Australia Imposes Internet Filter

I can see this coming to the US if it goes through and man what a ruckus this will cause. It's censorship. I'm all for the child porn and things of that nature but once you give them an inch they'll take a mile. Scary stuff.

The government is giving free laptops to all High school students with this filter installed.
Students have been able to hack these laptops and bypass the filter.
The moron we have as a minister has been inundated with Emails stating that the model is flawed and anyone with half a brain can bypass it, but he insists on spending millions of dollars on this VERY FLAWED filter.

tw33k said:

Don't let this government fool you. This type of mandatory filtering is censorship: plain and simple!

+1 Damn right.

I am very passionate about this topic and will not stand by while a government tells me what I can and can't look it on the internet

I've always wondered what it would be like to live under a dictatorship. Now I'm starting to know.

I'm also sick to death of the insidious heart string methods that are being used to fool the populous into believing that it's for 'the benefit of everyone'.

Using a taboo subject like 'child pornography' is merely a guise that guarantees government censorship like this is able to proceed.

The no impact on speed is also nonsense. My ISP actually trialled a filter a while ago and the overall net performance was negatively impacted. They claimed it didn't, however the evidence to the contrary did not back up their 'claims'.

The last insult is that the 'opt-out' option of filtering has been abolished.


Those who voted, and will continue to vote, for these clowns should be ashamed of themselves.

smarteyeball said:

tw33k said:

Don't let this government fool you. This type of mandatory filtering is censorship: plain and simple!

+1 Damn right.

I am very passionate about this topic and will not stand by while a government tells me what I can and can't look it on the internet

I've always wondered what it would be like to live under a dictatorship. Now I'm starting to know.

I'm also sick to death of the insidious heart string methods that are being used to fool the populous into believing that it's for 'the benefit of everyone'.

Using a taboo subject like 'child pornography' is merely a guise that guarantees government censorship like this is able to proceed.

The no impact on speed is also nonsense. My ISP actually trialled a filter a while ago and the overall net performance was negatively impacted. They claimed it didn't, however the evidence to the contrary did not back up their 'claims'.

The last insult is that the 'opt-out' option of filtering has been abolished.


Those who voted, and will continue to vote, for these clowns should be ashamed of themselves.

2nd that notion.

Qdos said:

Searches for 'Sheila' will be specially scrutinized... but c'mon guys, Australia's not even a communist state fer' gawds sake, it's not the DPRK... the government are just trying to protect surfers from a deluge of web-nasties like Russian paedophilia... ranging right thru' to Microsoft updates...

lol, not yet. Comrade At least they have decency to be upfront about their actions.

However the parallels between the Enforced Government Censorship of a communist dictatorship and a 'free democratic' government 'Protection Filter' are unpleasantly similar.

The Rudd government's internet censorship proposal is not about protecting the children. It's about politics. This policy is probably about a Senate preferences deal between Labor and Family First. It's certainly about the political demands of a small but vocal and well-connected minority of conservative Christian voters and the devilishly evil internet. The political solution has already been chosen: compulsory censorship by an automatic filter. The political goal is to sell that policy to the voters. Proponents of mandatory filtering have consistently mentioned only the very worst kinds of material that would be blocked, repeatedly, like a mantra. ACMA has told Senate Estimates that on 30 September the blacklist contained a mere 1175 distinct web addresses (URLs). Of that total, 54 per cent were Refused Classification (RC), and only 33 per cent of the RC material related to child sexual abuse. The remainder of the blacklist was 41 per cent of URLs leading to X18+ material, and 5 per cent to R18 per cent material which didn't have a "restricted access system" to prevent access by minors. Conroy didn't mention that the filters tested by Enex can't deal with non-web protocols such as instant messaging, peer-to-peer file sharing or live chat - where problem material is more likely to be found - or that "a technically competent user could, if they wished, circumvent the filtering technology."

Politics, not child protection.

The main driving force behind all of this isn't simply to filter some garbage sites and downloads from them but overall software piracy. I can see this should be in the Chillout Room for sure when you see another explaination of this.

Can You 'Ban' People From the Internet?

'Three Strikes' Plan for Illegal Downloads Fouls Out

OPINION
By LESLIE HARRIS
Dec. 4, 2009

Is it appropriate to "ban" someone from the Internet for downloading someone else's music? Is turning someone into an Internet exile a proportionate punishment for illegal file sharing?



The U.S. could consider so-called "three strikes" rules that would ban illegal downloaders from using the Internet.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)


The French have passed such a law, and the British, led by the queen, have proposed legislation. Some companies that produce music and video seem to be encouraging similar approaches across Europe and in the U.S.

You can read the rest of that one at Illegal Internet Downloads: 3 Strikes and You're Out? - ABC News

This covers a wide variety of things.

Sorry, you are wrong. The minister heading this outrageous scheme, Stephen Conroy has, time and again, stated that the Government's aim is to "protect minors" from "harmful" content. This has nothing to do with software piracy at all. You are talking about a totally different issue