Australian Internet Filter Enters Trial Phase 232
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."
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)
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].
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.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
*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.)
Filtering is easy to do now using the PICS system [w3.org]. PICS has many different categories you can filter sites on, from violence to sexually explicit. Why should there be a TLD for porn, and not one for violence, hate speech, or any of a dozen other potentially offensive aspects of speech? The .XXX TLD is a too small band aid to an already solved problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should there be a TLD for porn, and not one for violence, hate speech, or any of a dozen other potentially offensive aspects of speech?
Because there's a lot more porn on the web than there is violence, etc. Enough even, IMHO, to justify a separate TLD. I haven't actually surveyed, but my guess is that the internet hosts a lot more porn pages than are described by many of the TLDs in use. (OK, maybe I surveyed a little... But I didn't enjoy it...)
Also, at least in the US, for some reason porn is considered more offensive than just about anything else. We're pretty desensitized to violence and hate speech, although definitely present,
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should tell these kids about Usenet.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right in that sense, but for the purposes of precedent, it is important to decide which entities have the power of oversight. Currently, ISPs have been free to regulate themselves, and the telecom companies behind them have been quick to enact unfair and illegal terms of service as a result (read: Comcast). Yes, censorship isn't the answer, but eventually internet communication is going to need to be regulated. That much
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
Re: (Score:2)
Same country, several months ago. There was a federal election, and the previous government was trounced. The leader of that government lost his own seat (electorate / district). That's the ultimate in accountability - the public rejected what the government had done, didn't agree with them, and booted them out.
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.
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.
Better Goverment than a Corporation (Score:2)
I don't want censored but am aware that it happens already. ISPs decide for themselves what they will allow through.
At the moment, I have some democratic rights that theoretically affect my government. I have a lot less control over what billion dollar companies do. Governments are swayed by ideas - some good and some not so. Companies are affected by money. They are not, and probably should not be, affected by what makes me happy. Their job is to make the best money for their shareholders.
One day, w
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.
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:2, Insightful)
The Australian Liberal Government had a different idea on how to stop kids running into unsavory characters; tell them about the risks and what to look out for. There was a widely run and very successful ad campaign, which just gives kids the message "weird old guys will lie to you online, so don't believe everything you're told". Problem: Guys tricking
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: (Score:2)
With any luck the new filter proposal will suffer the obvious fate of the last one: doesn't work, unwanted, pisses off voters, and the (currently silent) majority gets listened too instead of the vocal minority and they back off on such exercises in futility.
I voted for a "Clever Cou
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
It has been in Labor Party policy for at least the last two years, and was even detailed on their website. Didn't make it into many big public announcements, for obvious reasons.
I knew about it, despised it, and still voted for Labor (/Greens). As bad as the policy is, the Howard government had much more serious issues in other areas. Lesser of two evils, if you will.
It is my hope that this system will fail miserably in trials, but I accept the possibility that I may have helped vote in this monstro
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to accept that we all have to share these decisions, and many people disagree with you on censorship. Child porn, things like that, really do need to be censored. Kids really can be negatively affected by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am totally baffled where are you possibly coming from with your comment. It would be hard to come up with any group more pro-FreeSpeech and more anti-censorship than the ACLU.
If you go into an ACLU meeting and yell 'Censorship is always necessary!', it is not censorship and not hypocritical for them to disagree with you.
If you go into an ACLU meeting and yell 'Censorship is a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
It will become something lawyers use to slur people. They will make allusions that the people that need dirtynet access must be looking at something criminal, and suggest maybe these people are terrorists or child molesters. The luddite judge will eat that shit up. That's the way it works these days.
Re:This is a bad idea overall, but making it opt-o (Score:2)
I was not going to reply because the general gist of such discussions tends to be: if you support censorship, then you're a moron, and if you don't then you're the enlightened person.
This comment however summarised what
Re: (Score:2)
The dude in the X-rated video store doesn't have to give his name to get the x-rated video, he doesn't have to have it recorded, and furthermore, the clerk working at the X-rated video store is hardly in a position to get judgmental. People don't like even the idea of being judged, and by forcing them to come out an
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Eh, what leap? There is no leap (Score:2)
The belief that porn is good is unpopular (among certain people). The belief that freedom of speech is more important then stopping kids from seeing boobies is UNPOPULAR!
There is NO leap to make. Censoring porn IS the leap.
Why do you think REAL freedom advocates leapt to the defence of Larry Flint when attempts were made to censor him and his works? Because they want Hustler? No, because the fight for freedom is lost if you allow censorship ANYWHERE.
If you believe in free speech then you MUST defend my d
Opt-out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be comical if the list got leaked, though.
Re: (Score:2)
"Candidate X loves visiting porn sites day and night. Meanwhile, Candidate Y supports filters to protect our children from awful, porn loving monsters. Who do y
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..
If it gets leaked???? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously? What is porn exactly? You give me the guidelines of what is and what is not porn and I'll show you porn just outside of your guidelines. And, with enough money and enough lawyers I can get any pics I want declared non-porographic.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Good God! Clearly it's time for action. I'm going to immediately start downloading as much precious internet pr0n as I can, before the guv-mint cuts off the supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple modes? (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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:2, Insightful)
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.
The problem is limits (Score:2)
You beat your cat. Well sure it will behave "better" from then on, the cat is too scared to do anything lest it gets noticed and gets another trashing. You are not raising a well adjusted normal cat, you are raising a scaredy cat who "behaves" in order to avoid punishment.
Same with people, I lived in places where discipline in the family was enforced and yes those kids on the surface seemed well behaved, but they grow up NOT as mature responsible adults but as people who are deadly afraid to be found out.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a cat that used to bite, so one day I bit it back. It learned it's lesson...which is just as well, because I learned that a mouth full of cat fur is most unpleasant.
Seems innocent enough... (Score:2)
There Will Be A List... (Score:2)
"And my less-than-esteemed opponent has OPTED OUT from decency filtering on his Internet connection. And he has TEENAGED CHILDREN in his house. Would you really want to ELECT SUCH A MAN to replace good old reliable me?"
Y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The press would be all over it, but the only thing I can imagine the Australian electorate thinking when they hear a politician looks at porn is: "Top bloke!"
Well, half of the electorate, anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
Are they going to publish a list of the banned sites so we can see what they're "protecting" us from? Because I'm sure no government would want to shut down "The Pirate Bay" or "Amnesty International" or a blog site critical to the government. Nosiree. That'll NEVER be a problem.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Its official. I hate kids. (Score:2)
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.
Is spam inappropriate for children? (Score:2)
Et tu, Brute?! (Score:2)
Censorship is necessary only in totalitarian regimes.
but should it be overseen by Government.
That's how a totalitarian regime operates, actually.
How dare you, Australia? (Score:2)
I've about had it with these uppity countries like Britain with their spycams outdoing us on the George Orwell front.
Well I'm telling.
I'm calling Ed Meese.
I heard that in soviet russia (Score:2)
Retarded (Score:2)
And just how the fsck is an ISP http filter going to prevent any of that?
Gah, cluelessness abounds.. (Score:2)
Insanity (Score:2)
Almost nobody wanted the downloadable filter which the Howard government spent so much to make available for free.
If you don't want to run a free filter program on your computer, what makes the Government think you want the ISP to filter for you?
Censorship may be NECESSARY? (Score:2)
Er, excuse me... while everyone seems to be commenting on the second half of this sentence, I'm concerned about the premise stated in the first clause before the conjunction: "Censorship may be necessary."
Why? What possible legitimate purpose could censorship possibly serve? People will find ways to work around information embargoes, and frankly, I'm hard pressed to find any legitimate reason to censor anything, no matter how offensive t
Censorship may be necessary??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom shouldn't be some
Re: (Score:2)
Did you glance over the "opt out" portion of the idea that would take all of one phone call or the clicking of a check box?
Did I? Gee I don't know let me see what I wrote: Freedom shouldn't be something you have to "ask the nice government people to please allow you to have"
Why the hell should I specifically have to be subjected to putting my name on a "yes I want porn" list, telling a bunch of strangers or quite possibly people I know - how is it the community's business AT ALL anyway? This is idiotic.
Get the kids out, stay off my lawn (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahh.. internet censorship, hell, censorship in general... such a pet peeve of mine.
Re: (Score:2)