Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Censorship Australia The Internet Politics

On Eve Of Election, Australia's Conservatives Announce Mandated Filtering Policy 87

Posted by timothy
from the oh-by-the-way dept.
Dan B. writes "After Australia's Conservative party (LNP) quietly posted a policy [PDF] to impose mandatory internet filtering just one day prior to the country's election, local premiere internet forum Whirlpool has gone in to overdrive with the fastest 50 page thread ever. At 8:30pm, both sides of politics were busy running media releases, with the Conservatives hastily back-pedalling on the policy, and the Government attacking it, accusing them of hypocrisy after voting down their own proposed filter 3 years prior, stating there was no proof filtering works."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On Eve Of Election, Australia's Conservatives Announce Mandated Filtering Policy

Comments Filter:
  • by Taantric (2587965) on Thursday September 05, 2013 @10:56AM (#44765781)

    These morons would rather put the entire country and it's IT infrastructure to the expense and trouble of a Opt out system, instead of just making it a Opt In system for those families or organizations like schools that may need such a filter.

    You think the ISP or the smartphone or modem manufacturers are going to absorb the cost of this additional layer of government mandated censorship? No they are going to pass on the cost to the consumer. So for every one household that might actually use this filter, nine would not and yet those nine would still pay for it.

    PS: I don't understand the logic. How does censoring my internet protect your children from porn? It just doesn't make any sense.

  • Re:Why... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Farmer Tim (530755) <roundfile AT mindless DOT com> on Thursday September 05, 2013 @10:57AM (#44765795) Journal

    It's a test for future policy development: if they can get away with spouting crap before the election, they know they can get away with murder afterwards.

  • by GigaplexNZ (1233886) on Thursday September 05, 2013 @11:27AM (#44766077)
    No, the announcement was for an OPT OUT system. They backtracked claiming they meant for it to be opt in, yet how something like that gets written up in sufficient detail describing how the opt out system would work when they intended opt in just boggles the mind (read: they're a pack of liars).
  • +1 Insightful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zooblethorpe (686757) on Thursday September 05, 2013 @12:40PM (#44766781)

    It's a test for future policy development: if they can get away with spouting crap before the election, they know they can get away with murder afterwards.

    Not sure why that's currently rated at +5 Funny -- this is quite insightful. Politicians do indeed do this. Lay out a (sometimes batshit-insane extreme) policy position before an election, and if the electorate rolls over, the politicians know it'll fly just fine. If the electorate raises a holy stink, back off and propose something slightly less batshit-insane that's calibrated to squeak by. This is how bullshit becomes modus operandi. This is also how Microsoft has been working to make its Panopticon (a.k.a. XBox One) palatable to the buying public.

    This approach is a proven technique. Funny? More like frighteningly accurate.

    Cheers,

Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way.

Working...