Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Internet Censorship

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Tweetster, Mar 30, 2010.

  1. .....Communications Minister Stephen Conroy concedes greater oversight of which websites will be banned under the government's mandatory internet filter is needed but has ruled out making the list public.

    The federal government plans to introduce a filter aimed at blocking access to illegal material such as child pornography or content refused classification (RC) by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

    But the blacklist put together by the communications watchdog has not been made public, raising concerns that governments can impose censorship....

    Source & report here:
  2. *This post has been deleted by Stephen Conroy*

    Reason: He said I was ignorant. I'll teach him to voice an opinion.
  3. ....."The problem when you produce a list of URLs is you are actually giving the address of where to go and look....."


    ..um... but if it's censored.. surely you won't be able to view?? (or is this prior to censoring them??)... wooohoooooooo!!! go and view naughty sites!! ... lol
  4. scary stuff
  5. Does anyone know who is AGAINST this plan?

    I did the whole "write to mr conroy to voice displeasure" and received a stock standard PDF flyer outlining the think of the children arguments.

    I really do hope this costs labour the election.
  6. The worst part of this whole idea is that even the subjects that will be banned are not eplained. They say it's RC which can be anything from child p0rn to information on drug use.
    Research subjects even for political use will be blocked, such as euthanasia, drugs, abortion, a large about of fetish p0rn.

    He keeps mentioning that it's about blocking child p0rn though also admits that most of the child p0rn on the net is through usenet and p2p, which his filter will not block. He seems to think that knowing of 300 child p0rn sites is a big deal.

    Like most blanket filters this most likely will not be hard to bypass, through proxy servers / vpns.
  7. If it passes, I'm leaving the country… I will not let my tax dollars support a regime that would pass such a thing.

    If Conroy and his merry band of ****heads want to ruin a country, he can go back to England and push them further down the drain.
  8. Conroy is an idiot, and it is EXACTLY a goto list.

    Here is an article and links to the last leaked version of the list.


    This link is safe to view, it contains no objectionable material, and includes a few paragraphs of common sense from Time magazines Belinda Luscombe.
    The links at the bottom of the page navigate to the lists. At this point, it is up to you if you decide to view the list or follow any of the links, I would advise against it. I claim no responsibility for anything that results from you navigating beyond the link I have provided to you.

    Case in point.
  9.  Top
  10. I've written letters, I've attended rallies and signed petitions.
    This will be one of the straws that break my patriotic back if it comes in.
  11. It scares me. And it scares me more that people don't seem to understand the implications of the cleanfeed.
  12. I hope this p**k gets his portfolio taken from him.

    What's more, have the opposition released any statements about this? I wrote to Abbot a few months ago and never got a response.
  13. The ABC show 'Hungry Beast' did a randomised phone poll about 2 weeks back.
    80% of randoms think an internet filter is a good idea "if it protects the children".
    Only 20% of that sampling had a clue.
    Of that 20%, how many do you think would prioritise an internet filter amongst their voting decisions come election time?

    It's far too easy in niche communities like this one to think that atheism, fairness, democracy, intelligence etc are ideals held by the majority.

    Most Australians have no idea censorship is being discussed.
    Of those that do, most think it isn't aimed at them.
    Of those that do, most think it couldn't possibly make it into law.
    Of those that do, most can't be bothered to raise their voice about it.

    Just look at the turn outs to rally's that have been reported upon, despite the media doing it's best to keep this in the public eye, the vast majority of Australians simply don't care.

    And that's all it'll take for the ACL, err I mean ALP to get this through.
  14. I'd go further.

    It is an offence to view / download / distribute child p0rn and " I was following a post I saw on NR" would NOT be a defence.
  15. Interesting point Tramp, does the prosecution have to show intent.

    Scenario 1: Trojan virus hijacks DNS on users machine sending them to objectionable sites.
    Scenario 2: User receives email and clicks on link, this sends them to site.

    If in both cases if the user takes immediate steps to repair their machine or does not pursue these type of links should show that they are blameless.

    On the Great Firewall of Australia, as others have said the sad thing is technically it will not work. Illegal imagery is generally shared by Peer to Peer networks such as the Torrent, or other 1:1 systems encrypted and not subject to the GFA. Anything that is shared by html can still be got by using secure proxy servers. So it will catch some at the cost of censorship for the many.
  16. There was a poll on one of the news sites. Out of 4000 people who had completed it so far, 96+% of people are against it.
  17. What was the sample size?

    Was it a representative sample?

    What was the source of the numbers to call?

    Were they called on landlines or mobile phones?

    Did they call homes or businesses?

    What time did they make the calls?

    What % of people chose to participate?

    How exactly were the questions worded? Did they ask the same question worded in a different way later in the survey to check consistency?

    I'm guessing their survey was likely very flawed, as most of them are.
  18. Not discounting that I can’t answer all of these questions, Hungry Beast has a pretty solid methodology for there articles, and the article attached to this was about the fact that most people didn’t understand the filter or how it worked, or how it could be circumvented. And they key point of the survey was that most people supported it, but didn’t understand what they were supporting.
  19. Sorry I should have specified: I mean which politicians are against it? ie who the hell should the Australian people turn to, because I know that polls are 95%-99% against.
  20. Whats worse is when you start talking about this sort off stuff to the ignorant at bbq's, etc., the tin-foil-hat jokes , the "think of the children" and "its for the greater/our own good" type rebuttals start. A lot of people can't seem to grasp how dangerous censorship (of the www and other) can be and that it's potentially the thin end of the wedge. What is a real concern, is that the list is not made public, now that is real scary sh1t right there. How can there be any real checks and balances to ensure that the filter is being used for what it was intended to be used for, if we don't know what is being filtered?

    We also have a filter now, btw: http://www.techday.co.nz/netguide/news/controversial-nz-internet-filter-goes-live/15890/