Slashdot Log In
Australian Internet Filter Enters Trial Phase
Posted by
samzenpus
on Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:53 AM
from the crikey-you-can't-read-that dept.
from the crikey-you-can't-read-that dept.
blake writes "News.com.au reports "The Government's plan to have internet service providers filter pornography and other internet content deemed inappropriate for children is going full-steam ahead. [...] The trial will evaluate ISP-level internet content filters in a controlled environment while filtering content inappropriate for children." It all sounds in good taste, and we are told that you will be able to opt out at any time, but will putting this filter in place simply give the powers that be the ability to block access to content for their own agendas. Censorship may be necessary, but should it be overseen by Government."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
No, no, a thousand times no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, no, a thousand times no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No, no, a thousand times no. (Score:5, Informative)
The licence for the filter software cost them $AUD 85M, with only 145000 downloads of the software, and no doubt even less active users. Those that want it, have it. But it seems not many people care.
Dan Rutter brings some light on the insanity here [blogsome.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This latest move is from the new government.
Re: (Score:2)
If only someone could come up with a better way to control content like this... Has anyone suggested the possibility of adding a
Re: (Score:2)
yes, but the US government blocked it...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO, the *real* issue of
You? Me? Bush? The Saudis? The Taliban? What about the ACLU? Or the gov.au, or maybe gov.fr?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*WHO* decides what "must" go in .xxx.
We may be straying a bit off-topic here but, IMHO, there's no reason to force anything onto the .xxx domain. Just make it available so that "legitimate" pornographers can opt-in. Then, those who are offended by such content can filter it easily and ignore it. And, it would be easier for concerned parties to focus on sites that remain on the .com side that are acting irresponsibly (failure to do age verification / illegal content / etc.)
Wrong reason (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the government is exactly the entity that should oversee censorship, because it's the only organization that's accountable to the voters. No corporation should ever have the power to censor anything.
Of course, I don't think even the government should have that power, but voters have always been clueless.
Parent
Re:Wrong reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Think this through: what happens when they censor reports of censorship? Government is the ultimate monopoly more than any mere corporation could ever be. While it is technically possible to switch governments via either enough votes or armed rebellion, the both rely heavily on lack of censorship to effectively get the message out in order to be effective. No, censorship is an insidiously powerfull tool of government. Do not wish they have it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, laws like that have been used successfully in Australia for OHS.
Before the current laws were introduced, workplace safety was based around the same proscriptive model most statute laws still have. Basically, they were a list of things you either had to do
I'll believe in accountable governements (Score:3, Interesting)
when Dear Mr J Howard is brought before a criminal case for his lack of duty of care in placing Australian soldiers in a position of defending another nation's political ideology. When he and his colleagues are successfully sued for introducing a industrial relations that left some/many Australian citizens worse off in a period of time when corporations were experiencing a economic boom.
The only thing he was truly held accountable for is claiming that Australian citizens had never been better off.
Censorship Is Never Necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
But fighting it always is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At any larger scope than a single family, though, yes, it's entirely unnecessary and should be discouraged whenever possible.
Re:Censorship Is Never Necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always struck by the inherent hypocrisy of it. At the same time, I believe people should be able to raise their kids as they see fit (at least, to a large degree), and the government shouldn't come into the picture anyway.
I guess the best solution would be to be involved with your children, talk to them about certain things on the internet, and if necessary, show your disapproval of certain things... but leave them SOME choice, even when you have the tendency to block all of it.
Because, let's be frank: WHO didn't start to get to know about "it" when they still were kids. I remember - in my days when the Net wasn't around - in the school some kid or another brought a Playboy with him, and we were all watching with big eyes what was in it. It's just the way things go; one learns about these things BEFORE one gets 18, and well...we all know how; by watching it 'under the radar' of parents and the like. Why? Heck, because we knew they would 'censor' it if they could - even if they themselves learned it the same way.
This never-ending cycle of hypocrisy is what bothers me the most. People constantly get in the 'savethechildren'-mode, conveniently forgetting - every damn generation - that they did JUST the same, and it was that way they got to know about it.
Of course, you have exceptions; like in China, where a married copple of over 20 didn't even know how the basic things. And I'm sure in the ever-more prude USA things are also really getting hysterically absurd in this regard...But the fact is, it's just a normal way of getting to know about it. The 'prudeness'-hysteria (including censorship) is doing more harm than good, sometimes.
Yes, yes: the net has also some extreme stuff, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. But by some people, that line is drawn pretty damn hypocritical. And the self-appointed 'childsavers' have their field day because of it; exaggerations abound to scare people into thinking the only possible response is censorship. Sometimes to the detriment of a more objective truth. The 'the net is full of porn where our kids just happen to stumble upon and were traumatised by it' is one example of such utter BS. Sure, that can happen, but the truth is, especially for teenagers, for 90%, when they come at 'dirty' sites, it's because they were *looking* for it.
*gasp*
Well, yes...in our time, we went looking to get our hands on Playboys and the like, nowadays, they search the net for it. Heck, if the Net had existed back then, I'm pretty sure I would have been trying to peep on those sites too. Is there any dude here (prude USA'ers not counted) that can claim he wouldn't have done the same?
(ok, I know that such a question begs smart-ass remarks, but the point is; I think we all know the majority of guys would just do the same if they were a kid. Why try to censor something you did (or would have done) the same? Unless one deems himself traumatised by those experiences, it just doesn't make sense to have such a holier-than-thee approach, knowing it's actually not true and hypocrite.)
I think there are better options than bland censoring or forbidding youngsters to look for 'it'. It never really helps anyway.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that kinda like talking about:
"Racial, religious, or gender segregation -within an individual residence"?
If someone does not order a monthly mail subscription to Playboy magazine to their home, I don't think that should really be equated with the word "censorship".
If someone orders a cable TV subscription, and does not choose to pay for the MilitaryBlood&Gore channel, I don't think that should really be equated with the word "censorship".
If someone orders
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think there is much of a difference between any of the parties on this. Can't-you-think-of-the-children (and terror) is an easy sell, massive financial burden on low profit margin ISP's and reduction of network us
Re:Censorship Is Never Necessary (Score:5, Informative)
I hear this, and I've also heard all of Steven Conroy's announcements, but the TFA seems to suggest this has been in the pipeline an awful lot longer. Tenders for companies to provide the filtering system closed in July last year, and the Australian Communications and Media Authority waited until after the election to announce the successful bid.
I suspect that Helen Coonan would have had a similar announcement to make if the Coalition got up.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf [alp.org.au]
That's the election policy document, it pretty clearly outlines mandatory filtering, you can even scrounge around and find the announcement of the original policy by Kim Beazley as leader if you can be bothered.
Lol.. copied liberal policy... you haven't followed politics over the past month? Kyoto, A
It's amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Never mind that there's a million porn sites, the possibility of encrypted traffic or that there's the possibility that someone might use this to filter government-unfriendly information from your data stream...no, don't mind all that, just think of the children. Everything is fine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
All kidding aside, this sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. I have four young kids, and I already have a nice filter installed. It's called me not letting them use the PC without my being within eyesight of the PC.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife's computer is in the family room simply because we don't have any where else to put it. The kids computer is also in the family room.
I'm not saying that I will never allow my kids to have an internet-accessible computer in their bedroom. But for that to become a reality I will
This is a bad idea overall, but making it opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
Government censorship is a good thing? (Score:2)
Wow, I love Australia. But as an American, the two points made in that single sentence evoke knee-jerk revulsion in me!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
HEY! I resemble that remark.
Besides, can I help it if question marks are tasty?
No. Next question please (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they're all quite wrong. I'm about to have my BS in Computer Science, earned in a four year times
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about the other 11 months? Is she someone else's best friend then?
Opt-out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be comical if the list got leaked, though.
Re:Opt-out? (Score:4, Funny)
Mind you, this is COMPLETELY based on a random faction in media on the other side of the world..
Parent
What's inappropriate? (Score:2)
So this is only a trial test, with a field test to follow, but what entity is deciding what is inappropriate. Obviously pr0n would be blocked, but what else would be blanketed? Sites that are deemed inappropriate in order to save the children which could have no bearing whatsoever in terms of being inappropriate. Plus in order to opt out you have to contact you
Start Small (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully I am overreacting, but I don't think I am.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like communism ?
Ok, I'm not saying don't be concerned. I'm not saying don't write your representatives to tell them just how opposed you are to the US following Australia's lead. But the US was so terrified that communism was going to spread through the pacific and hit Hawaii and then the continental US that they went to war in Vietnam to stop it from spreading.
Keep things in the realm of reality, please. There's
Multiple modes? (Score:4, Funny)
Simpler solution (Score:3, Insightful)
If parents can't punish their kids worse than yelling at them or taking away their computer for breaking the family rules on not watching porn, how can you expect parents to keep their kids under control?
When my wife was in high school, she did a study for a class. She went around and asked the girls she knew if they had been spanked or otherwise physically disciplined when they broke the rules growing up. Those who had, the majority of them were the well-adjusted, decent girls. The rest fit many negative stereotypes...
There was an ironic article about outlawing such discipline in California. The state representative said that she'd never support such discipline because she would never spank her cat because some ill-informed vet told her it would do no good. Heh. I grew up with cats, and can tell you that if you spank them when they break the rules, they tend to behave well like any other pet. The reason we have most of these parenting issues is because many families treat their kids the way that they would treat a cat based on common behavior toward cats.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Forget the "child abuse" label. Hitting someone is assault, whether the person you're hitting is an adult or a child, and regardless of whether the child is yours or someone else's. It should be treated as such.
On the other hand, the parents should have some leverage as well. I propose that they not be legally obligated to provide shelter or care; any child that habitually breaks the rules can find its own food and shelter. To protect against overuse, relax the rules giving preferential treatment to biolo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying that it is OK to whack a kid, is on par with saying that it is OK to whack a women (or a man). "But she/he/it didn't do what I told them to do..." Bullshit, domestic violence, of any kind, should not be tolerated.
If your partner just happens to over-cook your dinner, whipping them with a belt is A-OK?
After, it is simple "cause and effect".
What happens if your partner simply forgets to get the mail, or perhaps forgot to get the milk when shopping. I
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, children are not adults and they don't think quite as adults. Sometimes you nee
Re:Simpler solution (Score:4, Insightful)
I said that hitting children was domestic violence which is never acceptable, and I said that children should be able to watch porn if they want to.
As to work, children are legally not allowed to work are they... They are forced to go to school, a place which most of them find boring, the teachers are often useless, and the other pupils sometimes vicious.
I'll direct you to a great essay on the subject of what children should or not be allowed to do.
http://peacefire.org/info/why.shtml [peacefire.org]
As for hitting them to get the point across...
What point? That they shouldn't watch porn? Why shouldn't they watch porn? Because it is sinful? What is sin and why is it bad? Because the bible said so? Why should I pay any heed to a book that is full of contradictions? Because you told me to and you will hit me if I don't... Great way to get your point across Dad.
Parents who use violence against kids are lazy parents and bad parents. They are lazy because they don't want to explain to their children why they should or shouldn't do something. They are bad parents because they are in effect teaching their children that violence is an acceptable substitute for rational dialogue.
Well, violence is not an acceptable substitute for rational and logical discussion, and it should not be a way of enforcing values and morals on children.
Parent
Seems innocent enough... (Score:2)
Any actual evidence of harm? (Score:3, Interesting)
And no, I don't consider "It gives people unrealistic ideas about sex" to be actual harm. Romance movies probably do vastly more harm to developing adolescents by giving them unrealistic expectations of what real romantic relationships are like. Having a grossly distorted "Hollywood" view of romance is probably going to be substantially more problematic to a teenager/young adult than being disappointed that your girlfriend doesn't want to do something kinky that you saw in a porn movie.
It seems like the government should have to produce some evidence that it's actual dangerous before they ban/censor it.
Who does the "deeming"?? (Score:4, Insightful)
"OTHER INTERNET CONTENT DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN"
It's never really about pornography, it's always about that "other bad stuff", like dissident political opinions.
So, who's in charge of deciding what is and is not appropriate for children? Think of ALL the content that certain people and organizations have wanted to ban at various times and you'll get the idea of why censorship is fundamentally incompatible with freedom. Think of Christians wanting to protect the children from Charles Darwin and "political correctness" extremists wanting to ban Mark Twain.
Get the kids out, stay off my lawn (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahh.. internet censorship, hell, censorship in general... such a pet peeve of mine.
Parent