Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Australian Government May Shelve Internet Filter

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the making-enough-noise dept.

Censorship 143

RobHart writes "It is reported that the proposed filters are seen as too toxic a policy to take to the next federal election — due later this year. This is according to a spokesman for the Greens party. A Labor senator has called for the filter to be opt-in."

cancel ×

143 comments

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

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613226)

first post

Re:first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613264)

first mod

Still not going to vote for you! (4, Insightful)

Jeeeb (1141117) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613284)

I don't care if they keep or drop the policy at this point. I'm still not going to vote for them. They've shown their colours. Hopefully other voters who care about this issue are the same and show them that we care because Australia doesn't need both its major political parties appealing to the Christian right.

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613712)

I don't care if they keep or drop the policy at this point. I'm still not going to vote for them. They've shown their colours. Hopefully other voters who care about this issue are the same and show them that we care because Australia doesn't need both its major political parties appealing to the Christian right.

Because remember, if people do something wrong, there is no redemption whatsoever. Never. Obviously, they can never change their minds, be educated, or see the light. I know this because I read comic books and watch cartoons with painfully one-dimensional characters and absurd plot twists and I'm a geek so I'm so very very smart.

We need to be more like our primitive, revenge-based brethren in terrorist groups. Just like them, proudly carrying, preserving, and showing off our deep, bitter scars for every minor transgression ever perpetrated against our people EVAR will surely win the public to our way of thinking!

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613938)

...troll

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (1)

Stolovaya (1019922) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613948)

Hey, good for you for NRTFA!! "on the list of politically toxic subjects that you don't in your right mind run during an election campaign" What "education" is happening among politicians there? They are showing that the only reason they don't push this forward is because PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT; why else would you keep it on the down-low during an election season? Once their positions are secure, then they'll move right back to their old way of thinking. Oh, sorry, you were just trolling? Okay, carry on.

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32615204)

Because remember, if people do something wrong, there is no redemption whatsoever.

Dropping a bill isn't redemption. Redemption requires issuing a public statement that the filter is a horrible idea (and why), an apology for frightening their constituents, and a promise that they will vote against any attempts to resurrect the compulsory filter. Merely saying, "We can't get to it until later," is a strong indicator that redemption has not occurred.

The GP is right: they've shown their colours -- their present colours.

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32616482)

Redemption is passing a law Prohibiting such filters and an adding a special provision that introducing any amendment or repeal legislation requires a 90% vote in favor.

However I'm almost certain any country which lets one rogue minister propose this in the first place has no provisions for such protections in their laws.

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32617150)

Such "protection" are probably unconstitutional in most western countries - and they should be. "Locking" any kind of law that way would be too dangerous.

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32617314)

Yes, wouldn't want to lock in freedom. Jeeze what was I thinking?

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32617760)

If the mechanism exists for a "freedom" law, it exists for any kind of law. Next someone will pass a law to give the "freedom" from prosecution if crimes are committed by members of the government...

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (3, Informative)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32615358)

People have been speculating that the proposed filter will die stillborn for a long time.

They are misguided on several counts:
(1) Unless a double-dissolution election is called (and I'm not at all sure whether that can happen at this late stage), Sen. Conroy's seat is safe for another term.
(2) This filter is a sacred cow of his, and his fellow nanny-stater MPs, including the Prime Minister.
(3) The so-called "Liberal" opposition has frequently mentioned that it is in favour of such a policy, but knows well enough that people object to it enough that they will have to implement it by stealth after the election. In the meantime, all they have to do is let the Government's newfound unpopularity work for them.
(4) The Greens, despite their many redeeming qualities, also have more than their fair share of nanny-staters who are happy to go along with such a filter.
(5) We can count on minority right-wingers like Family First and a lot of independents also going along with it, again thinking of the damned children.

I won't count this proposal disposed of until every last politician is burnt at the stake. We just can't depend on them to defend our interests.

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32615820)

Precisely.

There was a Democrat in my district who tried to vote against healthcare, against the stimulus bill, and so on to appease the increasingly anti-government voters. We didn't buy his sudden change. He lost.

Re:Still not going to vote for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32617274)

Of course he lost; he threw away his base to chase after a noisy minority. Pursuing bipartisanship has been the Democratic Party's weakness for decades.

And then after? (5, Insightful)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613290)

So when you go ask a politician if they intend on bringing the filter online after the election, they won't answer you?

Re:And then after? (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613532)

No, they'll answer you, they'll tell you what you want to hear.

Then...they'll do whatever the hell they want. What? You elected them!

(Sadly, that's how it seems to go all over the world.)

Re:And then after? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613704)

It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all those others that have been tried from time to time. -Churchill

Re:And then after? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613750)

It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all those others that have been tried from time to time. -Churchill

Then perhaps the solution is no government? That works for me since it isn't legitimate anyways.

Re:And then after? (1)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613820)

Anarchy has been tried. It usually results in, after some time, a government popping up in one form or another because people get sick and tired of the things people get away with.

Re:And then after? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32615618)

No, they'll answer you, they'll tell you what you want to hear. Then...they'll do whatever the hell they want. What? You elected them!

No they won't. I live in the Perth electoral constituency, so Stephen Smith is my Federal MP. I'll tell you what he (or his office) did say when I contacted him to express my concerns and ask him to personally pass them on to Conroy, since Smith is my elected representative:

Nothing.
"I have forwarded your message to the Minister for Communications..."

Meanwhile, the Minister's office sent me (by way of a response to an independent message) a fluff piece in PDF format about how jolly the filter is and how the Minister is such a caring, sharing guy.

Not one of these cunts is listening, since they obviously feel secure enough in their jobs that they don't need to.

Re:And then after? (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613898)

Obviously there needs to be consequences for lying politicians. If I lie on a job application, at best I get fired, at worst I could get charged with fraud. If a politician lies during a campaign (what else is it but a job interview?), he should get the same treatment.

Re:And then after? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32614254)

Why's the parent modded Funny? Save for the fact that's it contains too much common sense to be implemented IRL.

Re:And then after? (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614272)

I find it funny that this is modded Funny. Also depressing.

Re:And then after? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614692)

Part of the problem is that it just isn't that easy, if you're being honest with yourself, to tell what is and what isn't a lie, even after the fact. The president doesn't control the world, he doesn't control the country, and he doesn't control congress; lots of things can happen that aren't easily forseen which can lead to promises being broken despite the best of intentions. Now, doubtless there are times that things are said, promises made that can't possibly be upheld, but I bet if you're being honest with yourself, the vaste majority of broken promises could be put down to over-ambition, changing circumstances, and increased knowledge.

Re:And then after? (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614972)

Honestly, I don't really care. If you can't do the job you were elected to do, get the fuck out and let someone who can do it. For instance, Obama was elected in part based on his promise to get us out of Iraq in 16 months. He's not going to do it, and he hasn't even tried. The people deserve some recourse.

Re:And then after? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32615446)

Anyone who believes a word out of any politician's mouth deserves whatever happens to them. Them problem is not politicians lying, that is what they do. The problem is the idiot people keep believing the lies. (They also seem to believe that the President is the only one in the country who can make any changes.)

Re:And then after? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32615794)

Re:And then after? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32616100)

Most is not all, and August 2010 is not 16 months after January 2010. He's commander in chief. He could pick up the phone and bring them all home tomorrow. There's no excuse for anything less.

Re:And then after? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32617678)

The Portuguese did something similar: we left the colony wars almost over night, after the revolution. Guess what happen? Civil wars.

You can't start a conflict and then back off and let them "sort it out". You have the responsibility, deal with it.

Re:And then after? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32617960)

You know, I think we can. And we should. There's already been an Iraqi civil war while the US has occupied it. There's going to be another civil war when we leave, whether we do it now or in 20 years. Better to get the fuck out of there now and let them get it over with. US occupation isn't helping anything.

Re:And then after? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32616188)

Part of the problem is that it just isn't that easy, if you're being honest with yourself, to tell what is and what isn't a lie, even after the fact.

"I will vote {for,against} X legislation", then check voting records. Easy.

the vaste majority of broken promises could be put down to over-ambition, changing circumstances, and increased knowledge.

You can't always guarantee results but you can guarantee action. You can't pass legislation yourself but you can introduce it and you can vote the way you promised.

Your word should be your bond. Over-ambition and lack of knowledge are not valid excuses. If it is their opinion that changing circumstances require different actions than those promised, put their seats up for re-election and campaign for election with the new policy. We should seek to have people that value their integrity more highly than their jobs. You can get a new job, once you blow integrity it is a difficult and slow process to bring it back.

Re:And then after? (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32615010)

We already get the chance to fire elected officials every few years (2/4/6 years, depending on the position). Just vote for the other guy next time.

Of course, that just replaces one liar with another.

Re:And then after? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32615156)

That just gives them license to do whatever they want for n years. There should be a process to hold a vote of no confidence for any position in the government at any time.

Re:And then after? (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32616448)

I wholeheartedly support your platform. Where country/state/district are you running in?

Obvious (4, Interesting)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613294)

It's pretty obvious that the whole internet filter plan was an appeasement move to secure support for some of the more batty parts of the politicum. Now that it's passed its use-by date, I think we'll see it tiredly retired after "public consultation" and "thorough analysis". To be honest, I think we'd have seen exactly the same thing under the Liberals.

Re:Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613442)

It's the perfect issue to push after they'll have won the election. They can claim support for their agenda by voters and even if it pisses of a lot of them, they'll have forgotten all about it before the following election.

The censorship zombie will return.

Re:Obvious (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614104)

Precisely. Every time Slashdot published a story on this over the last year or so, people hyped it up so much and responded (as you'd expect) with doom and gloom predictions. I always expected this would happen though - it was obvious from the start that this proposal (in its current form, at least) would never see the light of day. At the end of the day, we are still a very robust democracy, populated mostly by mostly secular, level-headed people. Blind Freddy could see that it would be political suicide to introduce this Bill. The idea is tremendously unpopular with the majority of the population. Not only that, but even if the Bill had been introduced, Labor does not (and has never had, during their term of government) the numbers in the Senate to get it passed in its current form.

If Labor get reelected next election, I imagine they WILL attempt to resurrect this policy in some form. However I suspect it will be a more benign version of it, such as a voluntary/opt-in/opt-out scheme. Which I have no issue with. Provided I can choose not to be filtered, I see no problems with a filtering service being provided for those that do want it.

Time will tell of course. But many reactions over the last year to this story on here (mostly from non-Australians who don't know the reality on the ground here, and aren't exposed to day to day Australian events/news) have been overreactions. Some things I've heard have been ridiculous (e.g. comparisons of Australia to China and Iran - even the proposed filter, as abhorrent as it was, was not anywhere near the scale and scope of those countries). The filter proposal was doomed from the outset, no matter how much Conroy and his sympathizers would like to think otherwise.

This is not to say that we shouldn't maintain vigilance against such abhorrent ideas in the future though ... kudos to the many politically active people that helped to bury this scheme (for now).

Re:Obvious (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32616016)

>Some things I've heard have been ridiculous (e.g. comparisons of Australia to China and Iran - even the proposed filter, as abhorrent as it was, was not anywhere near the scale and scope of those countries).

Pardon me, how are these so different? Mandatory censorship on a national level is exactly what countries like Iran and the UAE do. Heck, Australia might be even worse because it doesn't have the "backwaters Islamic nation" excuse. I also read that the blacklisting agencies this filter would use routinely blacklist Wikipedia pages. Again, what is the big difference here? That potentially the children's list is opt-in (or allowed opt-out) but the "illegal/immoral" list isnt?

You guys have some serious problems there. Right now you're making the US look like the most liberal EU state and, honestly, that's difficult to do.

>At the end of the day, we are still a very robust democracy, populated mostly by mostly secular, level-headed people.

Wrong again. 62% of your are begging for the filter:

In February 2010 ABC's Hungry Beast program commissioned McNair Ingenuity Research to perform a telephone poll of 1,000 Australians.[92] Key results were
To the proposition We need Government regulation of content on the Internet the same as we have Government regulation of content for other media 62% agreed, 35% disagreed.

You're mostly pro-censorship conservatives. Heck, your liberals aren't even against the filter as much as pointing out that its difficult to get right.

Opt-in? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613296)

Yeah you know, "Opt-in", so you are free to decline and accept a boot on your face when you download something outside of their guidelines.

If they make it opt in, than any amount of people opting in will be seen as support for the filter and it won't be long before they say "If its good enough for your Grandmother its good enough for you"

Re:Opt-in? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613338)

I’m thinking more of, “Opt-in” like NetNanny is opt-in.

As in, nobody in their right mind would use it on themselves but plenty of people will do it for the sake of their children.

Re:Opt-in? (2, Funny)

computational super (740265) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613776)

Or be opted-in by their wives "for their own sake".

I don't see why they're so worried about... (3, Insightful)

Tikkun (992269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613298)

...kids finding out about stuff on the Internet. I mean, we all turned out fine, didn't we? ;)

Re:I don't see why they're so worried about... (2, Insightful)

SirGeek (120712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613406)

...kids finding out about stuff on the Internet. I mean, we all turned out fine, didn't we? ;)

And we grew up with the ever present possibility of seeing the Goatse guy !

Re:I don't see why they're so worried about... (1)

genner (694963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613630)

...kids finding out about stuff on the Internet. I mean, we all turned out fine, didn't we? ;)

When you put it that way it makes me wonder why it's legal for a child to be within a 100 feet of a computer.

Re:I don't see why they're so worried about... (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32616902)

HAHAHa, too true.

there's two competing views of humanity (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613808)

1. we are all born vessels of purity, and the world corrupts us. the idea is to limit exposure to this corruption, and thereby remain a coherent person

2. we are all born with the seeds of rape and murder in our hearts. the idea then is catharsis: express your asocial transgressive tendencies harmlessly on sexual and violent media, and therefore you feel no compulsion to visit those tendencies on real people in real life

i mean its not like the ancient roman or chinese empires, with very little media, were places of calm and devoid of transgression. the opposite in fact is true. the history of mankind is LESS violence and transgression with more civilization (i'm talking domestically... in terms of war, population growth, the rise of nationalism, the march of technology has meant some spectacularly awesome killing fields). people are always talking about how we are all doomed, everyone is getting more violent, etc. the opposite in fact, is the real truth. people are just historically myopic. for every horrible story of murder and mayhem on your 6 o'clock news, human history offers far far worse, in much greater per capita bulk

and you only need to spend 5 minutes in your average kindergarten to come to the undeniable realization that bad behavior is innate, not taught

the fact is, if you took a psychologically normal human being and exposed them to 16 hours a day of violent pornography or violent fps videogames for 10 months, they will not become rapists or murderers. however, a psychologically problematic person might eventually rape or murder. anything could set him off, from his neighbor's barking dog or his boss's reprimands. such a psychologically unhealthy person might also seek out pornography and violent media, in a desperate attempt to get the catharsis most psychologically normal people take for granted. therefore, when violent videogames or pornography are found in the homes of rapists and murderers, someone somehwere will always say "see? that's the cause"

when in fact, there's no causal relationship at all. do some people REALLY believe that if you waved a magic wand and removed all sexual and violent media that everyone would be tranquilized and crime would drop?

in 100% honesty, i assert the opposite: we should ENCOURAGE people to use violent and sexual media. the result would be a LESS violent and sexually transgressive society. i say this with a completely straight face. i believe this wholly and thoroughly

japan has one of the highest production rates of pornography in the world. it also has one of the lowest rates of rape in the world:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita [nationmaster.com]

japan also has free and widely available access violently transgressive media. and it also has very low murder rates

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita [nationmaster.com]

any country can emulate japan's enviable murder and rape statistics: just make pornography and violent media freely and widely available

the simply truth is, if you are honestly interested in the reduction of real world rape and murder, you are also interested in promoting, yes PROMOTING, violent videogame and pornography consumption. i sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that

it all gets back to the psychological notion of CATHARSIS

and understanding that we are NOT vessels of purity that are corrupted. we all carry rape and murder in our hearts. the question is: do we eject these asocial tendencies harmlessly on a computer screen? or in the real world?

access to violent and sexual media is the deciding factor, and MORE access to violent and sexual media results in LESS real world rape and murder

Re:there's two competing views of humanity (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614036)

Damn it man, I disagree with you much of the time... and then you have to go and write this. Argh! Why can't I just paint you as a one-dimensional inhuman tool and hate my mind's psychological construct of you?

And now for a serious moment, great summary and insight. Thank you. IMHO, in most multi-cultural countries in the world you'd never get those who are firm believers in Worldview #1 to commit because you'd essentially be asking them to destroy themselves for your sake, and vice versa. That's just reality - too many people have invested their entire self concept in the idea of "vessels of purity" to allow for mass access to simulated ultraviolence for the sake of catharsis. Japan can get away with it because they are a monolithic society built upon an ethno-cultural monopoly - they're all 'the same' , and its easier to issue permission to those similar to you than those dissimilar. You couldn't do it in the West though - we're just too pluralistic for it.

Re:there's two competing views of humanity (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614196)

How do you account for such low rape and murder numbers in middle east countries where their societies are strictly repressive?

Re:there's two competing views of humanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32614290)

under reporting

Re:there's two competing views of humanity (2, Informative)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614368)

Simple: They don't call it "rape" and "murder". Their culture considers male behaviour of that kind normal, especially when it comes to wives. I don't condemn them for it, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

Re:there's two competing views of humanity (2, Informative)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614432)

The numbers are low because the powers that be do not look at rape and honor killings as statistics. Rape is what happens to women of loose morals, honor killings is how you save face. So much for justice, women, honor and the Islamic way

Re:there's two competing views of humanity (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32615942)

How do you account for such low rape and murder numbers in middle east countries...

It's perfectly OK to murder hundreds of people if you happen to be blowing yourself to bits at the same time, or if you don't think someone's beard is the regulation length. And rape is a crime there, but women won't report it because they are the ones who will be assumed to be guilty.

Re:there's two competing views of humanity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32614356)

What about view #3, which is that humans are born bad but need to keep away from violence and sex so as to not get worse? or view #4 which says that humans are born pure but need to get exposed to violence and sex to keep getting rid of the tendencies we aquire thruout life.

Or maybe view #5 which says that people are born with both good and bad tendencies, and some things are better avoided, while in other cases it's better to let off steam harmlessly.

Re:I don't see why they're so worried about... (2, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32615050)

Speak for yourself, kid, I was 45 before I had internet access. But I will agree that the only thing I don't like about your generation is tattoos and piercings, especially on women. A Tattoo on a woman is like marking up the Mona Lisa with a magic marker. And piercings, why do you want to mutilate yourselves like that?

Although from what my dad says, tattoos were popular with women back in the 1920s; I had great aunts with tattoos.

Re:I don't see why they're so worried about... (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32616722)

And they wore brown onions on their belts, as was the fashion at the time.

Big surprise! (5, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613340)

Who'd have thought that adults would possibly object to being treated like 5 year olds?

Re:Big surprise! (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613370)

Ohhhh, You've been a BAD boy *cracks whip*

Re:Big surprise! (1)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613548)

Ohhhh, You've been a BAD boy *cracks whip*

If you're doing that to five year olds, then you've got a problem.

Re:Big surprise! (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613768)

Yeah, seriously.

You should be using a 2x4 with a handle cut in the end (ergonomics, you know).

If your kids are particularly unruly, just drill holes of various size in the face of the paddle. This decreases the wind resistance as you swing, and also reduces the overall mass. This makes it easier to swing, hurt worse when it strikes, and less likely to bruise the fleshy parts of the body, namely, the ass (the universally preferred location to apply punishment).

Re:Big surprise! (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613876)

Yes, you can't start using the whip until they're 7. You have to use a paddle before that.

Re:Big surprise! (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613942)

You're all outdated - stun guns work great from birth.

Re:Big surprise! (4, Insightful)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613472)

Who'd have thought that adults would possibly object to being treated like pedophiles who rape 5 year olds?

FTFY. Did you notice how anyone who voiced their concern regarding censorship or privacy was immediately 'against us looking out for the children' and thus 'for pedophilia'...

Re:Big surprise! (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613854)

Except that one of the groups protesting the filter was actually a "protect the children" type of group - can't remember their name off hand but I dod remember their disdain for the proposed filtering.

Re:Big surprise! (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32617114)

It was "Save the Children".

Re:Big surprise! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613596)

>>>Who'd have thought that adults would possibly object to being treated like 5 year olds?

The US FCC has been doing it for 60 years. "Ohnoes... someone flashed a milk-dispensing body part (breast) on television. We musn't let adults see that."

Re:Big surprise! (2)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613642)

Yet they have no problem with bestiality. They have been showing completely unclothed animals on TV since the early days of broadcast. They even use milk-dispensing body parts to advertise Milk products, sometimes even in cartoon form to get the attention of Children.

Re:Big surprise! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613710)

well, america was *actually* populated by puritans, their descendent have now their same mindset
heck, they're still using with the afghani the old excuses of protecting and civilizing they were using with native american indians!

Sigh. (4, Insightful)

gorzek (647352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613376)

I still can't wrap my head around how anyone in a democratic country could consider a nationwide Internet filter a good use of taxpayer money and resources. I can understand authoritarian regimes like the PRC doing it--obviously, money is not nearly as important to them as control (but the money sure helps.) Implementing it somewhere like Australia is just such a gargantuan waste of time and money as to be utterly baffling to me. The Internet, in and of itself, is just not dangerous. It's also far too large for any country--or even all countries together--to police it proactively and censor things.

Anyone who is *that* worried about what's on the Internet should perhaps "opt-out" of live in the developed world and go live in the Outback or something.

Re:Sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613524)

I still can't wrap my head around where they come up with these ministerial appointments,,,if your the bloody minister for something shouldn't you have some training/education/BASIC UNDERSTANDING in the field/portfolio your tasked with looking after. I don't know what it's like back home in Oz at the moment but from the pieces of news i get in the UK, Senator Conroy doesn't seem to have a clue at all....about ANYTHING,,,let alone how any technology works!!!

Re:Sigh. (2, Interesting)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613586)

That, my friend, is the nature of political parties anywhere. "We want all of the benefits, but none of the drawbacks."

These people want to have full access to the Internet but don't want to have to come across things that they don't like or things they disagree with or have to monitor their children's surfing habits.

Re:Sigh. (2, Insightful)

Chowderbags (847952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614478)

No one supports censorship of their own ideals. Far too many support censorship of all other ideals.

Re:Sigh. (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614962)

I can understand authoritarian regimes like the PRC doing it--obviously, money is not nearly as important to them as control (but the money sure helps.)

Money comes to those who have control. And control comes to those who have money. It doesn't matter if it's a democracy or authoritarian regime.

Censorship is a step in this cycle. While it doesn't make complete sense for a democratically elected official to try to censor the internet, there's still some logic behind it.

vote for a government with an open internet policy (1)

dUN82 (1657647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613412)

The bottom line is: in a democratic society, you always have the chance to vote for a government with an open internet policy, eg. the revoking of London congestion charges was immediately abolished by Boris Johnson. But for users in China, there is only one dominate party, which pretty much means no hopes for change, so AUS, CHN is two totally different situation.

Re:vote for a government with an open internet pol (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613946)

Sure, you always have the chance to vote for a party with an open internet policy. That doesn't mean that that party has a chance of winning, even if the open internet policy has overwhelming public support. The media can simply ignore that any other parties exist, making it impossible for it to enter the mainstream.

Re:vote for a government with an open internet pol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32614558)

Sure, you always have the chance to vote for a party with an open internet policy. That doesn't mean that that party has a chance of winning, even if the open internet policy has overwhelming public support.

Or that the party supporting an open internet policy doesn't also support other things you are strongly opposed to.

Or that the party espousing an open-internet policy doesn't change their minds as soon as their candidates are elected.

Or that what they call "open internet" only supports half of what you require for a truly open internet (the other party supports the other half, of course)

Or that the party, after getting elected and pushing forward their open internet policy, doesn't have to abandon half of that policy in order to get the other half passed.

Or that the party doesn't get the policy passed only to have it knocked down by unelected officials for violating an already existing law or policy.

It makes one wonder why we are still bothering with these republic things in the year 2010; we should have the technical capabilities to have a true democracy where we can vote directly on the laws themselves and get rid of these untrustworthy middlemen.

Re:vote for a government with an open internet pol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32615268)

As a citizen of the US, I can say that this is actually pretty much false.

More open then the app store! (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613416)

From TFA:

<embed src="http://puma.vizu.com/v4/swf/andes.swf?t=1"...

Ok, I'm done OfftopicTrolling.

They can lie all they want... (2, Insightful)

dohzer (867770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613428)

... but they've already exposed what they intend to do if we vote them in.

Kevin '07
Recession '08
Conroy '09

GG Labor. Time to vacate office.

Re:They can lie all they want... (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614204)

To be fair, Australia never actually went into recession during the financial crisis. In fact we were the ONLY OECD country not to do so.

Of course, this is mostly due to the good financial position the previous Government left us in. But we still could have ended up worse than we did. So I think a least a little bit of credit is due (and this is coming from a life long Liberal voter).

Not that that excuses them for the rest of their abhorrent ideas re net filtering/monitoring. Good riddance if they lose the next election.

Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613432)

"It is reported that the proposed filters are seen as too toxic a policy to take to the next federal election

Good stuff. They might shelf a policy, not because it is

a. a bad policy
b. unrepresentative of the will of the people
c. probably immoral, possibly unconstitutional

but because

d. it might make it harder for them to get re-elected.

Way to go modern politics.

LOL (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613528)

Best part of the article:

A Labor senator has called for the filter to be opt-in

I love it! "Yes, please monitor my Internet use and filter out content I know you know I won't like. Or agree with. Can you pick out my next car and decide on a good meal plan too? Do these jeans make my ass look fat?"

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613676)

The only reason the filter is on the table is people screaming "Somebody think of the children"
Some parents do want the filter, because they don't know how to protect their children themselves
I don't care if there is an opt-in filter, as long as I am not affected, I am happy

Re:LOL (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614766)

Government should have no more say in how people's internet access can be regulated anymore than they should be part of sex education, video-game purchases or drug and alcohol education. Parents that don't know how to be proactive in their child's lives should have their licenses revoked - well they have to get licenses first - and then have them revoked. I understand that talking to your kids about certain topics is tough, but if you don't then you leave it in the hands of the state, and they'll more than likely "educate" your children in they way THEY want them to grow up, not in the way that you, the parent, might.

BE VERY AFRAID (1)

shazzle (1242132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32616986)

http://www.netalarmed.com/ [netalarmed.com]

No, but seriously, these people are coming back for mandatory censorship as soon as the elections are decided in their favor. Please, do not let them get back into power after having showed their true colors.

How to Speak Austrailian (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613618)

Re:How to Speak Austrailian (4, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613708)

http://tizona.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/fosters-beer.jpg Beer (for impotent wombats)

No one in Australia drinks fosters (not even sexually challenged marsupials). Fosters is only for export.

Nothing is too bad for the rest of the world.

Re:How to Speak Austrailian (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613888)

"Nothing is too bad for the rest of the world." Except Internet filters and having your laptop searched for porn by customs.

Re:How to Speak Austrailian (2, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614116)

Except Internet filters and having your laptop searched for porn by customs.

You (the US) have that too.

If you can make up a fictional web filter then so can I. Also the Australian Customs Service is backpedaling the laptop searches so fast I'm going to have to check into Perth Customs before I leave Malaysia. Unlike the US's TSA who still have no accountability.

Aussies only do 1 thing right with brewer's yeast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32614202)

Good Aussie beer? Now there's an oxymoron if ever one was uttered. VB, Golden (all styles), Cascade (all styles), Coopers (all styles), Matilda Bay (only tried the Pilsner) and the THREE-DOZEN other beers I tried in Sydney and Darwin were expensive and sucked: most as bad as Americanized Fosters - some even worse.

Blue Tongue, a Tazzie micro-brew wasn't bad. Neither was the Piglet Ale, another micro-brew that the Kiwis scraped out of a vat.

Truly the only fantastic thing the Aussies knew how to make of brewer's yeast is Vegemite, and that particular nectar of the gods only mostly makes up for all the crappy beers. We'll just forget about iSnack 2.0 aka Cheesie-mite though.

Re:How to Speak Austrailian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32614330)

The sad fact is, Fosters is better than most American beers. And, in any case, the Fosters sold in the States is bottled in Canada.

Re:How to Speak Austrailian (1)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 4 years ago | (#32616608)

That's a ridiculous statement. America has by far the best beer in the world, so long as you stick to the microbreweries. Unfortunately most Americans have no taste for quality beer and prefer piss like PBR and the silver bullet.

A shelf is a bad place to put a filter (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613640)

If they put that filter on the shelf, it'll just collect dust. Which, honestly, is the job of a filter. However, I hardly think that will provide maximum efficiency! Perhaps they can sell it on Craigslist and get some of that taxpayer money back.

Re:A shelf is a bad place to put a filter (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614234)

It never actually got implemented (indeed, the legislation was never even drafted, let alone actually introduced to Parliament). So there isn't really much to 'shelve' other than a plan. And the only taxpayer money spent would have been on a few feasibility studies.

Not to say that was money well spent, of course. But at least they are shelving it now before anything serious was done/spent on it.

Already "opt-in" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32613924)

Nothing stops some enterprising ISP from producing their own filtered internet feed and selling it to the customers that apparently want to buy it.

The real question is, why the !#&^$!@#% should the government be involved in providing it or paying for it?

Vote Independant. (1)

OzJD (1613377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613964)

It's a joke. For the first time in my life, I won't be voting for either of the 2 parties. My vote will go independant, greens, or possibly in the bin (It's compulsory to vote here) The filter is a joke (and my primary reason for getting rid of the KRudd), and so is our current prime minister. (the opposition isn't any better though).

Opt-in should be scrapped too. (3, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32613978)

Opt-in is currently available from NUMEROUS commercial sources. And if you are opting-in, then those are certainly an option and a hell of a lot cheaper for Australians.

They need to bring back small boobs (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 4 years ago | (#32614160)

That was worse than the great firewall. Banning small boobs.

And banning cartoon porn. Jesus. IT'S A FUCKING IDEA!

Timing ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32615070)

The interesting thing is the timing of this. Backbencher Lundy is allowed to have her day decrying the travesty that was the Internet filter, and along comes a data retention plan for ISPs that essentially applies the same type of thought-control that the filtering policy would have created. Online civil rights is now under attack even more so, now that we have a new election is on the way.

I can only hope that both the clean feed policy, and the ISP data retention policy, is simply an appeasement to the right-wing Christian lobby groups, and that neither were REALLY intended for actual legislation. If I'm right, we need to rid ourselves of this right-winged influence. If I'm wrong - well - the government can go jump.

Conroy (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32616692)

Hands up all of the Australians here who would like to see Conroy hung, drawn and quartered?

*counts hands*

Yup, thought so.

Translation (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#32617226)

We know nobody wants this and if we do it now we'll be crucified in the elections. So we'll wait until after so we can jamb it up everyone's ass with impunity. OH! Vote for Meeeee!

Load More 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>