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 Drops Plan To Snoop On Internet Use — For Now

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the condense-to-just-prevent-debate dept.

Australia 67

CuteSteveJobs writes "Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has been forced to back down on her government's unpopular plan to force ISPs to store the web history and social networking of all Australians for two years. The plan has been deeply unpopular with the public, with hackers attacking the government's spy agency. Public servants at the spy agency promoting the scheme been scathing of the government, saying: 'These reforms are urgently needed to deal with a rapidly evolving security environment, but there isn't much appetite within the government for anything that attracts controversy,' but a document on the scheme released under the Freedom of Information Act had 90% of it redacted to prevent 'premature unnecessary debate.' Roxon hasn't dropped the unpopular scheme entirely, but only delayed it until after the next election."

cancel ×


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

The Internet Needs to be Policed (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957029)

These days a lot of our actions, interactions, and transactions are conducted over the Internet.
Why shouldn't they be policed like if these activities were done physically?
After all, you can't just do whatever the hell you want in the street without expecting law enforcement to watch and patrol for your and others safety. It should not be a free for all on the Internet.

I welcome as much "snooping" as much as possible online. As a parent with young children, I know there are predators and con artists out there on the Internet and I would hope the authorities are there to protect me and my loved ones.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957105)

Whoever moderated this -1 Overrated is clearly violating the moderation rules. It is clear -1 Overrated is for posts that have been already moderated. At the time, it had not. These is clearly done to prevent metamod, and to shut down clearly an ontopic opinion which the moderator did not agree, another violation. I see this quite often with opinions that do not jibe with the groupthink on this site.

Whoever did this should have all moderation privileges revoked because of these clear violations. I will be contacting the site editors on this matter.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957241)

You're right. Overrated is the wrong mod (well, not entirely). The post was definitely troll/flamebait/redundant. If you don't like the internet, cancel your service. Trash your computer, and buy a typewriter, calculator, Rolodex, some stamps, and a box of envelopes. Don't forget to get a checkbook from your bank.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961987)

the same could be said about anyone's reaction to drunk drivers... don't drive a car, or maybe about the threat of street violence... don't go out on the streets; maybe your solution to the problem of the raping of women is to banish all women

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (3, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957447)

Whoever moderated this -1 Overrated is clearly violating the moderation rules. It is clear -1 Overrated is for posts that have been already moderated. At the time, it had not. These is clearly done to prevent metamod, and to shut down clearly an ontopic opinion which the moderator did not agree, another violation. I see this quite often with opinions that do not jibe with the groupthink on this site.

That's the problem with policing the internet. You get parties who believe there should be rules that they invent, that may have nothing to do with the rules that are already in place on a particular forum. And these parties decide to police their new rules everywhere they think that those rules should be applied.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40962865)

*I* did. The poster thought he was being a clever reverse troll, and I saw right through him.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (4, Interesting)

bruno.fatia (989391) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957175)

I had already moderated on this topic but after reading this post I felt like whoever mod parent down was -1, Disagree.

I understand OP point of view but with something as global as the Internet why should one government or another regulate it?
Either give it to the UN or better, don't regulate it at all. Why should US cops snoop on data that comes from say, Latin America to Canada?
I think that from now on we should be standardizing encryption because the overhead it causes IS worth it.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40962109)

surely a country's government has the right to snoop on its own shores. china already does it. eventually all supposedly "modernised" countries will get the jist. anyone THAT concerned with privacy needs to look at what they are doing on the net, and look at why they don't do similar things in society (ie compare watching internet porn to hiring a porn movie from a movie rental store). if you don't like the idea of the government finding out about your porn habits, you would be complaining about the same loss of privacy that prevents you from hiring a porn film from a rental store (or maybe its the prospect of your neighbors finding out about your porn habits)... in any case, policing the internet has no more privacy issues than policing the rest of society

if a governmnt gets caught snooping traffic with a foreign destination, i guess there's going to have to be some kind of international agreement otherwise every case may be deemed an act of war (most extreme cases involving downloads of justin bieber songs, which may be considered weapons of cochleae destruction)

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957273)

"I welcome as much "snooping" as much as possible online"

You're a sheep and an idiot.

It is genuinely tragic that you have ( apparently ) reproduced.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (1)

slashrio (2584709) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957423)

It is genuinely tragic that you have ( apparently ) reproduced.

Don't worry, his genes will be culled at the next 'big event'

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (4, Interesting)

slashrio (2584709) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957401)

Clearly one of those trollers hired by governments and spin-doctoring opinion agencies, which by the way are also hired by the government (or by whomever wants to influence public opinion).
Those people are paid to monitor blogs and step in with their 'opinion' whenever there is a controversial subject going on on which the one who hires them wants the opinion to be favourable to his own interests.
Saw the same happening lately on someone claiming to be totally innocent and proclaimed he totally trusted Google with all his personal data and wouldn't mind if it were used for anything Google and its affiliates wanted, as long as service remained free of charge. (puke) Anyway, clearly nobody with that kind of personality would never ever visit a website like, so that was clearly one of 'those' 'mercenaries'.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957407)

So in other words, you're one of those people that had kids and lost all sense of reason (or you just never had a sense of reason) and now you're falling for every "give up your freedom to save the children" call. It's truly tragic when that happens. You're really not making the rest of us parents look good. I honestly hope you were just trolling.

No, I don't want to give up my freedom or privacy to save the children from some (nonexistent) threat. Come up with a scheme that doesn't punish everyone. Since you're always, always thinking of the children, that should be simple for you.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (4, Insightful)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959707)

How about do some fucking parenting. Do not expect the government to trash everything others enjoy to do it for you?

As a father of a ten year old son I allow him free access to the internet. I do that because I have taught him the "rules" of the internet, and I trust him to do the right thing. I constantly monitor his usage and have NEVER had to have an uncomfortable conversation about his activities using it. This is after six years of him having net access.

I do not filter anything, because I actively parent. Maybe you should try it before advocating government spying on it's populace without warrant or cause.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959765)

How about try some fucking parenting before advocating government snooping.

As the father of a ten year old son I have an unfiltered connection that he has free access to. Am I worried? Not in the slightest, I monitor his usage and have never been forced to have an uncomfortable conversation (I am not afraid of uncomfortable conversations either) about his activities. Maybe that's because i taught him the "rules" to follow.

His birthday is in two weeks and he will be getting (and building) his own computer. It also will not have any "filtering" of any sort. I am still unconcerned, because his computer will be approximately four feet from mine.

We plan on playing Saints Row the third together. Some people would think that game is inappropriate for a ten year old boy, For some ten year olds it might be, I have no problems explaining adult concepts to him. It prepares him for life outside my pocket.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959767)

Strange /. lost my post and now I have a double post, sorry about that.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (3, Insightful)

Dr Damage I (692789) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960519)

This is nonsense. If I have a conversation with someone, the government has no right to a transcript of that discussion regardless of whether that discussion takes place in my home, a cafe, a public street or on an internet forum. The government cannot bug my home without a court order and the internet should be no different. The government already has the ability to search through the publicly accessible areas of the internet for information about my activities and this is analogous to law enforcement "watching and patrolling". What you are proposing is analogous to allowing police to randomly search peoples homes because a lot of our actions, interactions and transactions are conducted in our homes.

As a parent, the responsibility to protect your children is yours not mine. If you find the internet to be so hazardous that you are unable to properly protect them, don't allow them to use it. Easy.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960535)

As a parent of young children, I hope you're aware that they're far more likely to be the victim of abuse from someone you already know, in the real world.

It's almost never a stranger over the Internet, and almost always someone you know and trust.

Re:The Internet Needs to be Policed (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 2 years ago | (#40962725)

Says the person posting as AC.

90% of it redacted... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957071)

"90% of it redacted to prevent "premature unnecessary debate."

Democracy at its finest....

Re:90% of it redacted... (2)

deergomoo (2689177) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957169)

It's quite disgusting really.

Re:90% of it redacted... (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40958991)

It's only a billion times more open than the US's IP treaty negotiation policy, which is 100% redaction.

Re:90% of it redacted... (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959983)

That is exactly how bad laws get railroaded through the process.

"More specifically, it is information concerning the development of government policy which has not been finalised, and there is a strong possibility that the policy will be amended prior to public consultation," [The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez] wrote.

The problem with this statement is that, if the first time you get to have input on a law is during the public consultation period, it's too late.
By that point, months if not years of work and lobbying have gone into the legislation.
That's why the flameouts of SOPA and PIPA were so shocking to the copyright lobby.

Re:90% of it redacted... (3, Informative)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960653)

No surprise its a extremely left wing government democracy privacy and what voters want is last on there list of priorities. Additionally "after the next election" also means her successor will have to deal with it, she will be lucky to keep her seat let alone her current job.

Re:90% of it redacted... (0)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40962033)

its a extremely left wing government democracy privacy and what voters want is last on there list of priorities.

"Extremely left wing"? Compared to General Pinochet, possibly. In the real world, slightly left of centre. Australia hasn't had a real left wing government since 1975

Would an "extremely left wing" government kowtow to the US so consistently?

Re:90% of it redacted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40962153)

Right now we have a choice between a raving right wing lunatic and Tony Abbot.

hi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957087)

superr thanks
Sikis izle []
Siki izle []
Porno izle []
Sikis izle []

Good (1)

deergomoo (2689177) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957127)

Good to see the right thing has been done, for now at least.

aaaaa (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957137)

Bitkisel termojenik ya yakc özellikli Maurers, kat diyetler yapp bünyenizi ypratmadan, sadece salkl beslenerek, rahatlkla kilo vermeniz için gelitirilmi edilmi benzersiz bir formüldür. Ya yakmaya yardmc, metabolizma hzn düzenleyici ve sindirim sistemi sorunlar için en iyi bitkileri içeriinde barndran Maurers kapsülleri ile kilo vermek sandnzdan çok daha rahat olabilir!
Hzl ve etkili ya yakc termojenik özelliinin yan sra itahnz kapatarak yemek yeme arzunuzu en aza indiren bu ürünle açlk hissetmeden kilo verebilirsiniz... çeriindeki özel bileenler sayesinde Maurers [] , zayflama sürecinde size gereken enerjiyi vererek yorgun ve bitkin hissetmenizi de önlemeye yardmc olur.

Orjinal Maurers [] Bitkisel Termonejik Ya Yakc Kapsül;

tahnz keserek ve metabolizmay hzlandrmaya,

Yalarnz hzla yakarak göbek basen ve hareketsiz bölgelerden çok kolay kilo vermeye,

Oturduunuz yerde terleterek, spor yapar gibi kalori yakmanz salayan termojenik etki ile fazlalklardan kurtulmaya,

Karbonhidratlar bloke eder: Kalorileri ciddi oranda absorbe ederek kiloya dönümesini engellemeye,

Yaklan yalar enerjiye dönütürerek kilo verme esnasnda zayf ve güçsüz dümenizin önüne geçmeye,

Ayrca içeriinde bulunan C vitamini ile vücudun ihtiyaç duyduu direnci salamaya yardmc olur.

Termojenik ya yakc özellii bulunan Maurers [] , oturduunuz yerden kilo vermeniz için formülize edilmi benzersiz bir üründür. Bitkisel ya yakc, metabolizma düzenleyici ve sindirim sistemi sorunlar için en iyi bitkileri içeriinde barndran %100 doal Maurers kapsülleri ile kolayca zayflayacaksnz.
Hzl ve etkili Maurers Forte [] ya yakc termojenik özelliinin yan sra itahnz kapatarak yemek yeme arzunuzu en aza indiren bu ürünle açlk hissetmeden kilo verebilirsiniz. çeriindeki bileenler sayesinde Maurers, zayflama sürecinde size enerji vererek yorgun ve bitkin kalmanz da önler.

"The OffSpring" said it best, in "All I Want"... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957305) []

"Day after day your home life's a wreck
  The powers that be just
  Breathe down your neck
  You get no respect
  You get no relief
  You gotta speak up
  And yell out your piece
  So back off your rules
  Back off your jive
  Cause I'm sick of not living
  To stay alive
  Leave me alone
  I'm not asking a lot
I just don't want to be controlled
  That's all I want
  All I want
  How many times is it gonna take
  Till someone around you hears what you say
  You've tried being cool
  You feel like a lie
  You've played by their rules
  Now it's their turn to try
  So back off your rules
  Back off your jive
  Cause I'm sick of not living
  To stay alive
  Leave me alone
  I'm not asking a lot
  I just don't want to be controlled
  That's all I want
  All I want
  I said it before
  I'll say it again
  If you could just listen
  Then it might make sense"

* A huge "amen" to that...

I.E.-> Many of "the powers that be" are DOING IT WRONG!

They ought to be using their control of "the pipes/tubes" on the internet to do what GOOD "filering" DNS servers are up to, which is filtering out KNOWN SOURCES of malicious content online!

(E.G.-> malware, malicious script, poisoned banner ads, sites that serve up malicious content in general, spam, & phishing mails also, etc./et al...).

No, instead, this is what folks get - spying on them? WTF!

Good filtering DNS servers for people to consider using (since I noted them above):

Options for "DNSBL filtered 'secured'" DNS servers for single system users/non-networked users (on the job using AD networks or otherwise):

A.) Norton DNS ( and and and -> [] & you can even see how it updates every few minutes vs. known malicious sites-servers, here -> [] as well as get a GOOD read on how/why it works, etc.- et al, here []

It filters vs. MANY threats online & IS UP TO DATE as is possible I'd imagine (see those links, you'll understand WHY I state that). It's part of WHY I use it as my PRIMARY DNS here...


B.) ScrubIT DNS ( and ) -> [] & here is a good read on how/why it works via its FAQ's as well -> []


& of course

C.) Open DNS ( or -> []


D.) Plus:

Comodo Secure DNS: []


EACH IS FREE, & WORKS vs. threats online of MANY kinds, doubtless via a form of DNSBL they use for filtering those threats out!

(E.G.-> Phishing/Spamming, Malware hosting sites/servers, Maliciously scripted hosts-domains etc./et al & more...)

* I use ALL 3 of them (mostly as "failovers" for one another, in case my primary can't resolve a host/domain name to an IP address, & w/ Norton DNS as primary)!

(I do so, in a "layered triumvirate formation" in BOTH my IP stack DNS settings in Windows (software-side), as well as in my LinkSys/CISCO router here (hardware-side))...


Using these on networks (especially Active Directory one, they're heavily dependent on DNS is why most admins on the job use "in-house" DNS servers for AD networks):


1.) They can break SMTP by returning MX results for *everything*, which point to them (crediting by LodCrappo (705968) on Thursday August 02, @12:41PM (#40857519) Homepage from [] on this note, good possible point)


2.) They can mess up Outlook & Exchange "binding" properly, per DNS dependencies Active Directory has, as I noted above & have years ago here -> []

(Look for this quote on that page as my proof to you of this much -> "DO NOT USE THIS WITH A HOME or BUSINESS LAN THAT HAS ActiveDirectory going (because, for example - it will mess up things like FULL Outlook binding to EXCHANGE SERVER for instance, because of INTERNAL DNS SERVER dependencies AD has (ActiveDirectory is HEAVILY dependent on DNS resolutions is why)"



IF you need help for how to set them up? Those pages instruct on that also, OR, you can ask (somehow I don't think you need the help though, but I am stating it just in case)


P.S.=> I also use those 'filtering' DNSBL utilizing DNS Servers in combination with custom HOSTS files, for "end user" level LOCAL control of the same as those filtering DNS servers do, via a program I wrote (download link @ is below...):

I use hosts in the following ways (see my 'p.s.' below, in detail, for your reference) to COMPLIMENT & OVERCOME THOSE PROBLEMS IN DNS & OTHER MECHANISMS LARGELY!

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):


1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content
6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)
7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)
9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
10.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)
11.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
12.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)
13.) Blocking out TRACKERS
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.


* & FAR more... read on below IF you are interested (for detail).

AND, for those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program: []

or []

(You simply extract its sfx installer file, then run the installer, from inside ANY folder you like - extracting the executables + datafiles to any folder you wish (usually one you create for it, doesn't matter where, but you MUST run it as administrator (simple & the "read me" tab shows how easy THAT is to do)), & lastly run either the 32-bit OR 64-bit version!

What's it do for you?

It's a custom hosts file mgt. program that does the following for end users (Calling it "APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++") after it obtains custom hosts file data from 12 of the reputable & reliable sources listed below:


1.) Offers massively noticeable increased speed for websurfing via blocking adbanners

2.) Offers increased speed for users fav. sites by hardcoding them into the hosts file for faster IP address-to-host/domain name resolutions (which sites RARELY change their hosting providers, e.g.-> of 250 I do, only 6 have changed since 2006 - & when sites do because they found a less costly hosting provider? Then, they either email notify members, put up warnings on their pages, & do IP warnings & redirectors onto the former IP address range to protect vs. the unscrupulous criminal bidding on that range to buy it to steal from users of say, online banking or shopping sites).

3.) Better "Layered-Security"/"Defense-In-Depth" via blocking host-domain based attacks by KNOWN bad sites-servers that are known to do so (which IS, by far, the majority of what's used by both users (hence the existence of the faulty but for most part working DNS system), AND even by malware makers (since host-domain names are recyclable by they, & the RBN (Russian Business Network & others)) were doing it like mad with "less than scrupulous", or uncaring, hosting providers)

4.) Better 'anonymity' to an extent vs. DNS request logs (not vs. DPI ("deep packet inspection"))

5.) The ability to circumvent unjust DNSBL (DNS Block Lists) if unjust or inconveniences a user.

6.) Protection vs. online trackers

7.) Better security vs. the DNS system being "dns poisoned/redirected" (a known problem for recursive DNS servers via port 51/53 misdirection)

8.) Write protecting the hosts file every 1/2 second (supplementing UAC) - even if/when you move it from the default location via this registry entry (which if done, can function ALMOST like *NIX shadow passwords because of this program):


And changing the "DataBasePath" parameter there (I do this moving it to a faster media, a "true SSD" using DDR-2 RAM, in the 4gb Gigabyte IRAM I have).

9.) Automatic downloading & Alphabetic sorting of hosts files' records entries (for easier end user mgt. manually) from 15 reliable sources (of 17 I actually use).

10.) Manual editing of all files used (hosts to import list, hosts itself in its default location of %windir%\system32\drivers\etc, the hosts files to import/download & process, & favorite sites to reverse dns ping to avoid DNS (noted above why)).

11.) Removal scanners (if the users decide to remove hosts entries from imported data they can check if the site is indeed known as bad or not (sometimes 'false positives' happen, or just bad entries, or sites clean themselves up after infestation due to vulnerable coding etc./et al)).

12.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Comments (useless bulk in a hosts file that's "all business")

13.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Trailing comments after records (produces duplicates)

14.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Invalid TLD entries (program checks this in a BETTER method than the API call "PathIsURL")

15.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Trims entries (vs. trailing blanks bloat on record entries)

16.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like the conversion of the larger & SLOWER blocking "loopback adapter" address (slower due to larger size bytes wise to parse, & slower if loopback happens) to the smaller/faster to parse & load

17.) Uniformity of ALL entries in hosts (as to records inserted & format they use - reducing bloat AND repeated bloating entries).

18.) Filtration-Removal of sites that IF in a hosts file are KNOWN to cause problems on larger portals that use CDN etc.

19.) Custom hosts files protect ALL webbound programs, not just webbrowsers (like AdBlock addons, & it doesn't even block ALL adbanners by default anymore) & it does so @ a more efficient faster level (Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode) acting merely as a filter for the PnP design IP stack, vs. the slower level webbrowser programs & their addons operate in (Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode), which addons slow them even more by "layering on" parsing & processing that browser addons layer on.

20.) Custom hosts files also offer the speedup to favorite sites noted above, & even firewalls + browser addons do NOT offer that...


& MORE, in roughly 15 minutes runtime (on an Intel Core I7 920 Quad/4 core cpu @ 2.67ghz) & faster on faster CPU's (e.g. - Intel Core I7 3960 "extreme" 6-7 core CPUs = 7 minute runtime) & slower on slower CPU's (Intel 1.5ghz Celeron single core = 45 minutes).

* The malwarebytes/hpHosts site admin another person/site hosting it (Mr. Steven Burn, a competent coder in his own right), said it's "excellent" in fact and has seen its code too...

(Write him yourselves should anyone doubt any of this -> , or see his site @ [] )

A Mr. Henry Hertz Hobbitt of &/or can also verify that this program is safe - write him @ ->

It'll be releasing soon to sites that host 64-bit programs (even though it also has a 32-bit model, line for line the same code except for 32 in place of 64 in its help file & user interface)!

I told myself (since i built it in late 2003 in version 1.0++ & have rebuilt it 5x since in Borland Delphi 3.0/5.0/7.0 32-bit & currently into 64-bit using Delphi XE2) IF things didn't get better on the "malware front", out it would go for the general public to get the above enumerated multiple & versatile benefits custom hosts yield for end users (mainly saving them money on speed + bandwidth they pay for each month as well as added "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" AND reliability all noted above)


P.S.=> Details of the above synopsis/short summary are as follows below:

21++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES (over browser plugins for security, &/or DNS servers):

(Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs)).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below, & especially vs. the July 12th 2012 "DNSChanger" trojan purge that's coming soon (those folks won't get to sites if infested - I will, due to hardcodes in my hosts file of my fav. 20 sites + using BETTER filtering DNS servers (see list below))...

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions ( via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows - functions for "reverse DNS lookups"), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


Demonoid Down For a Week, Serving Malware Laden Ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/or NoScript ( [] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here: []



(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that): []

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down []


1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Blabck Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucket's DNS Records Hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
ScrubIT DNS -> []
OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT firewalling routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows where you can "layer in" as many of them as you like, for again, "Layered Security"/"Defense-in-Depth" too - however: IF you are on a work LAN or even HOME LAN that uses Active Directory? Using these DNS servers can "mess up" MX mail records OR things like Outlook (full in Office) bindings to Exchange Servers since AD is HEAVILY DNS dependent - ask your network administrator or test yourself first using those tools to make sure it doesn't happen to you (this is MOSTLY for "single system 'standalone' machine" users but it works great & supplements what YOU locally control in custom HOSTS files, with better filtered vs. malicious exploits of all kinds online DNS servers))...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)

"That is, do the things you would normally do to secure your own machine from malware, intrusive advertising, and vulnerabilities. Use the hosts file to block certain domains from being accessible." - by wickerprints (1094741) on Friday June 22, @12:57AM (#40407865)

"Ad blocking hosts file, I use it as an adult ;-) [] " - by RJFerret (1279530) on Friday June 22, @01:15AM (#40407983) Homepage

"There is probably a decent list of domains out there that you can put in your hosts file so that lookups for these fail. I assume you're more concerned about accidental adverts and such, which is a fair concern considering how many sites have em" - by ieatcookies (1490517) on Friday June 22, @01:21AM (#40408005)

"I find mapping hosts to is faster, because it's not a valid IP address, so the DNS subsystem of your OS will ignore it without trying to connect. There are several hostfile collections out there. I merged three of them several years ago just for my own freedom from ads and other junk. I currently have 131572 host names zero'd out." - by Dracos (107777) on Friday June 22, @01:34AM (#40408085)

"I also use linux a lot more now and, beyond a custom hosts file, don't have any active antivirus software beyond what comes with Ubuntu" - by sneakyimp (1161443) on Friday June 22, @04:26PM (#40416169)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* THE HOSTS FILE GROUP 36++ THUSFAR (from +5 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []

Re:"The OffSpring" said it best, in "All I Want".. (2)

mrbester (200927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957503)

Where's the TL;DR moderation when you need it? I think I wore a groove in my phone's Corning glass with all the swiping.

Re:"The OffSpring" said it best, in "All I Want".. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957551)

The OffSpring said it best again: "So back off your rules - Back off your jive! Cause I'm sick of not living (To stay alive)... Leave me alone (I'm not asking a lot): I just don't want to be controlled (That's all I want, All I want...)"


* Oh, incidentally - The bogus downmods here: []


That won't hide it either, so, "So much for that"...

(Plenty, if not MOST people here, browse at "show all posts", so that "effete retalation" of the downmod? Face it: It IS useless!)


P.S.=> Enjoy the tune - it says a LOT, & of course, it's "classic PUNK" (love it)...

... apk

Re:"The OffSpring" said it best, in "All I Want".. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960193)

So which Horseman of the Apocalypse did you say you were, again...?

Re:"The OffSpring" said it best, in "All I Want".. (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960101)

Right, let's have some fun here.

Before I hit the "Read the rest of this comment..." link, I am going to bet myself 10 Hong Kong dollars that our old friend APK is back.

Re:"The OffSpring" said it best, in "All I Want".. (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960133)

Aw shit, it took me so long to scroll through all that Wall O'Post that my finger's sore, and I forgot whether I won or lost the bet.

The good news is that it doesn't matter, since I still have to go to Hong Kong either way in order to collect.

Thanks for helping me decide where to go on holiday!

Politician and "police state" have same root word. (5, Informative)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957349)

> a document...had 90% redacted to "prevent premature unnecessary debate."

I think they meant to "prevent mature, necessary debate on who will be elected next election."

Re:Politician and "police state" have same root wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960583)

Given that the root word in question is "city", that has to be the most nonsensical observation I've seen yet.

assume (3, Interesting)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957391)

I think we can all safely assume that every government regardless of locale will try to restrict it's citizens rights to the point that the citizens have to respond to stop them. This is the default criteria for a government in the first place. We all know that this will creep back in a little while when the issue becomes less volatile. The only real way to stop it is by acceptance or revolution (e.g. american revolution). I don't forsee any polititians being strung up in trees so it is the fault of the public. You get the government you deserve.

Re:assume (4, Interesting)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40957533)

I think we can all safely assume that every government regardless of locale will try to restrict it's citizens rights to the point that the citizens have to respond to stop them. This is the default criteria for a government in the first place. We all know that this will creep back in a little while when the issue becomes less volatile. The only real way to stop it is by acceptance or revolution (e.g. american revolution). I don't forsee any polititians being strung up in trees so it is the fault of the public. You get the government you deserve.

No, when the government is elected in open elections, citizens can get what they want without revolution. In the USA, we used to have an assault weapons ban (a measure many Americans found sensible). But it was allowed to expire because the National Rife Association heavily lobbied Congress to make sure it sunsetted. This is not about spying, but it is about removal of a restriction that was removed because many Americans wanted it removed. If you can get enough people interested, you can enact practically anything. Arguably, those in favor of repealing the ban were not even a majority. They were well-organized and well-financed, though.

That's the key thing. Citizens have to care about the issue. Most citizens are ambivalent about security-vs.-surveillance.

Re:assume (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40958705)

That's the key thing. Citizens have to care about the issue. Most citizens are ambivalent about security-vs.-surveillance.

It's more the threat perception, yes you can point to all the nasty stuff that happened with MLK and the civil liberties union or McCarthyism or in the Soviet Union or fascist Europe but to most people that's ancient history from the 1900s, neither the communist nor neonazist ideology hold any real sway in western countries. Sure there's quite a few undemocratic countries but they're not talking about an international socialist revolution like the Soviets did, nor does anyone look likely to want to start WWIII. In short, most people don't see much of a threat from the state. Meanwhile, there are threats from deranged terrorist groups. Getting killed or maimed by terrorists or anyone you know is a pretty real and serious infringement on your liberties too.

The first thing everybody says after a terror attack is that this will not change us and we will go on as before, but it is as much posturing as it is truth. You can't help wonder if that's just someone's forgotten luggage or a bomb, you can't help respond as if it were a bomb. If you did nothing then people would avoid it out of fear and the terrorists win. If you spend billions on extra security the terrorists win. But the terrorists win less if people keep flying after 9/11 than if they didn't, even with TSA groping and naked scanners and the ridiculous restrictions on liquids. You can't ever get back that innocence, but you're trying to restore normality as far as at all possible. People hand them surveillance power to find the really bad men, not to interfere in everyday life but that's what happens. That much power is always abused.

Re:assume (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960327)

So you push back at the excesses to try and keep a balance.

Listen to "the voice of the masses"... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957589) []


P.S.=> Ahem: In other words?

When "the powers that be" actually POLICE THEMSELVES, HONESTLY (and they DO pull a LOT OF SHIT worldwide - think IRAN CONTRA)?

Then, perhaps, they'll have the RIGHT to start SPYING ON THEIR CONSTITUENCY... when instead, they could be doing what I posted above in that link - which actually DOES work out well for folks online!

... apk

Re:Listen to "the voice of the masses"... (1)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40958207)

This is the reason to not have AC's on this board. If you state your opinion by using a youtube video from a whiny and irrelevant rock band, the rest of the comment and statements made thereafter are immediately dismissed as the ramblings of a angst ridden teenager with too much time and not enough common sense.

Ah, a pseudo-intellectual DOUCHE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964337)

IamGarageGuy 2 = wannabe intellectual douche. We understand you cannot help but be the douche you are, but please, try to keep your puny small minded opinions to yourself.

Facts on "a whiny irrelevant rock band" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969329)

Lead singer Dexter Mulholland's a PhD candidate (with Masters in Molecular Biology), & valedictorian of his high school class in California before that:


"Valedictorian from Pacifica High School, he's a FAA licensed Airline Transport Pilot, and a Master's Degree in Molecular Biology. He started a doctoral program in Molecular Biology, but he left in order to focus on the band."

FROM -> []


* SO, "eat your words", regarding your opinion up there, and? More below too...


P.S.=> Plus, calling "the OffSpring" this on your part:

"... a whiny and irrelevant rock band..." - by IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) on Saturday August 11, @01:00PM (#40958207)

vs. this -> []


Isn't showing us you know a lot about music in the 1st place - they're legendary!

... apk

Re:assume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960409)

The only way to stop it is to evolve past government entirely. Government is just the collective belief that we should use a monopoly institution of violence/force (which never works) to solve social problems rather than voluntary association (which actually works). Dissolve the government and privatize all it's functions.

It's an intellectual revolution and it's happening, gradually.

adv (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957637)

what Justin answered I am startled that you able to make $4325 in 4 weeks on the internet. have you seen this web link

that's right not snooping on the interenet..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957649)

*YES sheeple, we are not snooping on the interenet...... do not look behind the cutian, there is no snooping of any nature occuring.....

adv (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40957913)

just as Edwin responded I'm surprised that a person can profit $5197 in 1 month on the computer. have you read this page

Australian democracy working quite well (4, Informative)

Jeeeb (1141117) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960211)

So the internet filter was dropped and the government has been absolutely silent on it since then. We're not going to have browser history data retention laws. iiNet won its case and was found not responsible for its users copyright infringement and we haven't seen any government attempts to introduce French/NZ three-strikes or similar laws since then either. Oh and finally games are going to get an R-rating.

All in all, Australian democracy has worked quite well these last few years and the Australian internet is looking pretty free compared to a lot of other western countries. Oh and work on the nation wide fibre optic network continues as well.

Re:Australian democracy working quite well (1)

ByronHope (2669333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961297)

But the future doesn't look so bright. Opinion polling has the conservatives set to gain government at the next election. Australian mainstream media is on the whole very conservative so the information that gets to the general public is very thin and distorted. One of the highest priorities for the conservatives is trashing the NBN. Labor can't be trusted with censorship, however the conservatives are far worse, with at track record of always siding with their friends in the secret services. The Intelligence services and law enforcement are all politically conservative and hostile to any non-conservative government, hence Labor is trying to be as conservative as possible. We've had a few victories; but prospects for winning the war are bleak.

Re:Australian democracy working quite well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40962605)

Actually the Liberal party has a far far better record on censorship and privacy. Generally right wing politics recognises the importance of the rights of citizens vs government better than left wing politics. The assumption that the left will be less autocratic because they are not 'conservatives' is dangerously wrong.

However, I'm not trying to provide support for the LNP here, just correct the what I see as a poor assumption that Labor would be better in these areas than conservative.

I think you are totally correct that we are facing a long and difficult struggle - both major parties cannot be trusted an inch. Vote for the Sex and/or Pirate parties.

Re:Australian democracy working quite well (2)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 2 years ago | (#40962739)

The Australian Federal Government intervene when people post offensive content on Facebook.

Google "Aboriginal Memes" and you'll find plenty of talk about it.

Re:Australian democracy working quite well (1)

Jeeeb (1141117) | more than 2 years ago | (#40963427)

Meh all that's happened so far is a bunch of ministers have expressed the sentiment that Facebook should delete racists material from its website. Personally, I support their right to express that sentiment. If they go and make laws requiring websites to delete content deemed offensive on request then it will be a different issue all together but that hasn't happened so far.

Re:Australian democracy working quite well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40966537)

I legitimately find the abo memes funny, and I just don't find anything offensive.

Re:Australian democracy working quite well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40966739)

Same here.

Especially the "Don't be racist, you white dawg".

No new powers needed. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960795)

ASIO can bitch and moan all the want but honestly, there's no way they should have more power than they currently have. Why should they be able to monitor us to the levels they are talking about? There has been no need to up until now and there will continue to be no need to into the future. Any organisation or group has to have a physical point of presence and that is the realm in which ASIO should be working. Warrants for wiretap and warrants for seizure of equipment/servers already exist. It is enough.

That's it.. (1)

GigaBurglar (2465952) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961441)

There's no privacy any more - I'm pretty sick of it.

Cut out the middle man. (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961717)

Cut out the Middle man.

When internet snooping / warrantless data searches were proposed in Canada the people just sent all their daily search histories. tweets and cc'd the Minister on all their emails. So much data was coming into the parliamentary mail servers they had to be shut down. The bill was pulled after first reading and sent to committee, which is not the usual procedure, where it is expected to die when this session of parliament ends.

After the next election? (2)

Spacejock (727523) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961797)

Judging by the polls, in 2013 the Australian Labor Party will be handed the biggest caning in the history of Aussie politics. Roxon won't be in power to enact this legislation, and Conroy (Mr Internet Filter) will be out on his ear too. So, where the ALP and their policies are concerned, 'after the next election' equates to 'once hell freezes over'.

Re:After the next election? (2)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 2 years ago | (#40962891)

If we see anything like the recent Queensland state election there'll barely be a Labor Party left.

Down the pan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40963083)

I didn't realise Australia was going down the toilet too.

Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969373)

There will be no government internet snooping under a government I lead.
Wouldn't trust anything a politician says, they do whatever they want, "Democracy" is only there when it suits them.

Can anyone say: VPN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40970959)

Yet another privacy-destroying measure that can be rendered useless with a good VPN or tor. I met an older guy on holidays in Europe recently. He claimed to have been a retired government anti terrorism intelligence worker for [undisclosed major power], on the data mining and analysis end. He told me they could not crack VPNs and these represented an obstacle to spying on communications.

Check for New Comments

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>