Australian Government Ignoring Problems With Proposed Filters 292
halll7 writes with an update to the proposed Australian national firewall we discussed recently. According to the BBC, "The official watchdog, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), has been conducting laboratory tests of six filtering products, and the government plans a live trial soon. ... After its recent trials, ACMA reported significant improvements on earlier studies. The network degradation on one product was less than 2%, although two products were in excess of 75%." Now, Ars Technica reports that "an Australian newspaper has uncovered documents showing that the government minister responsible for the program has ignored performance and accuracy problems with the filters, then tried to suppress criticism of the plan by private citizens." The EFA has a great deal to say in opposition of these plans.
What is going on? (Score:5, Interesting)
What is going on with anglo-saxon governments?
They used to be the vanguard of freedom and liberties! Now, they seem to be degrading into a spiral of power-hungry stupid obtuseness!!!
Is it something in the water, or the anglo-saxon culture has run it's course and is now totally decadent???
So the govt. is actually AGAINST net filtering? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Autrailian government is considering implementing a web filtering system - but they don't want people to know that it doesn't work.
Given that they state (in the cited article) that it will block "all illegal material", then by definition anything it allows through must therefore be legal, The only conclusion I can logically draw from this is that their government is against filtering, blocking or generally censoring the internet - but that they don't want their people to know this. Strange!
Re:What is going on? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've said it before, "No representation without compensation," and big business can afford a lot of representation. In this case, I'm sure someone is looking to cash in but I think ideology is driving it. Either that or a politician is trying to look tough on the 'think of the children' issue of the week.
Is this the same Internet I know? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's weird, in the 15 years or so that I've been using the Web, I have never, ever, seen one single photograph that could be classified as "child porn".
I have seen some pictures of nude children in nudist camps and beaches, there are many beaches in Europe where whole families go totally nude. There are many so-called "teen" sites, which show nude women with small breasts and shaved pubic region, who could be of any age between 15 and 30.
But I never found one single picture of a child engaged in sex. This must be some different "internets" we are talking about. That, or people have extended the meaning of "child porn" to "any image I don't like".
Source of filters (Score:2, Interesting)
Disclosure: I am American.
Now that we have that out of the way, I really don't feel the American government should be telling Australian government how to rule their own country ( This statement does not apply to things such as are killing political dissidents ). However, I would have no problem if the US government made it illegal for US government agencies to purchase equipment from any company who supplied a foreign country with this kind of filtering technology. The ban could be extended to any organization who receives any form of government support ( most of the collages in the US and for the next few years the entire US financial system ). Then, companies like Cisco would have to decide if they are going with China and Australia or the US.
There are ways to get what you want ( or this case, to do the right thing ) without directly going to another country, getting in their face, acting like arrogant Americans and telling them that they don't know what is best for their own country.
Re:What is going on? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is absolutely nothing more than the result of people buying into government as a paternal figure.
People have made it resoundingly clear that they want the government to protect them. Whether it's from alcohol, cigarettes, violent video games, firearms, drugs, sex or any number of other things which have been, or are curently threatened by, the nanny state.
This isn't bad in itself. The job of government is afterall to do the will of the people. If the majority wants smoking banned and it isn't unconstitutional who am I to say it's wrong?
The problem comes in when we the people fail to demand accountability for these measures. We blindly accept, out of ignorance or apathy, the measures the governments are proposing because 'it's from the government, it must be right' and never demand proof that legislation is effective or efficient.
A politician is not an expert on violent video games
A politician is not an expert on the effects of alcohol
A politician is not an expert on second hand smoke
A politician is not unbiased, is not benevolent, and does not know any better than you what is best for you.
The government is an employee of the people, not a father figure. It's damn time we start treating it that way.
1. We need salary caps that ensures politicians are earning no more than the average man they represent
2. Abolish appointed positions and establish term limits for elected positions
3. Build accountability into the constitution - this would be a multifaceted piece that must include civillian involvement, metrics to measure the effectiveness of new legislation, and the power to enact a sunset clause on legislation that is ineffective or detrimental
4. Legislate criminal penalties for violating the constituion and enforce them
5. Provide an easy path for citizens to challenge unjust laws that does not require being arrestsed to do it (see Canada)
Filters? Great, now I don't have to worry...? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, if Australia's filtering, that means I NEVER have to worry about getting in trouble for using the internet! Right?
A while ago, a place I used to work at implemented filtering. I was actually kinda happy about it! I no longer had to worry about going to an inappropriate site, because the filters would stop me from getting there. Great!
Except that, a few weeks later, the CEO sent an email to everyone stating how annoyed he was that people were trying to access the filtered sites. It didn't matter that the sites were blocked. It didn't matter that people never saw the blocked content! The mere fact that we were still adjusting to the new filters caused our CEO to chastise us about our internet usage.
And that's the ultimate insult with filtering- It doesn't matter if it works 100% perfectly. You will be expected to filter your brain as well. If the filter admins see that you're trying to access things that you cannot even access because of the filter, you WILL get in trouble.
Re:What is going on? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuck the Constitution. It does not really include any explicit provision for managing commons, and this is the most important job of a government. The Founding Fathers were too absorbed in their own issues to deal with the larger picture.
Smoking doesn't really damage commons, but smoking upwind of me does: that was air that I wanted to breathe, and a government absolutely does have a place in telling people that they can't destroy a public resource.
That said, it's unconstitutional, as is all regulation of pollution, federally funded education, establishment of national parks, ...
Re:What is going on? (Score:5, Interesting)
Name a race (as that's what you're talking about) that isn't doing this now. The Slavs are going back to authoritarianism under Putin, China has never left it, can't think of any African or Arab countries that do either.
So, again, what's with the "anglo-saxon" tag? Are people of any ethnicity resisting this?
Re:What is going on? (Score:3, Interesting)
By that reasoning, the government could to confiscate your car, because your exhaust is FAR more polluting to my lungs, than a single cigarette.
Yup.
Fortunately for you, the Congress doesn't have the power to confiscate either cars or cigarettes.
Are you sure that that's fortunate for me? Do you really think that we'd be worse off if we had clean high-speed electric trains and buses and cars, and a truly bicycle-friendly civilisation, than we are now? No more global warming (depending on how we got the electricity, but clean energy is possible), no more traffic accidents (or at least many fewer), no more oil wars, no more urban sprawl, no more geriatrics' (and others') lives destroyed when they find out that they are no longer mobile because they can't drive anymore and have no alternatives, vastly decreased cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, depression, ..... Sounds terrible!
I swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution as the ultimate voice of the people. If you want to amend the constitution, that's fine, but ignoring the constitution is not and never will be an option. It's the SUPREME Law of the Land, and laws do not exist simply to be ignored.
The Constitution would be a good start if politicians actually honoured it. I agree--I'd like to see it (1) amended to MANDATE, not just ALLOW, protection of nationally shared resources (and, for that matter, internationally shared resources; since we're going to play World Police (and apparently someone has to) we might as well be fighting the good fight), and (2) actually honoured (or at least memorised) by our politicians. Go take your oath and start fighting the warrantless wiretapping, and 100-miles-inside-the-border vehicle searches, NASA, the EPA, and all those other things that are unconstitutional.
Given your attitude towards the Constitution, you would have a hard time swearing an oath, since you so clearly disrespect the Will of the People as embodied by that document.
I can swear plenty of oaths (I already did; see my first sentence in my previous post ;) But I will uphold what I believe is right, not some obsolete and insufficient legal document that is by and large ignored anyway. If you really think the US Constitution is the "Will of the People", you should figure out how many People have actually read it, and whether it reflects what They actually Want.
I'm really, truly glad that you have read the document. We'd be far better off if there were more people like you. But as I said, the Constitution ignores something that was a non-issue when it was written, but which is the one really crucial and urgent issue now: protection of large-scale commons.
Re:What is going on? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, you beg the question in so many ways there. (In the old-school sense of assuming the conclusion, not in the new sense of "raise the question".) Let me count the ways:
Your position may have some merit, but if it does, you certainly haven't demonstrated it. Please come up with some better arguments than this crap.
Parents(In General) Are stupid. (Score:2, Interesting)
Hopefuly the logout button worked this time, so i can post as an anonymous coward to protect my government job here in Australia.
Here's the issue as I see it.
I have parents who come up to me all the time(I work in education) telling me what software to use to stop the baddies from getting to their kids.
I ask them a simple question in return:-
"Do they have a computer in their room?"
Out of the ~150 that have asked me over the last 2 or 3 years now - 90% say yes(and half of said schools are primary!)
When i tell them to move their computer out into the lounge room and not let them onto the internet unsupervised- They usually :
1) Say "But thats too much effort!"
2) Give me a blank stare, as if i just accused them of being murderers.
Either way, my response to that is always:
"When you took your kids to the playground, you did not piss off down to the shops while they were there did you?"
It's a residual of the larger Aussie cultural... (Score:1, Interesting)
Compare SlashDot.org to, say, Whirlpool.net.au
Last time I checked, SlashDot won't remove users' comments unless/until ordered by a Court.
Last time I read 3 user-forum threads at Whirlpool, there were an -average- of 5 remains of Whirlpool- moderators' work, ie, of removal of user comments from -each- thread.
Users have been -permanently- banned from posting on Whirlpool.net.au (eg, for about reminding people that French ISP plans offer unlimited downloads, include local & long-distance (within France) calls, plus some cable TV channels... all for about Au$45, at the time.)
Australian aren't really in favor of free speech, any more than recent (eg, Japanese) textbook re-writers are.
The world is looking, and Whirlpool, the gov't run ABC all "reserve the right to" remove posts that the owners don't like, long before courts are asked for a more objective opinion on the appropriateness.
AUSTRALIA: Slow, expensive Internet, soon to be filtered & even slower. Past is prologue.
Folks, we've had a documented "brain-drain" here, eg, in the previous reported year, and it's not over yet.
Low on the "fights corruption effectively" scale, Australian online institutions (like Whirlpool) can be "bought" and - when they are - freedome of speech is just a dream.
"How to make a small fortune in Australia? Bring a large one with you."
PS Whirlpool reportedly derives support from ISP contributions (not openly detailed by its owner(s), AFAIK), and - naturally - Telstra Big Pond is listed as "Big Pond" so as to raise its visibility in Whirlpool's alphabetized ISP listing... or was recently.
For a long time, its flow of Internet news front page was slower than molasses; of course, new news stayed queued until -one- person (the owner) decided to publish it, and it's not much better now...