Australian Labor Party Proposes ISP Level Filter 459
An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Labor Party (much the same as the Democrats in the US) are claiming they will force ISPs to block violent and pornographic content if elected. From the article: 'Mr Beazley said all households would be included in the policy unless there was a specific request for access to such material. It was "too hard" for many parents to install internet blockers on their computers to prevent offensive material being downloaded.'"
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Australia seems to be more repressive than US (Score:5, Insightful)
What is up with this country?
Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US (Score:5, Informative)
The two major governments are reasonably conservative (although an analogy of the labor party to the democrats is just plain farsical) and so we get crap like this proposed.
Also, puritanical implies religious, Australia is very secular, and this is more a case of "working class mums and dads don't want their kids looking up porn".
That said, this is a completely ludicrious proposal by the labor party and needless to say they've lost my vote for the next federal election.
Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US (Score:2)
this is more a case of "working class mums and dads don't want their kids looking up porn".
Not "working class mums don't want their husbands looking up porn?" Or, maybe, "working class mums don't want their husbands finding their photos while looking up porn?". Although I'm intrigued by the implication that middle-class parents do want their kids looking up porn.
Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US (Score:2)
I probably should have pointed out that the labour party in Australia is traditionally trying to represent the "working-class" and that's why I used that instead of just "mums and dads"
Personally, I'm from a working class family and like most Australian parents mine honestly couldn't give a f*%#!, it's just porn folks
Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US (Score:2)
I think working class still includes middle class, unless there are a lot of people in the middle class who, unlike me, are sitting on trust funds that allow them to party all day.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US (Score:5, Informative)
Kids are not free human beings! Parents are the custodians of their kids until the children have been properly trained to become full-fleged members of society with all of the rights and responsibilities that implies. To put it another way, until you are under the law, liable for all of the consequences of your actions you are not truely free because freedom implies a certain amount of responsibility. You are infact subject to your parents' whims to a certain extent. The way they raise you is their responsibility/problem, but make no mistake you are not free. John Locke really does a much better job than me explaining this. You might look at his Second Treatise.
Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US (Score:4, Informative)
They have the same restrictions for web content providers as they do for broadcast television producers. More info here [efa.org.au].
The problem is "opt out." (Score:5, Insightful)
The way to do it is to make the system opt-in, not opt-out. If people have kids, all they need to do is make a phone call to their ISP; various ISPs can even market the feature as a selling point of their service if they wanted to. But any scheme that automatically filters everything and requires you to put yourself on a list in order to get uncensored access is inherently a bad idea.
Re:The problem is "opt out." (Score:3, Insightful)
But there is.
Pornography does not have to be X rated and violence does not have to be the very worst of the worst that can be found on the net.
It doesn't matter - the same flag on an account is required to get the movie poster from "Lethal Weapon" as to get a full hour-long prison gang rape movie. The "don't filter my connection" request likely won't have a "why" associated. Combine that w
Re:Australia seems to be more repressive than US (Score:3, Insightful)
Porn defined (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Porn defined (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Porn defined (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Porn defined (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think the isp has enough employees to implement that kind of filter.
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
Wise people in government. We would never understand, we're not smart enough.
Re:What? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:2)
The usual boards who rate material not suitable for children or people who do not wish to see such content.
Frankly, people who are smart will eventually get around it anyway...
As in, "smart enough to inform their ISP that they do want to view that material" and thus it is enabled for them? How smart do you have to be to do that, or read a story? Hell, how smart do you even have to be to just read the headline
The Bible is pornography (Score:4, Interesting)
This was the legal basis for the old USSR to criminalize Bible smugglers. It is often helpful to remind Christians of this when debating ill conceived government censorship programs. I am a Christian, and I despise pornography. It destroys the viewers sex life, and in cases of violent addiction those of many others around him (it is usually a male). I have read heart wrenching letters from women, one of them I know personally, who have no sex life because their husband would rather do himself in front of a picture. Nevertheless, what words or images act as pornography varies with the culture and individual.
Machines might be able to recognize images containing bare skin, but bare skin is not pornography. It might be possible to create a bayesian like filter that could be trained to block text and images offensive to an individual. Or an individual can hire a service that shares his/her values to do the filtering. The government (US or AU) does *not* share my values.
For my own family, I check authentication and do bayesian content filtering using pymilter for email. I use squid with a "safesites" list for kids and a "bannedsites" list (obtained from the browsing habits of porn addicted employees of my clients who couldn't stop on their own during working hours) for adults. I use pine to screen my personal email (no images) and lynx to screen websites before adding to safesites.
Some of the students in a beginning programming class I teach were unable to browse web pages on group theory, klein bottles, and other topics which I really doubt acted as porn for anyone alive now or throughout history. They were blocked by a porn filter installed by the parents. I guess those 3D projections of 4 dimensional surfaces do have a rather sensuous look to them. Third party filters are very frustrating. I sympathize with those advocate them in their desire to fight porn. However, they simply do not understand computer technology (and those I know personally invariably run Windows on their PC).
Re:The Bible is pornography (Score:3, Funny)
Huh?
I teach were unable to browse web pages on group theory, klein bottles, and other topics which I really doubt acted as porn for anyone alive now or throughout history.
Don't knock it until you've tried it. Once you go Klein bottle, you never go back!
And you've got to be kidding... Group theory not being related to pr0n?
Re:The Bible is pornography (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the guy, not the entertainment. If he'd choose that over making love with his wife, he has other, more pressing mental issues.
I think any slashdotter wouldn't hesitate to to mate with someone 1/10 the attractiveness of a pornstar if given the chance.
Re:The Bible is pornography (Score:4, Insightful)
So, therefore, you see nothing wrong in shoving your views down every one else's throats. Just because you were too stupid to find naked pictures in order to facilitate your masturbation sessions as a kid doesn't mean that you should make life harder on those people who don't...
For a change, let me shove my views down your throat. I believe that your addiction of bullshit stories (the bible) is very bad for society, because it promotes superstition, it let people be bullshitted by control-freaks so they lose their self-control of their lifes.
So, you are not allowed to show a bible to children, and teach them religion, as this can adversely affect their minds, and render them into helpless psychologically-dependent people who cannot run their own life.
Has it occured to you that, perhaps, the bitch is a bit stuck-up, is a religious hag, or is a dog and is unable to sexually satisfy her husband who cannot therefore be blamed for using pornography to masturbate???
Yeah, so you're perfectly free to despise pr0n, but just make sure you keep your social dictates off my face. Otherwise, it will be a pleasure for me to shove that fucking bible in your asshole page by page, without vaseline.
How about keeping an open mind (of course, this is impossible for a religious type, because religion is first and foremost about closing minds)???
So, just because you're afraid of seeing the bodies of fellow human beings, you deprive yourself of technology... How about learning morse code? Your technological whereabouts would be even more painful this way... With smoke signals, you can also have tear in your eyes, and, if you're careful enough, burn your fingers for more pain.
Tell me, by inflicting all that pain on yourself and on others, what is your ultimate goal? Do you seriously expect that there will be a "great suffering reckoning" some day which will bring you goodies just because you sufferred and made other people suffer?
If so, this is the greatest testimonial to the terminally assinine stupidity of religious people (I lump together christians, jews and muslims, but feel free to include other assholes in there).
Re:The Bible is pornography (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I couldn't disagree more. It's the content PROVIDERS that will get around the filters. It's too large a job for any body or company to find EVERY site or page with questionable material and filter it. How do you know what a jpeg of a naked person is made of? You don't! There is no way to block porn at the ISP level. It's harder than blocking spam and we know they can't do that.
Let's not forget, the internet is for porn. Simple supply and demand. All you can do by trying to filter it is make yourself look like a zealot and/or a fascist. Lots have tried, all have failed.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
"almost two-thirds of parents don't have internet filters on their family computers," Mr Beazley said. did he stop to think that maybe two-thirds decided that they didnt want their internet access restricted or were already filtering their connection using a method which wasnt included in their "statistics".
The current opt-in system works well and should be LEFT ALONE!
"research suggests that the exposure of children and others in the community to this sickening content can lead to aggression towards women and child abuse."
In fact a quick google returns many opposing views eg
"Research by Goldstein et al. shows that sex offenders generally had less contact with erotica in their formative years than did non-offenders and typically had a sexually repressed childhood and sexually repressive parents"
Anyway, Im very upset to even read this and [Insert insults and offensive comment directed at Kim Beazley Here].
Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)
msn search: anything
under suspicion (Score:4, Interesting)
How? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How? (Score:3, Funny)
Breathing heavily?
Working the customer service line to get porn reconnected should probably come with a good wage per hour.
Filtering software is too hard to install? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't install filtering software? How about sitting down with your kids and keeping an eye on what they're doing instead? Move the PC out to a communal area - the front room or dining room, somewhere you can see it from. Hell, you could even end up taking an actual interest in what they're doing, discussing things with them and perhaps even taking a part in their education (dangerous, I know). You never know, they might even learn a few limits of their own.
God forbid that parents should have to take some personal responsibility for what their children are exposed to. I know parenting isn't easy, but this trend of shoving responsibility and effort off to third parties is sickening.
Re:Filtering software is too hard to install? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want an internet filter I could, you know, pay someone to provide me with one.
Still, it is a land where the PM can get web sites closed down if he doesn't like them :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/20/oz_satire
Wanted: more babysitters (Score:2)
If parents would take more interest in their children and watch over them like they expect the government, their neighbors, and Mrs. Fitzgerald down the block to, there would be no need for these silly ideas of "protecting" their kids from everything short of bottled water. If the parents could be bothered to spend even 5 more minutes of every day with their kids, that would completely eliminate this need
Re:Wanted: more babysitters (Score:5, Funny)
You trust that shit? It could be zebra cum -- you just don't know!
Re:Filtering software is too hard to install? (Score:2)
PARENTS decide on things like nannies, playschools, babysitters, and boarding schools. This law is analogous to the government making those decisions instead.
Re:Filtering software is too hard to install? (Score:2)
But filtering software is not the answer! It cannot possibly block all sites you would want to be blocked, and most likely will block sites you would not want to be blocked. It teaches the child nothing about personal responsibility or moral values, and if anything encourages them to go behind your back and hide things from you.
It also gives them a pretty poor role model for how to bring up their own kids, should they have any in the future.
I
Re:Filtering software is too hard to install? (Score:3, Funny)
"If you block me now, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine..."
Re:Filtering software is too hard to install? (Score:2)
There's a world of difference between leaving your children in the care of a responsible third party for a valid reason (eg educate them, have an evening out for a change, ensure they're cared for while you're unavoidably detained elsewhere, etc), and abdicating (a part of) your day to day responsibilities for no reason other than convenience or laziness on your part.
If you don't want your kids looking at violence or porn, sit with them. Explain to them *why* you don
It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
so how about the same thing with TV? no broadcast regulations - any channel can broadcast hardcore porn at any time and if you're not there watching every second of your childrens' viewing then that's just your fault.
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
It's not the ISP's job to do this sort of thing, if you don't want your children seeing certain thing, it's up to you to decide what's appropriate and what isn't. Maybe the ISP could offer a filtering service, but it should be the parents who opt in, not vice versa.
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
TV is something you turn on and data starts flowing with no way to turn it off other than switching to another channel. The Internet is something where you have to ask others to recieve any data, and stopping it is as easy as hitting the 'stop' button on your browser.
A better analogy is to compare the Internet and dead-tree-format mail. If you're going to let your ki
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
I'm pretty certain if The Disney Channel started broadcasting "Mickey Does Minnie Pluto-style" in the middle of the day then it wouldn't be around for much longer. And anyway, just sticking your kids in front of the TV for hours on end, without at least checking up on what they're watching every now and then, isn't (in my view) good parenting anyway.
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
If that means that you have to spend an hour or two a day sitting with them while they use the internet, or watch TV, or whatever, then so be it. You could also try explaining to them what it is you don't want them to be looking at, and why. Children tend
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
I am not interested in a "internet light" edition. I just want a connection that transports packets for me. I don't have any kids, nor will I ever get any. I can't see why I should have "opt-out" of the nannyweb, If you must sell crippled lines then sell them as nannynet connections instead of internet connections.
It won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It won't happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It won't happen (Score:2)
Re:It won't happen (Score:2)
So they *ARE* like the United States' Democrat party then!
fine (Score:2)
it's like the issue of people bitching about ISPs not allowing all ports open by default. sure it helps againt spam and is a non-issue for 99.999999% of users, but what about the poor linux guy with his own mail server that has to
Re:fine (Score:2)
Re:fine (Score:2)
A solution more akin to this would be e.g. a
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Fine. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fine. (Score:2, Informative)
Any of the three would require mountain of paperwork and I would hate to think how bad it would to combine all three.
It is stupid (Score:2)
Today, Porn (Score:3, Insightful)
Whack a Mole (Score:2)
Is he proposing to block all encrypted traffic? What about Rot 13? And every time a new protocol is created the network will have to be reprogrammed to detect whatever portion of the traffic Mr Beazley is objecting to? Will URLs be whitelisted or blacklisted? How long before Australian's leave Mr Beazley all alone in "his" corner of the Internet?
I suspect the average 15 year old is far more Internet savvy than Mr Beazley and his clu
Seriously, (Score:2, Interesting)
Thenagain, I come from the other extreme, so I guess I'm sort of biased here.. (the other being Scandinavia).. I remember once seeing a late night show in the US, the whole idea of which was to show commercials that could never have been aired in the US.. like that was the whole point of it.
Blew my mind, that one..
Re:Seriously, (Score:2)
Yes, that's true. We do that so we won't become inflamed with lust when we catch sight of our own genitals. Obviously a sensible precaution, just as our habit of covering the legs of our tables helps avoid licencious thoughts about other legs.
You know it makes sense.
Re:Seriously, (Score:2)
WTF? Where?
Re:Seriously, (Score:2)
Swimsuits in the sauna, strange.
I wouldn't have guessed since people down there seem to be quite relaxed and European in general.
k2r
Re:Seriously, (Score:2)
uh, what? I'm Australian, never worn a swimsuit in the shower unless it was on the beach with no walls. Hell I've never even seen someone wear a swim.. damnit, TOGS in the shower at the public pool in the changerooms, and they generally don't have walls.
Too Hard (Score:2)
It is not that hard to install an internet filter, or if they are that inept, pay someone to assist them. So don't give me that crap about how kids today are smarter than their parents, that is just a copot. All it takes is the time most people invest in a few TV episodes, maybe a book or two, and some ironfisted discipline.
The democrats? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The democrats? (Score:2)
The Liberals (the right wing party) have teamed up with the Family First (right wing religious) party. This is an attempt to draw either the votes in parliament of the sole Family First MP, or to attract votes from people who might vote for that party.
Re:The democrats? (Score:2)
"The Australian Labor Party (much the same as the Democrats in the US) are claiming they will force ISPs to block violent and pornographic content if elected."
Not to sounds like a total grammar nerd, but that sentence reads oddly. "much the same as" can be read as a comparison of actions. It should say something like "a party similar to the US Democratic party."
A sleepy idiot such as much self can read that sentence and thi
Re:The democrats? (Score:3, Informative)
1) Tipper Gore & music
2) CDA
3) COPA (Son of CDA)
4) Hillary Clinton's current violent gaming regulation proposals
Won't happen. (Score:2)
I've traded a few emails with various members of the labor party and none of them actually think this will work (or is even remotely useful), it's a way to grab favour from the "Will somebody think of the children!" crowd.
That said, just to make sure how I feel about it, I'll be regurgitating my previous emails to all appropriate party members, I'd suggest all Australians do the same, just in case.
Can any aussie's here can explain (Score:2)
Re:Can any aussie's here can explain (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Can any aussie's here can explain (Score:2)
Ironically, the dirtiest magazines are only (legally) available for sale in Australia's capital city.
I always thought you guys were a bit more liberal and easy-going than what the news makes you out to be..
*We* are. Idiotic politicians on the other hand...
Filtering could be a service! (Score:3, Insightful)
Where I live, there are not that much differences between ISP's, I'am pretty sure a lot of parents would take such a service into account when choosing for an ISP.
The REAL problem (Score:2)
As my Australian friend put it.... (Score:2)
Re:As my Australian friend put it.... (Score:2)
No they're both evil and incompetent. The only real difference is that the Libs put the interests of big business ahead of their own. With Labour, it's the other way around.
Opt in is better (Score:3, Insightful)
Filtering is fine, if its *your* choice not to view, not someone else imposing their filtering on you. This is why the British model is not a good one.
Opt-in would be better, it should be a regular purchased service like any other net service. Parents should also have the option of decided WHO defines their filter list. So that they could choose the filtering according to their own religious/Moral beliefs. If you're Islamic you might want to block Danish cartoons for example. If you're a Google fanboy, you should be able to order the Google safe filter. The *parent* should get to decide who they want to do the blocking, the ISP should simply offer the service of routing it.
ISP should *sell* the service, then there is a commercial incentive to offer a market in good filtering choices, rather than a reluctant half assed service.
Governments should be kept at barge pole length, because they have a tendency to censor views they disagree with.
Parents should be able to change the preferences on a website with their login/password they get when they order net connections, so that as their children grow they can turn the filtering down, or when they want to supervise their kids internet usage they can turn it off.
Finally, some filtering services should be whitelisted services rather than blacklisted, i.e. a whitelist of known good sites, for parents that are particularly sensitive to porn/violence issues.
Re:Opt in is better (Score:2)
from memory.
It's just apparently some people are too lazy to do that, and the government has to hold their hand and protect their children for them.
Internet Barrier Reef? (Score:2, Funny)
Cost of a Filter vs. Free NetNanny? (Score:2)
Blocking everything will just make people search harder for it.
Reminds Me Of A Quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Internet isn't a necessity (Score:2)
There are worse problems than kids coming across pornography. Kids putting too much information out on the Net. Do you realize how easy it can be to find out information about a given individual?
Don't ISPs already do this? (Score:2, Informative)
And again... (Score:5, Interesting)
For those not familiar with Australian politics, let me help out a little. In Australia, we have a healthy disrespect for our politicos. Your average Australian will happily diss both major parties, even if they actually voted them in. Occasionally, one of our politicos will say something that is so out there, so backwards, so poorly thought-out that it causes many of us to hang or heads in shame.
And when it comes to IT, our politicos are famous for coming up with poorly thought-out schemes that can make people from even the most backwater of country towns sadly shake their heads, thinking "luddites". So please, don't judge us based on our "representatives". Please look at us as the designated driver who is ashamed of their drunken friend who is making a fool out of himself but still needs someone to drive them home at the end of the evening. This is a shameless attempt at grabbing support from the "think of the children" voter demographic by a party that has been getting spanked in the federal elections for many years by a party that isn't that much better. Hopefully this attempt (not the first) will die the death it deserves and we won't have to hear about it again. Fear not, there isn't any significant grassroots desire for this sort of censorship. Not that I know about anyway! I'd say that the bulk of informed people find the whole proposal to be ridiculous.
Re:And again... (Score:4, Insightful)
This sounds much like how any country would judge another country: based on who that country allows to stay in power. Regardless of whether or not you approve of your elected officials, they did get there with help from 'yer votes. If you don't like them or want them there, get someone competent to run and vote him/her in instead.
Why shouldn't we be judged on our politicians? (Score:3)
(P.S. I am an Australian, and was proud to be one before September 11 hysteria)
Meanwhile, in Italy... (Score:5, Informative)
- chinese Web-TVs that stream sport events whose broadcasting rights in Italy are owned by satellite operator SKY;
- Gambling/sport betting/online casinos, that are required to pay a royalty/tax to operate in Italy;
The worst part of the deal is that no formal trial is done before the order is given to ISPs, so websites don't have any chance to defend their rights. Oh, and citizens don't have the right to know the full list of restricted websites.
Like the democrats? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2)
1) They're not banning porn. RTFA again.
2) Face it, the Democrats here in America have made some really boneheaded moves when it comes to this issue also, while the Republicans have largely remained silent. Lest we forget, President Clinton, one of the best presidents we've ever had in spite of his constant slander, signed the Communications Decency Act [wikipedia.org] into law. (Republicans don't get off the hook on this; a Republican House of Representatives passed it, too.) Just because they're Democrats doesn't m
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for the laugh; you started my day off right.
Re:Why... (Score:2)
Re:Why... (Score:2)
Dumbasses are the best citizens (Score:2)
Unlike Pol Pot, today's leaders don't simply oppress the
Antarctica (Score:2)
Re:well... (Score:2)
On the downside, this is something the Libs would *love* to do (and have proposed in the past). With not even token opposition from Labour, it's even more likely to get done.
Re:Australian Democrats? (Score:2)
Labour won't win the next election so none of this is going to happen. I think they are probing for policies. If they get a good reaction they may continue pushing it, otherwise it will be quietly forgotten.
Re:I gotta do it! (Score:2)
The idea is that during a revolution, an armed populace vastly outnumbers the army. They might kill you, yes, but not everyone.
Re:Moderate Articles? (Score:2)
We get a nice spiel everytime a US politician mentions a computer term (and inevitably mis-pronounces it) but this isn't newsworthy?
Heh, that aside, this isn't newsworthy as it's not the majority party that proposed it, it was a failed leader of a currently unelectable party spurting whatever crap he can in his dying throes.
Not to say I have anything agains Labour, I'll happily vote the victorian labour government in at the next election just