? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444334)

-1 troll? How the hell was my message a troll?

Anyway thanks for the reply zblack. I hope you're right, and these things really *don't* have much popular support, because that means there's a chance they'll get overturned eventually. But just from the culture shift I've seen in the USA in the past decades, I'm pessimistic about people's sense regarding such things. The perceived safety often outweighs the more nebulous benefits of not having government censorship.

100% Accuracy? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443974)

I'm sorry but done with 100% accuracy? I think that is an internet filtering first. I'd love to know what filtering technology they are using because it is far better than anything I've used to date.

Re:100% Accuracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444036)

They can 100% filter out a request using a specific URL assuming that it's not obfuscated or encrypted. Don't you love their statistics? They also consider 0-10% performance impact 'negligible' and a 10-20% performance impact 'low'.

Re:100% Accuracy? (1)

LordAndrewSama (1216602) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444160)

I believe that little gem came from "Politicians book of bullshit statistics, vol. 3".

Re:100% Accuracy? (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444322)

I know. I still can't believe the man had the audacity to say it. This is one of those times when a person says something so stupid it's not even stupid, so f*ed up it's not even funny, and so retarded even retarded people say, "OMGWTF?!"

OMGWTF?!

Re:100% Accuracy? (1)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444912)

But all of people blocked from the site failed to reach the site, ergo 100% of those blocked were blocked.

What happened Australia? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444016)

You used to be cool.

Re:What happened Australia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444090)

Still are dude.....except we're stuck with a few idiots in power for a short while. never fear, normal transmission will shortly be resumed. Just think back to the USA oh...a year or two ago........see how things change ?.. :)

Re:What happened Australia? (2, Insightful)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444224)

Things changed here? Sorry. I missed it. Perhaps you could enlighten us on what you think really is significantly different now.

Re:What happened Australia? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444364)

Well our president was given the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in... um... let me get back to you on that.

Re:What happened Australia? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444472)

" Perhaps you could enlighten us on what you think really is significantly different now."

I'll take a guess..
Both major political parties run by folk who wear religion on their sleeves.
There was a time not so long ago when an Australian politician's religiosity was not something that was flaunted.
Now we have politicians happy to be seen at megachurch events, and a prime minister who chose to announce additional funding for chaplains in schools at the national conference of the Australian Christian Lobby.
In recent news.. "A study of the characteristics of 2422 political speeches between 2000 and 2006 shows that politicians doubled their use of Christian terms.."

More censorship, 2am lockouts and other new rules on clubs etc, school chaplains in our supposedly secular schools, taxpayer funding of religious event 'world youth day' .. coincidence??

Re:What happened Australia? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444752)

I know what has changed!! The Illegal Aliens, allied with Wall Street criminals, have won their war. Almost all American citizens are broke, losing their homes, and wondering if they can find a job in time to buy groceries before Grandma starves. (alright, I'll compromise - it's not really "almost all" Americans - it's only somewhere between 15 and 20%)

Re:What happened Australia? (3, Funny)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445178)

Hardly any of the chicks in Neighbours are hot nowadays for starters!

Even Steph now has a few rough edges, and Susan is getting too old to be milf material.

How could you let your finest export slide like this?

Re:What happened Australia? (1)

salmonmoose (1147735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444610)

For a short while? Last decent Prime Minister we had was Keating.

Re:What happened Australia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444152)

They became apathetic.

When I was last there, the majority of people I met were more interested in drinking, surfing and watching TV than they were with politics or voting.

The only people who do care about anything at all are the small minority of crazies. These are mainly religious freaks, who continually cry and moan about "obscene" material.

Mind you, these people are probably the most deviant people around. Like many male Republicans in the US, especially those in power, they'll go on about the important of "family values" and religion, only to be caught in an airport bathroom getting fucked by three random men while performing fellatio on faucet...

Re:What happened Australia? (1)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444958)

They became apathetic.

When I was last there, the majority of people I met were more interested in drinking, surfing and watching TV than they were with politics or voting.

Is there a country where this isn't true after replacing surfing with some more culturally viable sport?

Re:What happened Australia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444400)

Thousands of years of corrupt government to reflect upon, yet the average individual is still naive enough to believe the age-old fairy tale that government and the people are "one and the same".

in democracies (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444798)

they are one and the same

the opinion of one asshole senator is not the majority voice of the australian people. so the problem will work itself out eventually

in nondemocracies, such a retarded filtering policy could be established by fiat, in spite of what the people really want. and so in nondemocracies, the government and the people really aren't the same

Re:What happened Australia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444484)

Yeah, that's what everyone outside Australia thought, but the truth is, we were never cool.... not even very close to it.

Re:What happened Australia? (1)

BlortHorc (305555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444922)

Believe me, our politicians have not been cool since the early to mid seventies.

Not saying the rest of us don't have some chops, but really, I don't know anyone who doesn't think Conroy is an unmitigated fool. He was elected because he was Labour, not because of the crazy shit he believes, and he got his cabinet position because of factional balance, despite what shit Rudd spouts about being above factional politics.

Re:What happened Australia? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445148)

I think the only "cool" Australian politician ever was Bob Hawke, even if you hated him you had to love him.

"Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up today is a bum." -- Bob Hawke, September 27th, 1983.

lame (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444030)

this is stupid, so i can make a cards game on the internet, and ignore aussia boards, and these isp are forced to block my game (maybe on sf.com?).

guys, change this aus govern NOW

Of course... (2, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444140)

Everyone (or at least, most people) here at Slashdot knows that on a network as large as the internet, no blacklist method will achieve 100% accuracy.

This, of course, means that Senator Conroy is either completely ignoring the technical results, or the technical results are being flubbed to match Senator Conroy's agenda.

Are others in your parliament actually going to vote for this bill, or is he more of a rogue senator who isn't actually supported?

Re:Of course... (1)

salmonmoose (1147735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444650)

I gather that it was 100% accurate at blocking sites on the blacklist (without interference by the user) not 100% accurate at blocking unknown content - that figure fell in the 70-80% range depending on the filter in place.

Re:Of course... (1)

Ken D (100098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445296)

and presumably it doesn't measure the accuracy of the blacklist either... as in whether or not the URLs on the blacklist A) shouldn't be there but are or B) should be there but aren't.

Re:Of course... (2, Informative)

BlortHorc (305555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445128)

Guy is a fucking turkey. iinet only took part in the trial to prove how idiotic it was, anyone who has a ssh tunnel to somewhere in the rest of the world can immediately bypass this foolish plan, and that has been pointed out to him. Repeatedly. Should I mention the turkey thing again? Not even to mention stenography, gpg encrypted emails, etc, etc, etc. This guy is without a doubt the biggest dumbfuck in the current Labour government.

Why don't we vote the other guys back in, I hear you ask? Why, because in Labour this kind of turkey is somewhat rare, whereas the Liberals/Nationals has a good half dozen or so wack jobs even loonier than him. Why are so many extremists attracted to politics in Aus? Because capable people stand to make way more in the private sector, and those very few capable people with a strong sense of ethics tend to join a party with an ethical basis, such as the Greens, who have yet to make enough traction to make useful changes to the fucked up political culture in this country.

And for what it is worth, the legislation is still just a twinkle in Conroy's eye, it hasn't even been tabled in the house of reps yet, let alone pass a hostile senate.

100% Accuracy? (1)

rainmaestro (996549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444176)

I would love to see this filter of his. I've never seen a filter for *anything* that could truly be said to be 100% accurate.

Re:100% Accuracy? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444456)

The one for Conroy's job seems to have been 100% successful in filtering out sanity.

Re:100% Accuracy? (1)

KDEnut (1673932) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444466)

They've just rounded 50.1 to the nearest hundred.

That way they can keep it to one significant digit and all...

Re:100% Accuracy? (1)

straponego (521991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444744)

Anybody who claims 100% accuracy in such a context is 100% lying, or 100% incompetent, or both.

Remember - it's the Government, not Australians (3, Interesting)

ajv (4061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444304)

This is an EPIC FAIL.

Australia has led technology trends and adoption for so long, and the Government is prepared to kill it and our children's future for a single lousy vote of a Senator who has the support of exactly no one.

The Government is terribly misguided on this one. Conroy might be pushing this as a wedge policy, he might be doing it for Fielding's support, but this issue alone will lose the ALP the next election, as well as many for years to come.

All of Gen i, Y and X will remember this and vote accordingly for years to come. The ALP will be in the wilderness for many elections, and struggle to form a strong government in their own right without doing the independent / Greens coalition tango that is working soooo well for them right now.

Seriously, I could see the Greens take this to the election and coupled with effective climate change policies and no internet censoring, they could become the balance of power for years.

Conroy is Public Enemy #1. He has committed electoral suicide for himself and his Government. I really do think they have no idea exactly how unpopular this policy will be.

In short - how to fight this thing:

* Ring your politicians tomorrow. All of them. Make the phones run hot.
* Write them letters.
* Ask to see them. Talk to them about this issue, and only this issue.
* Write letters to the news sites
* Blog and Twitter and Facebook away.
* Attend rallies. Publish photos and write ups about same.
* Join the EFA.
* Sign up to Get Up if you feel inclined
* Use #nocleanfeed religiously.
* Do not do work for Conroy's department. Resign or transfer if you work there.
* Support ISPs that are against this idea. Leave ISPs that support it or who have no position.

If it becomes law, mass civil disobedience is required. I will be blogging about how to get around the filtering.

Re:Remember - it's the Government, not Australians (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444502)

I will be blogging about how to get around the filtering.

It seems that the URL to your blog was filtered out.

They're at it already!

Re:Remember - it's the Government, not Australians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444878)

You do realize the vast majority is much more passive than this. Don't worry, the politicians of late in Australia and America are already finished. They realize it, and that is why they are making these mad grabs for power: they have nothing left to lose (e.g., censorship in Australia, Government controlled healthcare in America, etc). The only difference is that the Autralian bullshit is an easy one to fudge in comparison in that it effects fewer people (as opposed to the whole populace).

"technically competent users" are a lot these days (1)

ihavenospine (541249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444320)

This will work till the next pedo scandal. Then the average citizens will ask themselves where the hell their taxes are going.

clearly a humbug reason for filtering (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444558)

"Why did the Government cease providing free PC filters when ISP filtering will not be available until 2011?
The PC filter program experienced low take-up and very low ongoing use. It was therefore closed to new users six months earlier than originally planned.
Only around 12.5 per cent of the approximately two million households with dependent children and an internet connection are estimated to have tried one of these filters, and less than one per cent of these households continue to use their filters."

1% of the population still uses this filtering ...
12% has tried it out ...
this means:
  88 % of all people didn't even want to try it out,
out of the remaining 12%, 90% of those who've tried it out dumped it afterwards ...
conclusion: 99% of your population do not want filtering, the other 1% can still filter their own PC by installing the software on their own PC.

a short story (1)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444854)

The EU decided to censor things on the internet. I was concerned, but didn't speak up because I wasn't from Europe The Britons decided to censor things on the internet. I was worried, but didn't speak up because I wasn't from Briton. The Australians decided to do it too. I was scared, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't Australian. When they did it here, there was nobody left to stand alongside me

But if it's to protect the people ... (1)

ScientiaPotentiaEst (1635927) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444856)

... from hackers, thieves, terrorists and child pornographers, they'll roll over and accept it. The general media will no doubt paint it as such (old media typically hates the series of pipes - it circumvents them).

There'll be some whining among fringe groups such as us here on /. But we'll do nothing more than that. We'll go back to wanting those very same censoring governments to "protect" us similarly (job security, health care, global warming, etc.). We give the Devil his power - and we're surprised when he uses it against us.

I generalize of course. But the pattern is clear and repeating. Sadly.

Re:But if it's to protect the people ... (1)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445514)

yeah, if the content was illegal (such as child pornography or terrorists) the government could just take down the website by tipping off another government and doing a police raid. this is about control of things that were, until now, legal. such as file sharing websites and hacking tools

Links/contact details for protest groups ? (1)

SirKveldulv (1073650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444900)

Are there any existing groups dedicated to opposing this ?

I'd like to do something constructive to help make sure this sort of BS doesn't end up as national policy.

Conroy, if nothing else, is persistent, so the problem isn't going to go away after 1-2 rounds of failure.

Riiiiight... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30445502)

The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed

Riiight...

Protip: Darknet [wikipedia.org] , tunneling proxy [wikipedia.org] , EPIC FAIL [encycloped...matica.com] . ^^

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...