jazzys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7689964.stm

jazzys

wanderingwombat

Rumour has it BE is at the top of the hit list

WW

jazzys

Can't we claim asylum?

Jazzys

Pollyana

I sometimes think we are already IN an asylum

moneypenny20

Did you have a good day? Just managed to see the dump and burn from a road along from us - t'was a little dot of orange

Pollyana

Yep, the Surfers Paradise Asylum was very pleasant today - its quieter than previous years so more fun, and Himself booked an apartment with a pool this time, so I am making the most of it, much to the amusement of the Aussies who think its too cold to even put a toe in the water

Damson

To be honest, I don't have a huge problem with it. I'm guessing that the sites they are looking to weed out are not going to be the sort of sites we all go on (I hope!). As far as I'm concerned, anything that can be done to get rid of some of the horrific stuff on the net is good; at least they are trying to do something about it and not citing what every other government is saying i.e, 'well we'd love to do something, but.......'. If it protects just one child or one animal or the like, I'm for it - even if it does 'infringe my liberties'.

Lorraine

JackTheLad

It depends who decides if it protects 'one child or one animal'. Do you want the government to decide that?

The Chinese government does decide that for its people. Obviously reading subversive news reports about famine in China from the UK or Oz would corrupt the parent and therefore the child, so they block it.

As for animals, they blocked the outbreak of bird flu, so their chickens etc could still be exported. It didn't matter to them that the bird flu could spread.

Do you still want a government to decide what protects 'one child or one animal'?

How about we decide ourselves?

JTL

Centurion

I've just emailed the Minister for Communications and called him a ****** in more polite terms and pointed out the utter stupidity of this.

1. It does not stop any form of peer to peer file sharing (the major transport system for any dodgy material and the sickos who share it).
2. It will create a massive slow down in internet speeds which will place our internet infrastructure on par with a third world country.
3. As a taxpayer I have to fund this myself and then pay for the ongoing cost to the ISP for something which is deeply onpopular.

The most stupid part about all this is the hysteria that should someone point out the madness in it, all we hear is "pleeasee think about the children". Well, its crap and won't help. The most laughable part ? I am paying for my internet experience to regress to that of Chinese censorship.

On this matter alone I will be changing my vote. The consequences of allowing such controls at a government level on what I read and then potentially tracking all data I download is a step too far against my civil liberties.

Tableland

"New Labor: Turning Australia from Freedom to Fiefdom in Three Quick Years"

Centurion - I would never have voted for these guys anywway because of what they did in the UK 1997 - 2008.

jazzys

Aye, what he said

jazzys

Damson

Sorry but if it takes a government to help shut down some of the sick kiddie porn sites then I'm prepared to wait a bit longer for my internet connection (we always used to manage before the internet after all). I know it's not perfect and there are many ways around it, but it's a start. It is always a shame when the majority are penalised by a tiny minority as happens in so many situations but there you go. PS, I'm not sure also who is being hysterical here either.

ozzieeagle

Wont work...

MIRC (Inter relay chat) and FTP (File Transfer Protocol) are the way around this.

Thats how things worked before file sharing clients became prevalent.

They cannot stop people transferring individual files from one to another, thats the basis of the net. They cannot stop people talking to each other, which is how people find what they want.

IRC still offers file sharing between individuals.

Pollyana

Its not an anti-child-porn campaign though. Its censorship, pure and simple.

Its a proposal by which no individual in Australia would be able to access ANY site unless the government approved it. EVERY site would be vetted as you try to access it and only those the the government likes would become available.
The very thin end of the wedge of censorship. There are threads in the Middle East forum about sites that they cannot access there beause of government controls - some of which are perfectly legitimate, but the government doesn't happen to agree with them. The Chinese even have problems accessing Yahoo.
At the extreme, the government could gain "control" of sites like this, and other blogs and forums, and unless they are full of pro-Aussie propaganda, they could be blocked. If the government approves you get to see it, if not, you won't even know it exists.
Big Brother wouldn't just be watching, he'd be controlling, and it is totally against all the principles of free speech and democracy.


And as Ozzieeagle has said, the very stuff that people think it will stop, nasty child porm, will just continue, through file sharing rather than open websites, which is largely the way it goes on now.

Pollyana

Have a look at the previous threads discussing it.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=502461

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=567668