Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Censorship Your Rights Online

Aussie Net Filtering Trial Delayed 83

hopejr writes "The Federal Opposition says it is not surprised the Government's mandatory internet filtering trial has been delayed. The trial, which was meant to begin today, has been postponed until mid-January 2009 and the internet service providers (ISPs) who will participate will be announced at the same time. ISPs iiNet and Optus both said yesterday they had not heard anything about their applications to participate in the trial, and doubted the Government would meet its own deadline."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Aussie Net Filtering Trial Delayed

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 25, 2008 @05:23AM (#26229135)
    On the first day of Christmas the government brought me... A time extension for my isp. I must have faith in my ISP, iinet. Help me iinet, you're my only hope. I have around 20 days to download like the wind, then my 40 gig on peak - 60 gig off peak internet goes to hell and I need to start thinking about moving to... England...?
  • by Concerned Onlooker ( 473481 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @05:27AM (#26229143) Homepage Journal
    Nope. England is getting nearly as bad. I'm thinking Antarctica. Time to build a new civilization based on 21st century evolved values, not 16th century ones.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 25, 2008 @05:28AM (#26229149)

    This just in from Guido's blog, premier political blog in the UK.

    There is some rumour about a big political operator's son having his e-mail hacked. Minor story about a criminal act. And the lawyers have just slapped a writ on all the newspapers and bloggers forbidding them from mentioning this. Luckily, Guido is not so easily cowed....

    Freedom demands that there should be a high traffic on this attempt to suppress news, so slashdot and spread all you can....

  • by shirro ( 17185 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @06:43AM (#26229289) Homepage

    Australia's constitution was not made by criminals. It was written by a wealthy land owning elite. The criminals were their parents cheap labour. Australia did not exist until federation in 1901. Transportation of convicts ended in 1857.

    Prior to 1901 the states were self governing colonies. The colony of South Australia was settled by free settlers not convicts. People settled my state for religious freedom, to own land and for profit - not a convict in sight.

    The reason the Australian constitution is not as noble as the US constitution is that Australia was not founded by revolutionaries. We remained part of the British empire and inherited the attitudes and structures of England. The US adopted a republic based on the French model which celebrated liberty and equality.

    The filter is the result of a coalition between anti-liberal socialists and catholics. The ALP right faction is strongly influenced by catholicism and is socially conservative. The ALP left factions may have championed social change once, but it I suspect it was just a reaction to the conservatism of the times and they have no real commitment to individual freedom being socialists.

    So the ALP are just as crazy as the GOP religious right but far more dangerous as there is not a libertarian amongst them to stand up for freedom.

    The current government used to be a socially progressive, center left workers party but probably should change their name to the Christian Democrats as they are basically a front for Roman Catholicism these days.

  • Cool (Score:4, Interesting)

    by suckmysav ( 763172 ) <> on Thursday December 25, 2008 @07:05AM (#26229329) Journal

    So Optarse are volunteering for the trial eh?

    I couldn't ask for a better test case really. Those cretins are so goddamn incompetent that they have not a hope in hell of getting it working to an acceptable level.

    Roll on the trial I say!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 25, 2008 @09:36AM (#26229673)

    For a start, England was Transporting to America before Australia was colonised - and even while they transported to New South Wales and Tasmania.

    Secondly. The USA does not have "Liberty". What they have is an obsessive belief that they have "Liberty", and that everyone else in the world wants and needs their sort of "Liberty".

    The USA was actually founded by freeloaders - they wanted the British government to provide protection to their settlers against the natives, even when they had crossed boundaries beyond which they had been clearly told they would be given none, then took exception when told they'd have to pay for it.
    The only reason it went to war was because George III was a stubborn bastard that didn't like the idea that a bunch of colonists could make demands of him. If he'd simply said "fine, you don't want to pay, we'll withdraw all our troops and protection entirely", then things would have been very different.

  • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @10:31AM (#26229837) Homepage

    With the rise of industry slavery was doomed, It just became a negative return beyond the moral reasons.

    On a recent trip to Charleston, South Carolina, I encountered some interesting views on slavery. I was taking a tour of an old plantation house ( [] ) and they were talking about their rice production before and after the Civil War. Before the war, they were able to produce quite a bit of rice. After the war, with slavery outlawed, they tried doing it using a "communal work" type of setup, but it wasn't profitable. Basically, once they had to pay their laborers, they couldn't turn a profit. It was interesting (to say the least) to hear slavery talked about in purely economic terms, as if there was no human suffering or moral quandaries involved. It was certainly different than the discussion you would have with someone from New York (like me) about slavery.

  • by donscarletti ( 569232 ) on Thursday December 25, 2008 @11:14AM (#26229965)

    Which is unfortunate for Australia, since it means Australia did not have as noble a reason for setting up its own government as America did. Our constitution isn't based around Liberty.

    After European settlement, Australia was primarily inhabited by honest, law abiding colonists who were not sent there by force and did not flee seeking to practice any sort of new religion or ideology, but simply to make a good life for themselves on the land. Australia did not become independent in a violent ideological war over taxes but was given independence because all involved thought it could be governed better from Melbourne than London. We invented the secret ballot, we were the first country to give women the vote in the state level and second in the federal level. Australia's all about freedom, not as an ideal but as a lifestyle, to be able to make a good, fair life without harassment.

    The Australian constitution only defines the relationship between the states and the running of federal democracy. It has done this quite well but what it does not do is impose the will of those who have died a century ago on Australia today. Look at the US which you mentioned before (and which I'm sorry to bash), The US has the bill of rights but the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment is nowhere to be found. You can have free speech, firearms, freedom from billeting soldiers, protection from unreasonable searches etc. but until 3 amendments after it ends, you can own other people and until the next; black people aren't citizens. And bare in mind here, the nasty, oppressive British empire banned slavery ten years after American succession, the ideological US took four score and seven years to do the same. The original American view of citizenship was very close to the old "Civis Romanis Sum" school of thought: freedom should be absolute for the free, but those not entitled should be subject to the liberties of those who have them.

    In Australia, you are granted generally the same rights as in the US but by common law and acts of parliament, not by constitutional amendments. Sure, it gives the government latitude to do stupid things like this Internet filter. But the government in this country has ALWAYS censored pornography, we just got a lucky break for twenty years with the Internet but it's the same laws creeping onto another medium, not really a new development. Nude pictures aren't considered part of free speech in this country, it pretty much has to be related to politics or religion to be protected. But within this definition, we do have free speech in this country. With or without this Internet filter, I can still say on the Internet or out on the street "Fuck Australia, fuck Keven Rudd and fuck our troops serving in Afghanistan" and nobody will block me, nobody will arrest me and nobody will show up in a truck and kick my arse for being un-patriotic.

    I don't want this filter, I am embarrassed by this filter, I am writing to my local member about this filter and I will never vote for anyone who supports this filter. However, I still think there is a lot of silly hyperbole going around here about it.

Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.