Australian Senator Wants to Censor the Net 588
Paul writes "An Australian Senator wants Australians' internet connections to be automatically filtered by ISPs. Anyone who wants to view pornography or 'other adult material' (details not specified) must apply to their ISP to be given access to it. Another step towards becoming a nanny state."
WTF! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF! (Score:5, Funny)
I can't imagine any possible way to do it. Unless they link all the lambs in australia into one massive quantum supermachine
Encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the content doesnt matter.
Re:WTF! (Score:4, Insightful)
Like web browsers that support https?
Re:WTF! (Score:3, Funny)
They have a way around it... (Score:3, Insightful)
People care way to much about what others think of them. If you enjoy something, fuck what others think.
Re:They have a way around it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They have a way around it... (Score:4, Funny)
Yesh! We all know that boobs are weapons of mass seduction!
Re:They have a way around it... (Score:3, Funny)
"Aw cmon baby... we have to take a stand! I look at porn only as an expression of my inalienable freedoms and protest against... wow... I didn't know you could fit that there... um, protest against government censorship!"
Re:WTF! (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people don't understand the technology, but think they are qualified to make decisions about laws governing that technology. Some People are idiots.
Re:WTF! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF! (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was 14 I was doing some religion study homework (catholic highschool, it didn't stick) with a team, one of guys asked if we wanted to watch a bootleg porn tape, someone from the AV club had made him a copy. We said yes, off course.
I could have done without the hardcore scripted shit, I just wanted to see nekkid wimmin, the money shots were weird and pointless.
The lesson is: If you want to protect the children, STOP LUMPING HARDCORE PORN AND BOOBIES TOGETHER. And stop trying to stop 14 year olds from seeing boobies, it's doing much more harm than good.
Re:WTF! (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone who's desparate to surf pr0n will find a way around it.
I think you are missing the point. They are not trying to stop people in general from seeing porn. In fact, it says in the article that it is people's right to register for open access but the default will be restricted access. The point is about children unknowingly wondering into pornographic areas. For many parents, with myself included, this is a concern.
If a kid is intelligent enough to work away around the controls and bypassing them, wh
Re:WTF! (Score:5, Insightful)
Those with a conspiratorial mind may see other uses for this. It's a first step towards general content control. Even though this almost certainly is not the intent, there will always be people who feel that such a great tool can always be used for many more things. Next step might perhaps be blocking (without the opt-out, of course) child pornography. That's not likely to garner much opposition. After that they'll go for snuff, or prostitution. After awhile they'll start finding things that aren't really illegal, just morally reprehensible (to most people). Pretty soon, censoring yet another thing won't be such a big deal.
There are times when censorship might seem like a good idea. However, anything that might lead to a less free society is not a good solution. It might sound callous, but I'd rather have a few children messed up by seeing pornography accidentally (if that really is such a trauma) than live with a perpetual censoring filter, just waiting to be abused. Parents, find another way to protect your kids, please.
Re:WTF! (Score:5, Insightful)
Install Net Nanny or something like that, or as an even more outstanding idea just watch what your kids are doing.
Re:WTF! (Score:3, Insightful)
>pornoghapic content.
There does not _have_ to be control. Some countries have more or less censorship af television.
I am more worried about children getting exposed to Scientology and coke-snorting fashion models with eating disorders.
Can I get a filter so that you have to sign up for Scientology, Fashion etc to access it on the internet.
Re:WTF! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this is in France where you can buy porn in any newsstand (and even see the covers!) and see actual boobies on prime time tv.
What a bunch of perverts we are.
Re:WTF! (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently he wants the australian population to die out because people will be to scandalised by the very idea of having sex.
(damn I think I uncovered his master plan)
Definition (Score:3, Insightful)
wish in one hand... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wish in one hand... (Score:5, Funny)
I thought I had strange hobbies.
Re:wish in one hand... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, I think the "buttnakedbroadcasting.blogspot.com" in your sig indicates you're still safely ensconced in the strange-hobby camp.
Re:wish in one hand... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wish in one hand... (Score:3, Informative)
Ask, and ye shall recieve: hello.jpg [cevk.com]
Re:wish in one hand... (Score:5, Funny)
You could try a change of diet, I guess
Re:wish in one hand... (Score:3, Funny)
Just so long as you don't look at pictures of that, you're fine.
Re:wish in one hand... (Score:2, Funny)
So? (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Internet != Web (Score:5, Insightful)
The article talks about the Internet but my bet is that they are talking about content filtering on http traffic.
Peer to peer is much harder to filter and readily available to the porn industry.
You don't think they actually comprehend that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You don't think they actually comprehend that! (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who would seriously think of filtering the internet obviously has no idea of what it is.
I guess you've never heard of the Great Firewall of China. I'm sure people have found ways around the firewall, but my guess is it's largely effective at limiting the content that the Chinese people can receive.
Re:You don't think they actually comprehend that! (Score:4, Interesting)
China blocks for all citizens, and they lock up people who work around it.
(So Far) the Aussie is only talking about adopting an opt-in policy. Meaning that people who want to see an unfiltered view of the net can request it. No one's going to get locked up for working around it, since anyone who wants pr0n can just ask...
I am glad that I'm not in Australia though, because all this means is an increased cost of internet to everyone for a system that can't possibly work, but will leave parents with a false sense of security and a higher taxation rate to pay for "enforcement"...oh, and a list of deviants for the governement to use if there's some kind of problem.
there truly are some strange minds in this world (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nasties on the net (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, I have a much better suggestion - supervision your children while they use the internet!
Re:Nasties on the net (Score:4, Funny)
Why would I want to watch them surf porn? What kind of sicko are you?
Re:Nasties on the net (Score:3, Funny)
And yet you are posting on slashdot. So where's the problem?
Re:Nasties on the net (Score:5, Interesting)
You're fucking kidding me, right? Parents supervising kids is unworkable? If parents aren't able to raise their kids, without big brother, perhaps they should put their kids up for adoption (which in Australia is even more of an option, as there is a shortage of unwanted children).
Are we supposed to set up a dedicated computer room instead of their bedrooms
Well, actually, many families do have a dedicated computer room. But that really isn't important to this discussion.
make sure there is a full time watcher?
Actually, I do remember knowing someone who wasn't allowed on the computer without supervision (and this was pre-internet). But normally that isn't necessary. It's all a matter of trust. How much do you trust your kids? How much CAN you trust your kids? If you've raised them right, then yes, they won't do the wrong thing. But you have to encourage openness and be someone they can open up to.
But even if you haven't instilled trust in your kid, you can monitor the computer (there's all sorts of programs that allow you to have varying degrees of monitoring), from a simple net-nanny type program to knowing everything they type on their keyboard. Buy a decent net-nanny program that keeps a log of when it's enabled and disabled. The only thing the kid can do, is delete the log, which will tell you, they've done something they shouldn't have.
But the real question is, are you going to buy cable with adult channels and not place a lock on the adult channels? Of course you aren't. So why do people do it with the internet?
Kids over 13 or so can stay home alone. Do we lock up the computer room when the adults are out?
Are you being satirical? Or are you truly ignorant of the most basic password function on a computer?
Re:Nasties on the net (Score:5, Insightful)
I (and Harris Poll) think that you are wrong (Score:5, Informative)
According to Harris Poll: "No Consensus Among American Public on the Effects of Pornography on Adults or Children or What Government Should Do About It" http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/inde
There was a study done at the University of Hawai`i concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornogra
There was another study done at the University of Pennsylvania concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/porn_effects
Re:Nasties on the net (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm with you on your response. I can't believe the criticisms people come up with, and the alternatives they propose.
Are we supposed to set up a dedicated computer room instead of [having computers in] their bedrooms?
No. We're supposed to forbid free access to all of the adults in a country and force them to register their "perversions" with the government.
[M]ake sure there is a full time watcher [of children in the househould]?
No. Why should parents watch their children? Let government wat
Re:Nasties on the net (Score:5, Interesting)
Um... Yes it is called parenting your children. You, as the adult, are supposed to be in charge of your children and what they are doing. You are supposed to be taking care of them and making sure that they are ok. Not ignoring them while they play on the internet in their rooms with the door closed.
There is no way in hell children under 16 should have unsupervised internet access. As the parent it is your job to supervise them. Counting on the Government or some "net-nanny" software to do it for you is shirking your responsibilities.
In my house there are 7 computers. Only 3 of them have access to the internet and they are all in a public room where anyone can walk by and see what is on the screen. My wife and I do walk by on a regular basis.
The PC's that are in the kids rooms do not have internet access. They can play games, watch dvd's, listen to music, burn cd's, do homework, etc, in their rooms but if they want to use email, IM, or the Web they have to do it in public.
Coupled with the fact that we actually talk to our kids about what is approprite and what is not, this seems to do the job.
Re:Nasties on the net (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? I had unsupervised internet access at a younger age than that (yay for 2400 baud modems). I have read studies that show that a parent's influence on their child has dropped to almost zero by around the age of 12 in most cases. You have two choices:
Re:Nasties on the net (Score:5, Insightful)
Um ok (Score:5, Funny)
Yup. Sounds like a winning proposal to me.
Re: Um ok (Score:4, Insightful)
If it appeals to the voters in his district, the rest is irrelevant.
He forgets (Score:2)
As soon as he censor he fragments the web enough to make his censoring useless.
Of course anyone using the non-censorable "technology" must be a criminule, right?
I'm anti-porn, I think it damages peoples minds, but I don't like this either.
Sam
Re:He forgets (Score:3, Funny)
Well yeah, having your mind damaged by morality'll do that to ya.
KFG
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting, as I've always felt that porn helps people relax and release tension. Like anything else, it can be addictive and too much can probably hurt you (though, like most things, too mcuh is dependant on the indivdual). It's also certainly good for couples when it's watched together (and is something both enjoy watching).
There is also the old reality/VR argument. Like video games, there is a significant difference between p
Re:He forgets (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm, but without pr0n, it looks like one develops quite bad spelling.
Nanny-ness of this isn't important compared to (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly -- don't call it a "nanny state." (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Redneck Senator (Score:5, Informative)
Be a bit nicer! (Score:3, Funny)
To start making remarks in which you combine cold with tiny is just not nice. It is always like that when it is cold!
Does someone have a list of names? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
Does someone have a list of names of these idiots, so our Australian friends know who to rail against and vote out of office ASAP?
Re:Does someone have a list of names? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two interesting points in the quote you presented that I think you missed. First, that the content is deemed inappropriate. That's a hard one to judge because the Internet is still very new and we are still hashing out exactly where it fits in our lives. Puting porn mags in with childrens comics in a news agent is inappropriate. I don't think the analogy holds for the Internet which is mostly aimed at adults (porn, shopping, news etc). Therefore it's difficult to argue that there is a social norm
This is the least of our worries... (Score:5, Informative)
Just yesterday, the Australian govt. passed two contentious laws - one that basically undoes hundreds of years of hard-won freedoms at a stroke in the name of "anti-terrorism" - you're not even allowed to makes jokes at the govt's expense now - in fact this posting breaks this new law. Free speech has gone. The other contentious law effectively removes hundreds of workers' rights in the name of 'streamlining the economy' and 'remaining competitive'. Basically it gives employers carte blanche to demand what the fuck they like of an employee, and if they don't like it, they can always leave. This is modern 'liberalism' though quite frankly it's a total abuse of that term that the current regime use it to describe themselves.
This situation has come about because the Australian people were duped into voting for a totally unevenly balanced parliament, railroaded into this vote by a series of lies and distortions and scare tactics at the last election. (Don't vote for the other lot, they'll take away your right to SHOP!) The resulting majority means that they can currently pass whatever they like and no-one can really fight it. This is NOT what the Australian people thought they were voting for, as neither of these new laws were part of the election manifesto. Just like the USA, who our Prime Minister appears to be in thrall to, we are sleepwalking into a nightmare of Orwellian proportions.
If they so choose, this porn bill (if it becomes one) could well pass, then they'll worry about implementation later, no matter howe impractical it might actually be. However, in the scheme of things, this is nothing compared to what they've ALREADY done.
Re:This is the least of our worries... (Score:5, Informative)
This was deemed to be a 'protest' and protests now have to be licensed within half a mile of our lawmakers, who complained that they didn't like them.
I think the various 'western' governments around the world are having a 'who can get their head furthest up their arse' competition. I'm really not sure who's winning.
Justin.
Re:This is the least of our worries... (Score:4, Informative)
Are we still allowed to say 'police state'?
J.
Re:This is the least of our worries... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is the least of our worries... (Score:3, Informative)
To put it another way, if I go and sit in Parliament Square wearing a T-shirt with "Iraq was Wrong" printed on it - or better yet "Bollocks to Blair" then I can be arrested for it. Have I deliberately broken a law and should face consequences? Effectively, it depends on what 'they' think was in my head.
I think that's a police state, myself, and I don'
Pity my elected officials (Score:5, Informative)
However, this motion/proposal is unlikely to gain legs as Howard (current Australian Prime Minister) would almost certainly leave it as a 'conscience vote' and I sincerely doubt that it will have the popularity to get through the lower house, let alone the upper house.
And, as I understand it, this sort of 'filtering' would be quite difficult to do and the current upper echelons of politicians *and* public servants switched on enough to listen to those who would advise them on the viability of 'filtering'... so false alarm and ignore the political posturing. The guy is (most likely) in a marginal seat and is trying to buy some credit with the local religious conservatives.
"while two in five boys had deliberately used the net to see sexually explicit material"
Re:Pity my elected officials (Score:4, Informative)
> As a term of reference for you delightful residents of the US of A, Tasmania
> is like the US 'south' (rednecks, interbreeding et al)
^- for instance - how does abuse like this qualify as being informative? How do people from the US South feel about this? Or Tasmanians. Why would anyone rate this up?
Tasmania is nothing like the US South, in terms of people or electoral representation. More than half of the available federal seats in Tasmania are held by notional left-leaning representatives, including people who would identify themselves as very left such as Tas. Senator Bob Brown who is national leader of the Australian Greens. The incumband state government is Labor.
> and the 'Liberal'
> party isn't actually a liberal party, but a conservative party (similar to
> your Republican party).
The Liberal Party is from the tradition of Australian non-Labor parties, as is its support base. While it's similar to the republican party in terms of the fact that it's notionally the rightermost of the parties, its support base demonstrates a lack of consistency on traditional values. See http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/?p=212 [ozpolitics.info]. Contrast that to the Republicans which is widely held to have a very firm right-wing base in the area of 'traditional values' (I have no data available). The Liberal Party is more conservative than the ALP and minor parties. But if you asked all the federal Liberal MPs which US political party with which they most closely identified many would say the Democrats.
The reason for the name is a source of some controversy, but one popular opinion is that the founder wanted the party to be an effective catch-all party and not be pigeon-holed in the way a 'Conservative' party would be. The most effective way to do that is to have a spread of opinions across the notional right. It's meaningless to try and pigeon hole mainstream parties as being 'this' or 'that' ideology though, because practical considerations will tend to override idealogical. They're a catch-all party.
Of note, the major policies of the LPA are quite similar to many of those of the Blair Labor government (consider cost of education, war against Iraq, etc), and the policies of the Conservatives have in recent times mirrored those of the ALP. Comparisons with the US political scene are tenous. Their cleavages are too different.
Interesting /. effect . . . (Score:4, Funny)
http://ds.serving-sys.com/BurstingRes/Site-0/Type
Where do you get this stuff? (Score:4, Insightful)
Far be it from me to tell the people of another country how to run their own show... I'm just grateful for the contrast. Every time I see another "we must filter porn to protect the children from carnal knowledge" or "me must outlaw cameras at school sports events to protect kids from the evil paedophiles" stories it reminds me just how much more fucked up things really could be here in the US.
Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the system should default automatically in favor of protecting our rights as adults before we start considering the children.
Big difference...
The adults who wish to protect the children in their custody can then opt-in (and pay for) whatever safe haven/playpen schemes they wish to create.
Getting Sick of This (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay by me... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Or, even better, tell me why it's immoral.)
More seriously:
There are some fine lines between art and porn...stuff like: http://konzababy.tripod.com/photography.htm [tripod.com]
(?Not?Safe?For?work?) Click the tiny image to enlarge. -- Is this art or porn? (I say art 100%)
Even closer still are things like http://www.domai.com [domai.com] (Not Safe For Work)
See this interview [domai.com] (Not Safe For Work) on domai.com for an interesting dialog about nudes/art/porn. -- Is Domai Porn? Difficult to say (I lean more toward yes, but I have reservations)
Any thoughts? What makes porn
Re:Okay by me... (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you for the links provided however I must ask that you send more before I can form a balanced opinion onthis very tricky subject.
Yrs,
MrSev
What the heck is going on down there? (Score:3, Insightful)
What the heck is going on down there?
Deja vu (Score:5, Informative)
Because of these restrictions, the library where I work is filtered. We staff have to immediately disable the filter for any adult patron who requests unfiltered access (and we're supposed to, but often, er, forget to) restore the filter as soon as that particular patron's session is over.
You wouldn't believe the idiotic stuff that gets blocked -- innocuous, harmless, completely innocent stuff, right alongside the more questionable. One fellow from out of town couldn't log into his own business's web page with the filter on -- presumably because his first name, which appeared in the URL, began with a "D" and rhymed with "ick".
Meanwhile, the patrons blithely find all the porn and violence and four-letter-word-headphone-breaking rap music they like. They learn very quickly which sites the filter isn't catching, and openly share them with one another.
The staff terminals have the filtering turned off full-time (technically illegally, if I understand correctly). Although library policy says we are only to turn off the filter "as needed", it's dadblasted impossible to do our jobs with it on, so it stays off.
So now these Australian senators want to impose this state of affairs on an entire country
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rule #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we dump the /. rhetoric? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I'm tired of seeing comments like this in stories of this sort:
You know what? Every democracy on the planet will have some representative somewhere who decides to take up some kooky cause. One of the strengths of a democracy is that the majority can prevent such idiotic ideas from becoming a reality.
Should we be educated about when some moronic public representative decides to take up such a cause? Yes. But do we have to assume that just because one elected/appointed representative professes a bad idea that the entire state is about to go downhill?
Last I checked, Austraila is a democracy, and there is a process that must be followed to go from an idea to a legislative act. The idea, however, is not the act.
If and when an idea gets past the first step of legislation, then is when you have to worry, as it usually means that other elected representatives support the idea. But one bad idea hardly means the downfall of society -- chances are very good that this effort will go into the dustbin of history, like a variety of bad ideas elected officials have professed and later dropped due to lack of support.
Yaz.
A lesson for Guy Barnett (Score:3, Informative)
Australian's need to write to Guy Barnett and tell him stop the moral grandstanding.
not a big threat (yet) (Score:3, Informative)
Law will have OPPOSITE effect (Score:5, Insightful)
The only, repeat only way to police what kids see on the net is to have a human in the loop in real time, for every kid. And we could be waiting a while for that to happen.
Well, I guess the developers of Freenet [freenetproject.org], I2P [i2p.net] and other anonymising networks will be grateful, as support, userbase and donations surge.
Censoring Pr0n on the Net is impossible... (Score:3, Interesting)
So if Australia wants to block pr0n, go ahead, adults won't give a sh*t they'll register their names to get access. However, the teenagers who'll be craving for pr0n will also find ways to access it through the internet, but in process will probably learn a lot more shady techniques than if they had access to it like they do now.
Hell they might end up with the same situation as in the States, where adults buy beer for the teenagers who want to drink:
He wants more (Score:5, Funny)
Australian Senator Wants to Censor the Net
In a separate announcement, he also reported he wanted to get a flying car, a magic wand, a six-leave clover to complete his collection, and an invisible pink unicorn.
Re:He wants more (Score:5, Funny)
In the circumstances, wouldn't a robe and wizard hat be more appropriate?
I worry about my child and the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
--Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Speaking of Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been googling for a place to buy a copy, and it's not coming up for me as a possible purchase item. I can find sound tracks, reviews, and books, but no movies.
Was this never released for purchase ? I haven't seen it in a couple of years, when I caught it at a film festival in San Francisco. I was wanting to show it to some friends.
I'm refering to a documentary movie on Hugo Chevez/Venezuela, a CIA staged coup, and the revolt of the people caught serendipidously by some Irish film makers. It's seemingly not available for purchase on the intraweb from the US.
It is also is known as 'chavez inside the coup' according to google. Anyone ever seen this on DVD or VHS ?
Shhh... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Especially when the party in power has a majority in both houses of parliament. The result is that even Government senators are hardly listened to. They can talk crap to their hearts content now.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mmmhmm (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just the opinion of one right-wing senator. It's not going to happen. You have a lot more neo-con nut jobs in your senate or lobbying it who propose the same or worse.
Re:Australians... (Score:3, Funny)
She was thrown out after two years when it was obvious what an idiot she was. You re-elected Bush. Who's dumb?
Re:Australians... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Australians... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Australians... (Score:3, Funny)
I had to have a few extra flushes the first time I used an American style toilet because the whole thing looked so orderly and nice. Ironic really, given what I'd just done to the poor thing.
Re:Not a nanny (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they required to do so by law? Or do they choose to?
Re:From the horse's mouth. (Score:3, Interesting)
The best bit is:
Suggesting that only boys go out of their way to look for porn. I am sure there is one or two girls that actively look for porn. Of course, maybe guys are a touch more obc
Re:From the horse's mouth. (Score:3, Insightful)
Could one assume then, that 93% of parents are therefore using some form of filtering currently available to achieve that goal?
Re:From the horse's mouth. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nyh
Re:Freedom of Speech, not just for anyone (Score:3, Informative)
Freedom of Speech is very much an American concept, one that the rest of the world simply does not have.
In Australia, for example, the current is in the position to mandate what does and does not constitute "acceptable" speech, and is doing so with abandon.
Their main opponent is not HM Opposition as you might expect, but News Ltd. When the Government's main opponent on fre
Re:Storm in a tea cup! (Score:3)
This is and attempt at mandating filters that any parent can put in place by themselves. And nobody would be complaining if an ISP offered this as an opt-in service. Or for that matte
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
no, he wasn't socialist. the Nazis were fascist (the exact opposite end of the political spectrum) if anything, he was anti-socialist/anti-communist. communists were basically one of the other things on his list of "things to eliminate to make a perfect world" in addition to jews and the physically/mentally disabled.