Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Australian Gov't Claims Internet Filter Legislation Still In Play

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the too-slightly-good-to-be-true dept.

Australia 98

Dracophile writes "Contrary to yesterday's article about The Australian's report that the Australian government had put on the back burner plans to introduce Internet filter legislation before the next election, The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the government rejected claims that it had abandoned such plans, and that 'a spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the government remained committed to the policy.' Unless the Australian Labor Party abandons the plan altogether, will the timing make any difference to voters?"

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

I'm a voter... (4, Informative)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054184)

I'm a voter and it makes all the difference to me, so to answer your question... yes.

Re:I'm a voter... (4, Insightful)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054482)

The answer is that Labour are too scared of campaigning with the measure on their manifesto that they're kicking it into the light rough and will pick it back up just as soon as the election is over.

Re:I'm a voter... (3, Interesting)

stainlesssteelpat (905359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054610)

I normally vote labour, unless this gets scrapped by labour they won't get my vote. I'll probably move to the US with my partner if this ever comes in over here. Add to that the reluctance for the Australian government, liberal and labour, to adopt a bill of rights or constitution and it looks like my home is becoming somewhere I don't want to call home or raise my family.

Re:I'm a voter... (3, Informative)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054750)

We do have a constitution [comlaw.gov.au] . The bill of rights, however, is not in existence. We don't have anything similar to what the US has though. Probably due to having a completely different form of democracy.

Re:I'm a voter... (1)

stainlesssteelpat (905359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054774)

You are completely correct sir. I stand corrected. I was trying to refer to the fact that both sides voted down the bill of rights that the democrats put forth. I seem to recall our pollies decided that having judges rule on issues connected to a bill of rights. Somehow I think a bill of rights would be safer in the hands of some of our less salubrious judges like Enfield than abbot or Krudd.

too bad you didn't follow canadian democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056948)

our charter of rights and freedoms would prevent such a filter in several ways
and we too are a constitutional monarchy and part of the lil league of former brit nations
but i say you hsould get it so yuo learn how bad life can be under oppression and gt to valuing your true freedoms , perhaps the wars of the past that brave men and women fought for have been forgotten on the youth of today.

Perhaps the 60's are still under copyright and patents....

Re:too bad you didn't follow canadian democracy (2, Interesting)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 4 years ago | (#32060570)

I think the main reason they never wanted a bill of rights is that it would immediately come in to play to point out violations of Illegal Immigrants rights who have been unlawfully detained. By not having a bill of rights they can just ignore the problem.

Re:too bad you didn't follow canadian democracy (1)

atomicstrawberry (955148) | more than 4 years ago | (#32068650)

They never wanted one because they didn't feel it was necessary. The idea is that if the government infringes on what is seen as our rights, they will to be voted out.

Of course it's a fairly naive approach since it completely ignores the issue that arises when you have a system dominated by two parties who both have the same policy. You're pretty much screwed if none of the parties represent your opinions, you end up having to pick the least horrible.

If anything though, I'd say that the reluctance to introduce a bill of rights is related to the condition of aboriginal communities more than it is detaining illegal immigrants.

Re:I'm a voter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055580)

If the filter happens in Australia, it will start a trend and eventually make it too the US.

Once one country gets it "right" they'll all do it.

In any case.. (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056718)

The suggestion that the Rudd government has dumped the proposed legislation was only in an opinion article on The Australian [theaustralian.com.au] . No other media that I found at the time (except Slashdot, of course) indicated anything to the contrary.

Voters are welcome to live in the fantasy world of their choice, but the truth is that Kevin Rudd and his cronies are a big disappointment, as there is little to distinguish them from their predecessors.

Re:I'm a voter... (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32060028)

I wonder if the US will accept Australian refugees?

Re:I'm a voter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32061000)

If you live in Victoria, there's another option at your disposal: Vote below the line, and put Conroy last. You can vote for whomever you like in the lower house or in other places on the Senate ticket.

Oh, and tell your friends.

Re:I'm a voter... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#32075452)

I normally vote labour, unless this gets scrapped by labour they won't get my vote. I'll probably move to the US with my partner if this ever comes in over here.

And to think only a few years ago I was considering Australia as a fallback.

Re:I'm a voter... (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32060014)

Exactly, this move is pretty much the most undemocratic thing they can do.

Re:I'm a voter... (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055424)

Yeah but the IT portion of the voting population is quite small. This wont have any drastic impact on Labors chances of winning next election.

Scent of a lady's underwear. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054186)

In my mind, there is nothing quite like the scent of a lady's underwear- the stink of wet panties.

White with a streak of yellow reek
A shitty pink
A most unladylike stink
From a fragrant lubricated leak.

Voting. (3, Insightful)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054194)

Election soon make your choice giant douche or turd sandwich. Whoever wins we get censorship like china mark my words.

Re:Voting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054246)

^^ this.

It's a pretty terrible time to be an Australian voter.

Re:Voting. (4, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054274)

Ha! Now you know how us Americans feel about elections! Take that!

Re:Voting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054360)

Ha! Now you know how us Americans feel about elections! Take that!

Yeah, but unlike Americans, we're forced to vote.

Re:Voting. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054386)

Yeah vote or get fined. don't pay the fine and they take away your drivers license and car registration. Fucking fascists.

Re:Voting. (1)

_merlin (160982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054438)

Not really - they send you a "please explain" form and a list of valid excuses not to vote. If don't want to be fined, just claim to be Amish - it works. The other way is with an "informal vote" - write "Donald Duck" or something equally stupid in the "other candidate" field and vote 1 for them.

Re:Voting. (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054510)

Or don't even drop the ballot paper in. Once they cross your name off you are good to go.

Re:Voting. (1)

blake1 (1148613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054640)

I am not even on the electoral roll but am considering signing up to give Labor my last preference.

Re:Voting. (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056752)

I am not even on the electoral roll but am considering signing up to give Labor my last preference.

Please reconsider. Family First [familyfirst.org.au] is even worse.

Re:Voting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054982)

By not voting, you give about $2 to the major parties because of public money candidate electoral funding refunds.

Those annoying pre-election ads - you are paying for them.
So vote ANY OTHER person/party as 1,2,3,4 etc then put Labor /Libs last according to who you hate the most.

This way, the big parties get less $$ out of the electoral funding pig trough - and they get to feel being sneaky or toughing it out - has consequences - more than some overstuffed congress critters ego.

Re:Voting. (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32061100)

Speaking as someone who's going to be counting your votes, please don't do this. At the end of election day, we have to account for every ballot paper that we can, and it causes no end of headaches if there's a significant discrepancy between the number of ballot papers issued and the number counted. In the worst case, it can trigger a complete recount of that polling station, and we all have to go home late (at no extra pay, I might add).

If you're upset by the rules, I understand that, but it's not those who make the rules who are going to be inconvenienced by this action.

If you honestly want to vote informal, that's your right. We can't stop you. But please take some pity on your polling officials and just drop the ballot paper in the damn box. It's no less convenient for you and a lot more convenient for us.

Re:Voting. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32061366)

Fair enough. I always vote correctly (except the time the City of Maroondah sent me seven postal voting letters in fake names) but for people who don't want to do that it sounds like an informal vote is the way to go.

Re:Voting. (2, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054440)

Ok i've marked your words. if liberals win, we won't have a national filter. the last liberal government had a filtering program - free software to install on your pc. seems pretty fair and cheap to me.

Re:Voting. (2, Informative)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054518)

Tony Abbot on Q&A only talked about technical issues. He's all for it.

Re:Voting. (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054526)

Trying to nail the liberal party down on a will-we-wont-we question is nearly damned impossible. They're falling back to the bullshit "we need to think of the children" line a lot, which to me sounds like a we-will line. Whatever happens we're going to get ass fucked by our latest batch of dumbass politicians.

Re:Voting. (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055452)

I guess voting libs might put another minister in charge rather than Conroy, someone who might impose a smart solution rather than whats already put forward.

I believe the filter is being sold in the wrong way, if they want to maintain border control on what gets into the country, just like what we do with immigration, mail transit, shipping etc. Then that's fine go right ahead, it wont change my internet life one bit.

At present stage, it leaves too much possibility of what could be done with the filter, restricting websites that are really not doing any harm and what it boils down too is if you try to get a non IT savvy person to sell an IT based concept, it gets misunderstood and then becomes poorly executed.

Re:Voting. (3, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054622)

The Liberals where only waiting for Narus like packet tech to become cheaper for average isps.
Now they can see it can be done they will keep it.
Try the http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/no_internet_censorship/ [democrats.org.au]
or
http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-tell-labor-abandon-net-filter-and-start-again [greensmps.org.au]
Both of the big parties in Australian have been infected by faith based groups with long term plans.

Re:Voting. (0, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055154)

we are a resources based economy, how will the greens balance their environmental policies with, well, everything else? so far i haven't seen them willing to budge on a single thing, and they just take sides with what ever environmental flavour of the month is.

Re:Voting. (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054706)

That program is still available today and is used on government owned computers and by 5% of private connections. However originally the Liberals had a madatory filter in their own legislation and Labor knocked it back in the senate. Now for purely political reasons the roles have reversed.

Mark my words; There will never be a mandatory filter.

This Machevelian shit has been going on for at least a decade, the two major parties take turns at being good cop / bad cop. Neither of them have any intention of making a madatory filter happen they simply go through the motions of a trial in order to buy the votes of certain nooby independent senatators who have no idea they are being scammed.

In other words the trials are Labor's payment for the senate votes of Fielding and Xenophon who both had a mandatory filter as part of their platform and are both needed by Labor to push legislation through the senate (along with the greens). In the Howard government the senate numbers were reversed so the Liberals were the ones buying senate votes with a promise to trial a mandatory filter which they did and like Labor's current trial it went on forever with no firm conclusion.

Why do you think the Liberals never make a big deal out of their (current) opposition to it in the press?

Re:Voting. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055126)

You are of course right that this is helping labor buy votes in the senate. however i'm not at all convinced that they wouldn't go ahead anyway. Labor are the bigger bunch of control freaks compared to the liberals, you have to remember almost his whole cabinet are union bosses, they like to have everything their own way. The Howard government commisioned research into filtering options, where a national filter like the one labor is proposing was ruled out for techincal reasons. thats when the filtering software program was introduced.

if both either party could swing it, i think they would, just looking at the facts Labor want it that little bit more.

Re:Voting. (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056776)

Mark my words; There will never be a mandatory filter.

Don't worry, I will.

Re:Voting. (3, Insightful)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054722)

All elections are rigged, no matter what you do a politician always wins.

Don't blame me I voted for Kodos? (1)

Bielenberg (725555) | more than 4 years ago | (#32060726)

Election soon make your choice giant douche or turd sandwich. Whoever wins we get censorship like china mark my words.

Under the guise of humor or cynicism you Sneakily present a false dichotomy... suggesting the options Labour (left) and Liberal (right) are mutually exhaustive. This is not the case and our choice for an open or shut internet is not the catch-22 many dread! The above exaggeration -however amusing- perpetuates dangerous ignorance.

Admittedly some third-party candidates will -through preference deals and coalitions- support the election of one of two potential prime ministers. Also lower-house elections -having such small electorates where only one candidate can victor- does favor a two party system : even coalitions will continue the drive for mediocrity to win over the median voter.

On the other hand : the Senate is more proportionally representative of society's diverse views because whole states and territories are the electorates or so to speak. Minority views, parties and independents have a decent chance there. Take the Greens senators for example, who happen to be opposed to the filter. Huzzah for democracy! I still want more of it only the demoralizing two-party fallacy restricts true proportional representation.

The current Labour government relies upon the Greens (+ 1 more senator) to pass much legislation the Lib's don't condone (because KRudd does not wield a majority in the upper-house). To be my own devils advocate, one may worry the Greens could 'sell out' on the issue to achieve a higher strategic objective (e.g. save the world - perhaps through a reduction in carbon emissions targets). The Lib's could also make bargains. Such flip-flops are unheard of in the federal Australian senate.

But would any man suggest the Pirate Party of Australia would compromise and vote in such threats to liberty? Tell him he's dream'n!

What do you expect from a union hack? (1)

PerformanceDude (1798324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054204)

Senator Conroy is a union hack. He has no qualifications in networking or communications. All he is experienced in is bullying to get things his way. Hence why that stupid kiddie porn comment comes up all the time. In addition he is supported by the Australian Christian Lobby as is the Australian prime minister. Fact remains: wikileaks was on the blacklist for the trial. Now why would that be the case? I just wish some journalist would ask that question and demand that the senator provides a very good explanation.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (4, Insightful)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054230)

I didn't know about the Wikileaks thing, so I went looking and read this [techradar.com] . Thanks for that. This is getting worse every time I hear about the filter. I hope that one of the parties goes against this, otherwise I will have to vote greens... the only people opposing this travesty.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054394)

Are you sure the greens won't sell us out for environmental causes? I'm sure as hell not.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (3, Interesting)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054558)

I'm not at all sure the greens won't sell us out for environmental causes - but given both major parties want this "so stupid it's indistinguishable from evil" filter, and labour is already selling us out to the fundies while the liberals seem to be running around with their heads alternately chopped off or buried in the sand... I'm thinking it's one of those situations where we're better off with the devil we don't know.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (2, Informative)

Joakal (1317443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054892)

Why the hell would you elect someone you don't know? Did you know there's 21 federal parties such as the Liberal Democratic party? Non-custodial parents party? Here's a list of Political parties in Australia [wikipedia.org] or officially from your independent electoral site: Current register of Federal parties [aec.gov.au]

Our system is far better than USA with Preferential voting [wikipedia.org] and Proportional representation [wikipedia.org] . I'll give a quick example:

  • Awesome party: 25% votes
  • Excitement party: 35% votes
  • Plain party: 40% votes

Guess who wins with USA's system? Plain party. With Australia's system, and Awesome party transfers 25% to Excitement party, Excitement party gets elected at 60%. A really good example in real life is 2007 Federal Election: South Australia [abc.net.au]

The independent electoral system works here. There's information provided if you simply google their websites. The media seems to not wish to report minor parties (probably because a few of them seem quiet). Voting for some unknown because you think you have no idea is just bloody stupid.

There's also a website to promoting awareness of other parties (Disclaimer: My website). There is:

  • Federal parties list [shockseat.com]
  • Issues [shockseat.com] Want to know party positions of MySchool.edu.au? It's there.
  • Safe Seat [shockseat.com] One of the political articles.
  • About [ShockSeat] [shockseat.com] I'm tackling the ridiculous apathy and there's a youth study that shows non-normative intentions are on the rise. Non-normative means non-peaceful protests.

I'm currently having trouble [shockseat.com] trying to get information from federal parties themselves. If you have any influence, ask them to respond to the contacts I have sent out. It may be because I have no power, or the like. I have only received one refused response so far. It would be greatly appreciated!

I implore you, please make a valid formal vote to a party that almost if not fully represents you.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (1)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055974)

Thankyou for the links. I have some reading to do...

I note that by "don't know" I meant they've never been the ruling party, so we can't use any such history to form expectations about how good a job they'd do. Sorry that wasn't clear.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055188)

"but given both major parties want this "so stupid it's indistinguishable from evil" filter"

The Liberals don't. Senator Mary-Jo Fisher said so [thepunch.com.au] .

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (2, Insightful)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055280)

Until Tony Abbot says so they will not get my vote.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055368)

"I'm not at all sure the greens won't sell us out for environmental causes "

Sell you out for environmental causes? Sell you out to who precisely? Mother Earth?

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (1)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056016)

Some "environmental causes" believe "Mother Earth" would be better off if we went back to a stone age lifestyle or knocked ourselves off.

I am not suggesting the Greens are into either, mind you, just that the religious and the greedy don't have a monopoly on stupid ideas.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054562)

what does that even mean?

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (1)

Bat Dude (1449125) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055552)

The Greens give there preference to Labour so still no win. What we need is a Anti Christian party....ooops did i say that.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (1)

atomicstrawberry (955148) | more than 4 years ago | (#32068684)

The Democrats also oppose it, but they haven't really been a significant political force in quite a while. May not be a wasted vote to try and put them in the senate though.

I'm not sure if they've been officially registered yet, but the Pirate Party may be somewhat of an option as well, depending on your stance on IP issues in addition to the filtering.

Re:What do you expect from a union hack? (1)

Trentus (1017602) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054748)

...demand that the senator provides a very good explanation.

Easier said than done... even in parliament question time all he does is waffle on about crap until his time is up [youtube.com] .

I did like the little "I thank the senator for his attempt to answer the question" quip Ludlam threw in...

Say one thing, but do another (1)

bguiz (1627491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054214)

What they are saying:

The spokeswoman said reports that a promise to introduce the filter before the next election had been shelved were incorrect.

What they are doing:

A spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday the legislation would not be introduced next month's or the June sittings of parliament.

With parliament not sitting again until the last week of August, the laws are unlikely to be passed before the election.

Politicians say one thing and then go ahead and do another. When confronted, they'll double-speak, reframe the issue, or change the topic. Happens all the time - nothing new to politics.

But in this particular case, the gov't's packpedalling on their promises results in a good thing, so I'm not complaining.

I'm a voter and... (1)

rzzzwilson (748598) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054228)

I have already made up my mind that the Labor party will rank second-last in my preferences, just above the Coalition. And I've voted Labor all my life. No more!

Re:I'm a voter and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054270)

It's people like you which caused this problem, they stated they were going to do this before they were elected.

Re:I'm a voter and... (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054402)

No before the election it was an OPT OUT filter. After they got elected it became mandatory, for everyone.

Re:I'm a voter and... (2, Informative)

adona1 (1078711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054410)

No, no they didn't. They stated they were supporting an opt-in filter. This was in all their media releases. If they slipped in a mention of it being mandatory prior to the election, it was either (deliberately) under the radar or they think if they repeat it often enough we'll all believe it.

Pro-tip - we don't.

Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054236)

PLEASE ignore the stupid ass laws we were going to pass and re-elect us!

We promise not to try to pass that stupid crap again. (until after re-elected that is)

The other great moral issue of our time. (2, Insightful)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054272)

The government does need some wins before the election. Being tough on enemies of the state such as people smugglers and Internet predators may appeal to conservative voters who might otherwise switch back to the coalition.

So don't expect this to necessarily be swept under the carpet as the govt don't want to give Tony Abbott any further ammunition on backflips.

Re:The other great moral issue of our time. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056326)

Why do we hire a government for years anyway?
It should be like a job: First a probation period of 6 months, where it requires only a certain amount of people to sign to get them out of office. (Motto: Let’s see if they keep their promises!)
Then there is an increasing firing delay (with an upper limit), to model trust and forgiving small errors [they’re only human after all]). But for both sides. (So a politician can’t just “step down”, and hence will be much more wary before doing something that could have him stay in office for weeks while getting the full attention and hatred back. And so we can find another one without having anarchy in the meantime.)

But hey. In my opinion, government is still a monopoly. And monopolies are bad. So we should have competition of parallel governments in one country. Just how this would work is still a bit hard to come up with. :/

The filter must not go ahead! (3, Insightful)

Mick R (932337) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054286)

Trying to remove child and violent porn is a good thing, but this filter will give the government unchallenged power to control what Australians read and hear online. It will allow them to silence critics and squash any kind of dissension and debate. Once in place ANY party, whoever is in power, will be able to control far too much information. If it goes ahead there is no IF it will be abused, only a matter of WHEN.

Re:The filter must not go ahead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054334)

This is just pre-planning for when Australia merges with China millions of years from now.

Re:The filter must not go ahead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054508)

REMEMBER: BOTH parties are supporting The Filter.

The will of the people HAS NO CHANCE of success.

The only good solution is to pack up your bags and leave.

After the government installs the censorship regime, Australia as we loved it will be destroyed.

Time to leave the sinking ship, let all the incoming boat people have it.

Re:The filter must not go ahead! (3, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054616)

There is no 'when' either. It will be abused right from the get go.

Re:The filter must not go ahead! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056344)

There is a beautiful quote about this from a fellow Slashdotter:

“Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're ''lying''. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.”
meringuoid (568297) [slashdot.org] @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454 [slashdot.org] )

Re:The filter must not go ahead! (2, Insightful)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055272)

Trying to remove child and violent porn is a good thing

Right there is where the problem starts.

Re:The filter must not go ahead! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056436)

Don’ you get it? By hiding away the child porn, you don’t stop the CP from being created!
No, you actually only conceal it, and thereby protect it.

So this filter is actually making those “politicians” pro-child-porn. And ” unknowingly or not — you too.
It does nothing to stop the child abuse (*hinthint* original point *hinthint*) from being done! Zero.

But hey, that’s what you get from a culture of people who take painkillers and other problem-ignorers / symptom-treaters, instead of actually... you know... learn to prevent the problem in the first place! (Ohh, but that’s hard, and nobody can make a profit from it...? Cry me a river. Or and fuck the motherfuckers [youtube.com] ! ;)

Re:The filter must not go ahead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32122062)

Care to explain why removing violent porn is a good thing?

Wll we or won't we (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054404)

..its just keeping Conroy in the news, giving him lots of data points on whether this is good or bad for him. I don't see much of a point in having a /. article on each and every apparent change.

Wish I could skip to the end.

Re:Wll we or won't we (1)

bakes (87194) | more than 4 years ago | (#32059774)

He should have enough data points by now on how bad it is for him. (Unless they are all being filtered out of course).

Here's my prediction for the end - Conroy is not returned at the next election, and the internet filter issue dies a quiet death.

Forget all your basic freedoms... (1)

CondeZer0 (158969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054416)

and think of the children [cat-v.org] !!!!!

for those about to rock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054514)

go vote against this crap

Re:for those about to rock (2, Insightful)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054674)

Both parties support it. You don't think that raving fascist fundamentalist Catholic Tony Abbot doesn't want a repressive filter in place? Then you're more deluded than they are.

Re:for those about to rock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055210)

Just because you say that doesn't mean he's like that. He's repeatedly spoken out against the filter, even to me personally when I sent him questions about it not only by email but also on his Daily Telegraph blog. He won't do it.

Re:for those about to rock (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056012)

Really? Care to provide some links to Abbot conclusively speaking out against internet censorship? If you can provide them I may just vote liberal party for the first time in my life.

I'm betting you cannot provide those links.

Weasel Politics (2, Insightful)

Usekh (557680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054560)

It's a clever bit of politics. If they delay until after the election then they can claim they have a mandate for it. And fuck knows, only the most sociopathic would elect the mad monk so they will get in.

Re:Weasel Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054728)

And fuck knows, only the most sociopathic would elect the mad monk so they will get in.

Given that modern Australia is composed of a high number of sociopaths, it's actually quite likely that Abbott will win.

Dear Labor Party (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32054586)

Scrap the filter policy and quite a number of us will vote for you again.

I really don't want the Liberal Party back in power.

Re:Dear Labor Party (1)

Jawcracker Fuzz (1773468) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054644)

I don't really want cigarette filters back in power. Vvvvvvvhmmmmm

no vote for any government that supports censorshi (2, Interesting)

jism (1799346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054730)

No vote for any government that supports censorship - whether they put it on the back burner or not. This just shows how dim and gullible they think the Australian public are. Unfortunately they are correct. The majority of Australians have no idea what 'the thin end of the wedge' means, and will just let this lithping fool stick the fat end right up there. Basically they have already lost my vote by supporting this conroy rubbish for years now with as little discussion as possible, and regardless of all points of view against it. In fact I find it despicable that the Prime Minister will not even stand up and support this censorship policy openly. He doesn't want to be tarred with the brush and instead just tacitly supports conroy. At this stage, the only way for them to win my vote back is by promising to completely scrap this censorship and to also denounce the attorney general M Atkinson for his deplorable efforts to restrict free speech. No doubt (in my opinion) he was just doing their dirty work anyway. So, no, the timing doesn't matter at all.

what a choice - thought police or climate sceptic (1)

jism (1799346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054792)

the sad thing is that with this government actually seeming to give at least a little-damn about the environment, this could have been the first time in my life that I've actually had a major party (government or opposition) that I wouldn't mind voting for. I'm sure many young people around australia might feel the same after seeing howard completely ignore the real issues time and time and time again. But labour had to go and ruin it with this censorship etc. And what have we got on the other side - a climate sceptic in speedos.

We need to get out there and show why it wont work (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054918)

Someone needs to come up with a demonstration that normal people will understand (people who know nothing about "the internet" except that you have to click on the blue E to get to it and that its full of "bad" things like child pornography, violent video games and Muslims urging other Muslims to kill people who arent Muslim) that shows exactly why this filter wont do the things that the government claims it will do (including blocking all the "bad" content) and how easy it will be to bypass the filter. (and bypass it in ways that cant be detected easily)

Re:We need to get out there and show why it wont w (1)

PerformanceDude (1798324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055134)

Well, Exit International (the Euthanasia assistance group) are already training elderly people in how to bypass [abc.net.au] the filter. They run organised classes that makes sure people are not denied critical information. I salute them!

Re:We need to get out there and show why it wont w (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055144)

They know it won't work but they are going for the "think of the children" vote.
The even more depressing thing is it comes out of the same budget that should be used for the less than thirty cops who have the job of actually tracking down the pedophiles on the net so it is counterproductive.

Re:We need to get out there and show why it wont w (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055602)

Thats the whole point of my post, we show the "think of the children" crowd that the Rudd proposal wont do a thing to stop child pornography or other "bad" internet content and that the money is better spent going after the pedophiles and pornographers who create the "bad" content in the first place.

Re:We need to get out there and show why it wont w (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#32059164)

Someone needs to come up with a demonstration [...]

No, they don't. The reason to be against censorship is a fundamental one of principle, not because of technical limitations in implementing it.

Liberal broadband (2, Insightful)

anarche (1525323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055014)

I find it interesting that everybody is up in arms over this filter, and ready to vote Liberal second last; yet the Liberal party is ready to scrap the NBN, setting Australia's broadband infrastructure back another 3 years...

Re:Liberal broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055080)

Sounds like the lesser of two evils to me.

I don't want an NBN if the price is a mandatory secret government filter. Besides, with that imbecile Conroy in charge of it, he's sure to fuck up the NBN anyway.

He'll be history anyway (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055130)

After the election there will be a different junior Minister in the role. Thanks to Telstra the portfolio of Communications is a punishment post.
At least that's how it's been and that's what I hope will happen. Conroy will make life hell for a completely different industry.
There's no chance of a Liberal or National Minister in the role. The Liberals at the moment couldn't win a chook raffle with all the tickets let alone an election. Rudd's just going to throw their own policies at them and they will reflexively oppose them and have nowhere to stand and nobody but the rusted on voters.

A matter of timing (1)

ignavus (213578) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055042)

Unless the Australian Labor Party abandons the plan altogether, will the timing make any difference to voters?

Well, yes, the timing would make a difference. If they were to schedule it to begin in (say) 2100, I would be quite happy.

My prediction. (1)

femto (459605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055056)

That the government doesn't really want this unpopular law or filter. What it really wants is the support of Senator Steve Fielding. Thus the aim is to string the implementation out, and maintain Fielding's support, until after the elections, at which point Fielding will most likely lose the balance of power. The Internet filter will then be killed off.

Well - I think I'll start submitting everything... (1)

PerformanceDude (1798324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055224)

The block list is based on submissions from the public that is then reviewed by the classification board. So once this goes in, I'm going to submit anything that I encounter on the web that I personally find offensive. I might even for amusements sake (given that Conroy is backed by the Australian Christian Lobby) submit any and all nasty bible references I can find with Google (there are after all a few things in the bible that should be RC). I could then add a few government websites that informs me about taxes I don't agree with and therefore find offensive and maybe some news aggregators that make references to politicians. I find politicians like Conroy offensive as do a lot of my peers, so by the definition that a reasonable adult must find something offensive for it to be RC - well Conroy should be RC. The bureacracy is obliged to review every submission. They would soon drown in sheer volume. My point is: the concept and implementation is just so stupid and unworkable and dangerous it defies belief. How many censors would they need just to keep up and given the censorship list is secret, who reviews the censors? If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.

Ban Stephen Conroy from entry into the US and UK (1)

voss (52565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055306)

The US routinely bars human rights violators from entering the US why not in this case?
Cant we get him on to the US no-fly list?

Im sure the UK has similar laws.

Re:Ban Stephen Conroy from entry into the US and U (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32060048)

It's not just Conroy we need to also ban Kevin Rudd he is after all Conroys boss.

i'm gonna keep this one real short (1)

shnull (1359843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32058638)

fuck 'em , the net is global
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?