NedKelly

Krudd, eat your heart out!:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-websites.html

themac

That's Iran, miles from Oz and a bit bonkers if you listen to the western news machine.

MartinLuther

I thought the plan was to block what is already on the blacklist (inherited from Howard the Coward). I've never heard any mention of blocking facebook and youtube.

NedKelly

Do you know what is on the blacklist?

themac

I'm confused, are you actually trying to compare Oz to Iran? I work with an Iranian guy and find this comparison rather amusing.

Forgive me if I am missing something, the first link refers to an Iran news story?

bigAPE

No. The list has been expanded and now includes anything which is illegal like euthanasia. So it will block access to any URL that points to content containing a reference to euthanasia including ones which are merely debating the issues.

In addition the list will be augmented with content which are deemed "inappropriate for Australians". This is currently slated to include sites that refer to anorexia, abortion and gambling. The worst part is that the list of "inappropriate content" is open to expansion from other offices within the government (both hard core religious and ones with other agendas)

To be honest this is just half the issue. The dynamic filters they are planning to put in place will reduce the speed of the internet for Australian by up to 82% (the governments own figures) depending on the level of dymanic filtering employed. Even the ISPs involved in the trial are all saying that this filter would cripple businesses and put Australia 10 years behind the rest of the world, not least put us in a very select group of countries which heavily restrict their populations rights to access information (China, Iran, etc) Even Afghanistan has a more forgiving filtering system.

Steven Conroy keeps claiming that he's planning nothing more than a system which is already in place in some European countries including the UK, but this is a flat out lie. The UK's filtering solution blocks just 1500 URL's around the world which are known to international police institutions as sites dedicated to child pornography.

The following should provide more information

http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...?t=1089849&p=1

NedKelly

You should look up the meaning of "eat your heart out". Let me explain. it means that someone you know can do something better than a person who is famous for doing the same thing. In this case Rudd is "famous" for implementing an internet censorship system and President Iamadinnerjacket has gone one better.

bigAPE

No, this is going to be kept secret. According to Conroy in fear that knowing what's on the list will cause children to seek it out What a moron.

This is the most grotesque form of censorship wrapped up in political spin using child pornography as a cause. Thus anyone who stands up against the filter is branded as supporting child pornography! It's a very clever approach they are using and as such is obviously going to automatically pick up the more suggestible groups in the community. Including mums who will do anything to protect their children (rightly so) along with those of a lower intelligence who blindly accept anything their government says.

It's just disgusting and it's all spin. The filter will do nothing to stem the trade in child pornography because the scum who do this stuff crap don't use "Web Sites" to communicate. The federal police have told the government this and have been ignored.

Yet, Conroy is insisting that this will go ahead. All he keeps saying is "We made an election commitment to put this in place and we will do it" over and over. Well Mr Conroy I'm pretty sure that what your government said was that they would do everything in their power to stop children being abused by people via the internet. That's not quite the same as "We promise to destroy online businesses in Australia, knock the internet services in Australia back into the stone age just when they are gradually getting better and enforce censorship on Australia not seen outside of China"

Hutch

Interestingly, the comments by the Supreme Overlord of Iran sound awfully similar to the kind of horseshit spouted by the pro-censorship bods on the other long thread ...

MartinLuther

Nope but it doesn't seem to have affected my life so far.

Now I know they could in "theory" start restricting stuff which they shouldn't but they could also in "theory" do lots of other things to restrict my freedom which they haven't.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. If they make they make a mistake where they draw the line then Australia has the democratic process to rectify it.

MartinLuther

So when did they add Euthanasia to the list?

Hutch

It was there from the outset. The view of the British MP, Stephen Conroy, who is bringing this bill in - is that all these things are illegal in Australia and so they are simply bringing the Internet into line with Australian law. Euthanasia is illegal, so you will be banned from visiting websites on the subject. I for one will be joining the crowds down at the local library when we burn all the books that mention euthanasia too.

NedKelly

Speeding is illegal too, are they going to ban sites that discuss speeding?
What about guns? All sites that mention guns, all those Hollywood films?

MartinLuther

So it came from Howard?

bigAPE

It's not in place yet.

Possibly. There is no restriction to what they can block under the proposed scheme.

Guns are not illegal in Australia