Internet Filter.

Talk about everything but gaming in here!

Moderators: pilonv1, Juzbuffa

Post Reply
User avatar
t0mby
Cheats
Posts: 20495
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:09 am
XBL ID: GenerationX 360
PSN ID: Weak_Spot
Steam ID: Gen X
Location: 3700
Contact:

Post by t0mby »

unfnknblvbl wrote:And t0mby, if you couldn't get on at the same time as everybody else was having troubles, it's probably because the server was under a lot of stress. It happens.
I know that, I was just saying it wasn't just Autralia that couldn't open wikileaks. :lol:
selfish wrote:Being a massive fanboy and trying to hide it is Lestat's worst bottleneck.
Image
User avatar
Twiztid Elf
Team Wowboy
Posts: 7459
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 05:59 pm
XBL ID: Koco Savage
PSN ID: giantenemycrabb

Post by Twiztid Elf »

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilence" - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
Posts: 12710
Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
XBL ID: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: grlestat
Friend Code: SW-5550-6241-2054
EpicGS ID: grlestat
Battle.net ID: grlestat#1153
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by lestat »

Time to setup some private proxy servers. 8)
User avatar
Pariah
Street Fighter HD Remix Champ
Street Fighter HD Remix Champ
Posts: 7695
Joined: 05 Apr 2007 04:40 pm

Post by Pariah »

fuck this shit...
[img]http://i30.tinypic.com/5as8eq.gif[/img]
User avatar
GameHED
10000 words or your money back!
10000 words or your money back!
Posts: 13228
Joined: 05 Jul 2006 01:14 pm
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AU

Post by GameHED »

Other types of censorship to give an example of my point about the "internet censorship is just the tip of the iceberg"

http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... arian.html

The MIAC report that alex jones mentioned on his show is out to the mainstream websites now and they are freaked out about how it demonises supporters of other political parties (that are labeled as 'anti-government', and are likely to be members of dangerous terrorist cells and so should be treated by police like suspects). By getting the police to be scared of people with a ron paul bumbper sticker, or a person who supports the constitution, they can paint a picture that 'you' are the enemy. They need an excuse to put innocent people in jails.

All of this government spying is for a purpose. To try to harass and silence any opposition to whatever these people are planning to take over control over people's freedom to think, freedom to speak (free speech zones?) freedom to bear arms (it's too late for the aussies of course, only criminals should have weapons not innocent people trying to defend themselves) and have an opposing way of life to the one that the controllers want people to have. (this whole bullshit of putting chips to track where you go who you meet with, who you vote for and support, where your money goes etc to profile you.

This is the type of censorship that is happening the US already now. Internet censorship is another type. And all this colection of information and the secrecy of hiding in the shadows and denying the government is spying on it's own citizens to appear non-nefarious in intent is part of the programming process of the masses so they'll be obedient to whatever dictatorial controls are forced upon them. When you start to fear the people themselves who just want their rights back, that is when society in general is in great danger. (there could be angry and violent police and violent people who will burst out and say this is enough I'm sick of this and give the controllers what they want: an excuse to declare martial law and use emergency powers under the guise of protecting people from the violence they hope to bring about.)

If you are going to resist whatever bad changes are going to be brought it is important to maintain calm and not give them what they want. This is how they control people by getting them angry and then play as innocent victims who just want to control you to prevent others being hurt. When really they plot in secret day-to-day how they can rob people of more rights and justify the taking away of freedoms using emergency powers and causing the crisises needed to bring in the emergency that gives them the power to oppress the masses, so it appears they are not evil people but actual "heroes" bringing you stability and order and providing a much-needed service to the public. (one which waste everyone's tax money just like this stupid censorship of the internet thing that nobody wants, because if they did, parents would have already downloaded a filter by themselves by now, so it's for another purpose: destroying people's freedoms)

Yes they can say internet censor is to stop pedos or that being aware of people with ron paul bumper stickers but it's a cover excuse to justify profiling of the people. It's just control freaks needing more control and grabbing power of your minds, and denying your freedom to think. The battle for minds is an info war. Censorship helps them to win it. Censorship in entertainment has been going on for ages, but there are other ways they censor through creating as much fear as possible and getting people to seperate from each other to cause choas that is needed to allow them to come in as heroes protecting you from yourself, because you are a danger to yourself and they need to baby you like they are your parents. But if people don't wake up to it, they won't know why they are being rounded up and labelled as dangerous people.

The reason: things like this MIAC thing are kept secret from public scrutiny and we can't rely on the mainstream sources to report on this because they are scared. It's the news that you don't get to hear about (that gets censored and filtered) that you should worry about. They see that info as a type of weapon. They'll say to the police these people are dangerous, go spy on them. They want the right to have guns so that makes them dangerous. But it's ok for the government to train the youth to go overseas and fight with proper military weapons "because it serves our purpose". "They are not dangerous killers when WE give them guns, only when they are allowed to have individual freedom and have guns." :roll: The demonisation process is subtle, it happens in secret by turning one side against another and breeding fear between the two.

edit: for those who don't follow what's going on in the US, Ron Paul is predicted to be a dangerous threat to the powers that be because of his views against the federal reserve, so many of the supporters are going to be targets by the establishment for their views, in hopes to scare them away by spreading a fear campaign to the police to watch out for these people as members of terrorist cells and harass them because of their political views. If there really IS a militia movement that wants to fight for people's rights against an oppressive government, then it stands to reason the existing power would want to find ways to spy on those people and demonise any opposition and paint them as evil and bad people.
A part of the danger is when the oppressive power, pretends it's on the good guys side by trying to justify oppressive controls through deliberatly trying to anger people and paint them as dangerous to society. So what you are seeing is this attempt to hopefully bring in martial law without the view by the public that there is anything wrong with the oppression that started the chaos, that brought in the dictatorial government.

It doesn't change the fact that evil controls (denying basic freedoms) brought in under the guise of protecting you, ....are still evil. You can't use evil to fight evil. If they can convince the police that the evil people are the people fighting for their basic rights, then the world has gone upside down, justifying doing wrong by thinking you can protect the right people with people who do the wrong. The good police can see
through the bullshit.
Last edited by GameHED on 21 Mar 2009 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pilonv1
Eels - regular season champions
Eels - regular season champions
Posts: 19049
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 11:08 am
XBL ID: pilonv1
PSN ID: pilonv1
Steam ID: pilonv1

Post by pilonv1 »

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks_to_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... _after_you
User avatar
unfnknblvbl
googlebomber
googlebomber
Posts: 9783
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
XBL ID: unfunk
Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
Location: Just behind GameHED

Post by unfnknblvbl »

:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
GameHED
10000 words or your money back!
10000 words or your money back!
Posts: 13228
Joined: 05 Jul 2006 01:14 pm
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AU

Post by GameHED »

Just a little bit extra to add to what I've already said:

To understand why militias are being targeted and why the link to ron paul it all goes back to the Waco thing in the 90s where the government used overt force which changed how people viewed the government at the time using the military to fight gun-owning americans by painting them as a terror threat. (so it was like 'fighting a war' not bringing normal criminals to justice for breaking some law, which could then give the government justification for using military against people)
People needed to do something! So now the militia movement came about.

I like to think of that as a type of government psyop: showing this on tv and using the fear to scare people into submission would make it easier to further push for more controls. "Let's observe how the people react by flexing our muscles."

Fast forward to today and you are hearing more pushes for militarisation of the police and the demonisation of militias and anyone with bumper stickers supporting political views that are against the move towards a NWO.

If a dictatorial government ever rises to power (err let's just say it's here) the militia will have to be the ones to protect against tyranny when the military (possibly foreign troops form outside who will not question orders to carry out whatever needs to be done) is used to illegally attack the defenceless non-gun-owning public, but this can't happen if they don't first dehumanise the militia in the public eye (or secretly by scaring the police).

This is just another tactic used to make the good guys as terrorists. (ie anyone daring to question the established powers who want to bring changes they don't like - ie R.Paul questioning the need for the Fed.)

There is hope however in the form of sites like: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

..where good people who understand what is *actually happening, are making their mind up right now, so they know what to do when the shit hits the fan. Looks like the beginning of the rebel alliance fighting against the coming global/galactic empire..

While the gunowners in australia have lost the battle here and the next step is to kill the internet, the US is fighting to hold onto the freedom to speak and hold different views. It's all about controlling info and the war against free thought. Protecting you from offensive material has nothing to do with it.


*see below:
The Plan to Use Tribunals on McVeigh and the Militias and How That Doctrine is Now in Place


Most people think the idea of applying the laws of war to terrorist suspects originated with the Bush Administration, in response to 9-11. That is incorrect.


The actual origin of that idea was a 1996 law review article in the Oklahoma City University Law Review called “Justice for War Criminals of Invisible Armies: A New Legal and Military Approach to Terrorism” written by two lawyers, Spencer J. Crona and Neal A. Richardson. (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/docs/crona.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).


But it was not just suspected Islamic terrorists that Crona and Richardson had in mind. They urged the Clinton Administration to also apply the laws of war to Timothy McVeigh and the entire militia movement (even though McVeigh was not a militia member). Crona and Richardson argued that the Oklahoma City bombing was an “act of war,” and “groups fomenting domestic insurrection, such as anti-government militia” were the equivalent of foreign enemies in wartime. They asserted that “citizenship of the accused poses no obstacle” to the application of the laws of war to such Americans, with the Bill of Rights providing no protection:


It is legally and intellectually disingenuous to provide [suspected] terrorists the same rights as persons accused of ordinary crimes against society. Our Bill of Rights was designed to protect individuals in society against the arbitrary exercise of government power. It is not meant to protect commando groups warring on society through arbitrary acts of mass violence. We recognize that our proposal may have an adverse impact on the Bill of Rights. Regrettable as this may be, the demonstrable risk of harm to innocent persons posed by terrorism ... comparatively outweighs the speculative risk of such an adverse impact.


The “commando groups” Crona and Richardson had most in mind were the domestic militias formed throughout the United States in the 1990s in response to Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege which ended in the death of 76 Americans, including 21 children.


The militias stated repeatedly that their purpose was defensive, to defend against government abuse of the people – against more Wacos. Even the FBI concluded that the vast majority of militias were purely defensive.


But Crona and Richardson insisted that all of the militias should be treated as suspected terrorists and unlawful military enemies and subjected to “an in kind response” under military rules of engagement and then tried by tribunal as war criminals merely for belonging to such organizations.


It was just such a military style shoot-on-sight rule of engagement at Ruby Ridge that resulted in Vicki Weaver being shot in the head, while holding her baby, by a sniper at long range - a range at which the sniper was not in any danger from Vicki or any other member of her family. That rule of engagement was later determined to have been illegal. However, if Crona and Richardson had their way, such would be the perfectly legal norm, not the abhorrent exception.


The same goes for Waco, where military tactics, equipment, and rules of engagement were used. Many Americans considered that a disaster of government excess. But under the New Military Order Crona and Richardson envisioned, such methods would not only be appropriate, they would be the only way such situations would be handled - as all such actions, against all such people, would be "war," not "law enforcement."


What if Clinton had listened to Crona and Richardson?

We can only imagine what would have happened if the Clinton Administration had actually implemented this plan, with Clinton declaring members of militias to be “unlawful enemy combatants” and subjecting them to military trials and execution. That would have been the worst fears of the militia and patriot movement come true. The message from President Clinton would have been essentially this:

For you people, who oppose the federal government, who form citizen militias, the Bill of Rights is hereby forever suspended, and as "unlawful combatants" you are subject to being shot on sight wherever found, subject to indefinite military detention, under my orders, and subject to the laws of war as applied by a military commission established by me, under my authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. If that military commission finds you guilty, you will be executed, and any possible appeal will only be to me, as the final decider of your guilt or innocence, pursuant to my independent and co-equal Article II powers as commander-in-chief.

However limited the initial application of such a policy, with the militia movement’s worst fears now confirmed they would have considered armed resistance appropriate and even necessary. Even if at first only one or two suspected militia members were held as unlawful combatants without trial, or one or two small groups, it is very possible that a cycle of action/reaction would have begun. A group resists. The government cracks down. More groups resist. The government cracks down harder. And on it would have gone.


Thankfully, none of that happened because the absurd, dangerous proposal of Crona and Richardson to side step the Bill of Rights received little attention.


So, we can all live happily ever after, right? Wrong. After 9-11, this idea was thrust into the limelight, and the application of the laws of war to terrorist suspects has now become official U.S. policy.


Within days of September 11, 2001, the article by Crona and Richardson was noticed by John Dean, former Attorney General and legal commentator on http://www.findlaw.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. On Friday, September 28, 2001, Dean published his article, Appropriate Justice for Terrorists: Using Military Tribunals Rather Than Criminal Courts. In that article, Dean praises Crona and Richardson’s proposal and cites heavily to their 1996 article, and then tells us this:


While I have drawn on Crona's and Richardson's scholarly analysis, and considered arguments in this column, I have not been able in this space to do it justice, and it is very much worth reading in its entirety. Indeed, I found the article so helpful that I also passed it on to a friend at the Department of Justice, requesting that he pass it on to those currently examining the potential of military tribunals.


It is probably impossible to know if their article actually formed the basis for the Bush Administration strategy, but the actions of the Bush Administration have been entirely consistent with what Crona and Richardson recommended." In the end, it does not matter whether the lawyers in the Bush Administration would have figured it out themselves (which is likely). What is important is that a very dangerous, and potentially explosive idea has now been given new life.


But surely Bush Administration lawyers had the good sense to at least draw a clear line between citizens and non-citizens, right? Wrong again. Relying on the exact same arguments as Crona and Richardson, the Bush lawyers insisted that citizenship is irrelevant and any U.S. citizen the president designates an “enemy combatant” can be held in military detention and tried by tribunal. And the Supreme Court agreed, approving of such detention of a citizen named Yaser Hamdi.


Ominous Precedents: U.S. Citizens Declared Enemy Combatants

According to the Supreme Court majority in the 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision, “there is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.” Yasir Hamdi was a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan and suspected of fighting with the Taliban. Sure, Hamdi was a Muslim, but the Court did not rule that only Muslim-Americans can be detained indefinitely by the military and tried by tribunal. There is no legal distinction between Muslim and Christian.


And sure, Hamdi was captured abroad, but the Hamdi Court relied on another case, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), concerning a German saboteur captured here in the U.S. who claimed U.S. citizenship. In Quirin, the same liberal Court that gave us the New Deal ruled, for the first time in American history, that the citizenship of the accused was irrelevant, and all that mattered was that he was accused of violating the laws of war. So the very same precedent the Hamdi Court relied on to find that citizenship does not matter held that location does not matter.


Scalia Got It Right!

In Hamdi, only Justice Scalia, in his dissent joined by Stevens, stood firm on the clear constitutional line between citizen and non-citizen. Scalia’s dissent is worth your time and we urge you to read it (just do a google search for Hamdi Scalia dissent). Scalia pointed out that the proper trial remedy for a citizen accused of making war against his own nation or of aiding the enemy was not a miliary tribunal, but instead was a trial for treason, in a civilian court, by a jury of his peers, as stated by the Article III Treason Clause.


As for detention, Scalia also pointed out that no citizen can be detained without indictment unless Congress has suspended habeas corpus in time of insurrection or invasion, and no such suspension had been enacted by Congress. Scalia followed the Constitution. The rest of the Court just did whatever they thought best, in what Scalia called a “Mr. Fix-it” approach. As Scalia noted, the Court did not defend the Bill of Rights for citizens, but instead merely defended its own turf, by asserting that it would play a key roll in creating some new system of “due process” rather than simply following the Constitution which was designed by the Founders to deal with emergency and war. If you are declared an enemy combatant, what due process will you get? Whatever the Court thinks is “due,” and the Hamdi majority said that a military tribunal may satisfy that minimal due process requirement.


When it comes to keeping this country from eventually becoming a police state, the crucial battle line was at citizenship, and once the Court decreed that citizenship is irrelevant, why would it matter where you are? And once that door was opened, once that line was crossed, nothing but raw politics stops that war power from being used on you. Your being a God-fearing, Christian, flag waiving, patriotic “real American” living here in the U.S. does not matter a hoot to the Supreme Court majority, which believes that you and your children can all be treated precisely the same as suspected al-Qaeda captured abroad.


In Hamdi, all the liberals on the Court argued about was separations of powers - whether the courts could review enemy combatant designations involving citizens and whether Congress had given authorization (which the Hamdi majority ruled Congress had, in the Authorization of Use of Military Force of 2001) - not whether a citizen could ever be tried by military tribunal. The political left is so enamored with equality that they ignore the need for a clear line on applying the laws of war to only foreigners abroad in wartime, not citizens and legal residents at home.


And the so-called conservative lawyers in the Bush Administration also consistently argued that citizenship of the accused is irrelevant, and with the exception of Scalia, sitting conservative judges have agreed. Not only did the Bush Administration detain citizen Hamdi in military custody, but also Jose Padilla, another U.S. citizen, who was “captured” at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport and designated an “unlawful enemy combatant” by President Bush.


And while the Bush Administration ducked Supreme Court review by eventually charging Padilla with a crime, that did not happen until after a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision sided entirely with the Administration, ruling that any U.S. citizen, wherever found, can be designated as an “unlawful enemy combatant” on the say-so of the President - any president, even a future President Obama, Clinton, or Pelosi - and detained without charges for the duration of the war on terrorism and tried by a military tribunal.


Years before the Hamdi decision, back in 2002 while I (Stewart) was a student at Yale Law School, I stood alone in my procedure class, pointing to the Treason Clause and the Habeas Suspension Clause, insisting that no U.S. citizen could be treated like a foreign enemy and tried by military tribunal. Just by reading the Constitution I could clearly see what Scalia would later point out in his Hamdi dissent. My arguments fell on deaf ears. The liberal professor, all the liberal students, and all the conservative students, agreed that citizenship did not matter.


The political elites from both the left and the right have abandoned the Constitution and are united in agreement that they can strip you and your children of the protections of the Bill of Rights merely by labeling you an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Rank-and-file Conservatives, in their zeal to free the hands of a Republican president to go after Muslim terrorists, have not paid sufficient attention to this destruction of the very foundations of our Constitutional Republic. They are finally beginning to wake up, and listen to real conservatives such as Judge Napolitano, now that it is President Obama who holds that nearly unlimited power over their lives and liberty.


The legal foundations for what Crona and Richardson only dreamed of in 1996 are now nearly completely in place. What keeps you from being declared an “enemy combatant”? Surely not the Bill of Rights, according to the Supreme Court. Now, it’s just a matter of politics, and who happens to be president.


The Obama Administration, with the imprudent and rabidly anti-gun Rahm Emanuel as the “second most powerful man in America,” just may be foolish enough to use that doctrine on those they consider to be the real terrorists and domestic enemies of their plans – American gun owners and constitutionalists. And that may be the spark of the next American Revolution.


Stewart Rhodes

Founder of Oath Keepers

"Not on Our Watch!"
As much as we like to whine about things like no R rating for games here. There are much bigger things at stake (and it is all linked) that if allowed to go unreported, the danger will spread just like the orc menace in lord of the rings when people were too lazy to pay attention to the problem until it was too late and the kings (perverted by amibtions to have ultimate power) could not be relied upon to save people because of the perversion of their beliefs and temptation to serve something other than the people that put them into their position. If the king is tempted to do wrong due to the "need" to be granted more power in order to solve what they see as the problem, the easy/evil way, then its time for everyone to get prepare to defend yourself for when they've eventually decided that YOU are the enemy preventing them from bringing right to the world through evil means. When there is nothing left to fight it will be you that they have decided to fight against, using the full force of the military they've called to harass and scare you. Of course from their point of view they are doing good and helping you and saving people from terror.
It's all about labels and what the definitions of those labels mean.

If you label anyone with a different view from yours a terror threat, nothing can stop you from just defining anyone who you don't like as terrorists or dangerous extremeists. This is why people should pay attention to what is going on there because unlike us, who willingly gave up our guns, the americans still hold onto theirs and it's obvious the controllers now have to fall back on a brute force approach to get their NWO, by using the police to suspect them (and any ron paul supporters) of wrong doing and acclimatise the public to this idea that you should be seen as a threat to society for believing in the constitution even though the leaders swear an oath to it. :roll:
User avatar
flipswitch
que
que
Posts: 6587
Joined: 08 Jul 2006 07:05 pm

Re: Internet Filter. THE CURTAIN IS FALLING RIGHT NOW!

Post by flipswitch »

Australian Government scraps internet filter plans


From gamespot.

Sorry, couldn't bold important stuff on iOS as it's a pain.
http://au.gamespot.com/news/australian- ... ns-6399759" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Federal government abandons plans for mandatory internet filter in Australia; ISPs will instead be required to block Interpol-approved list of sites.
The Australian Government has scrapped controversial plans surrounding the implementation of a mandatory internet filter, first suggested by the Labor party five years ago.


Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.
According to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, the decision to abandon the plan was prompted by a Law Reform Commission inquiry, which found that it was too broad to work.

Both the Coalition and Greens party have previously stated their opposition to the plan.

The initial proposal for a mandatory internet filter would have required Australian internet service providers (ISPs) to block sites deemed inappropriate for public consumption by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Examples of sites that would have been blocked under the proposed filter include those related to child pornography, bestiality, sexual violence, drug use, and sites relating to terrorist activity.

Instead of the filter, the federal government will now order ISPs to block around 1,400 websites that is currently being monitored by Interpol and is related to child abuse and child pornography.

Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull told ABC Radio today that the federal government's backdown on the mandatory filter is a sign that the plan would not have worked.

"[The filter] would have been quite ineffective in the battle against child pornography, because people who trade child pornography and other material of that kind do so through peer-to-peer networks; they're not posting it up on websites," Turnbull told ABC Radio.

According to ABC Radio, the Interpol's process for blocking sites requires the website to be reviewed by authorities in two countries before it can be added to the blocked list and can only be blocked if the children depicted on the site are, or appear to be, under 13 years of age.

The Australian Greens party welcomed the decision, with communications spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlam saying that the new plans represented a return to "evidence-based" policy.

"I congratulate the many people who campaigned hard against proposals to censor a wide array of material on the government's 'Refused Classification' list," Ludlam said. "The government's move to require ISPs to block against the Interpol list answers most of the criticisms levelled at its much broader policy."
User avatar
GeneraL CyberFunK
Wants it in 8 Directions
Posts: 2896
Joined: 16 Dec 2006 03:28 pm
Location: Brisbane, QLD

Re: Internet Filter. THE CURTAIN IS FALLING RIGHT NOW!

Post by GeneraL CyberFunK »

I'm glad this has happened but FARK ME - They needed to spend MILLIONS of dollars on this to find out something that I (and many other out there) was able to work out in less than 5min?

I'm keeping my ears open for any stupid fucking parent who has a gripe about protection of their children. Will be gleefully tearing them a new one by insisting they either do some fucking parenting or die.
User avatar
General Chaos
Beano's Minion
Beano's Minion
Posts: 8102
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 08:59 am
Location: Hobart

Re: Internet Filter. THE CURTAIN IS FALLING RIGHT NOW!

Post by General Chaos »

Without reading a word I'm calling bullshit.

Watermellons going into safe mode well before election hoping we have short memories.

Pro tip: we do!
User avatar
Twiztid Elf
Team Wowboy
Posts: 7459
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 05:59 pm
XBL ID: Koco Savage
PSN ID: giantenemycrabb

Re: Internet Filter. THE CURTAIN IS FALLING RIGHT NOW!

Post by Twiztid Elf »

Wow. I used to care about stuff before I got old.
User avatar
Cletus
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
Posts: 15563
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Location: Aboard the HMAS Todd Margaret
Contact:

Re: Internet Filter.

Post by Cletus »

I thought I was going to have to start making my own "Junkie sucking off a dog" videos but everything's looking Cletus lately.
User avatar
GameHED
10000 words or your money back!
10000 words or your money back!
Posts: 13228
Joined: 05 Jul 2006 01:14 pm
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AU

Re: Internet Filter.

Post by GameHED »

I believe a lot of the pedos are working at places like disneyland dressed up as mickey mouse or whatever character they can disguise themself as but the mainstream media cover it up. Yes a lot of the catholic priests are into it (this is part of freemasonry rituals and the magick power they get fucking innocent virgins as a sign they are serious in going into the dark side of magick to gain favor with the demons - it does not have to be a sexy naked woman with blonde hair as you see in movies. Many people who are christians/catholics are also masons) ... but pretty much any place that gives easy access to kids there are going to be pedos working there like child care facilities, the TSA in america (they can grope your children and not get into trouble for sexual harassment) and even in entertainment. (the guy from "hey dad" who we all thought was a wholesome person.)

I believe pedos are going to get organised in future and try to legalise it by creating organisations to pretend to be protecting children's rights. (laws put in place to protect you from something are really placed there to do the exact opposite of what they are labelled as. This is part of how satanists code things - to get the true meaning everything is back to front) The government workers that kidnap children by making out that parents can't be responsible parents (due to having drug habits that are out of control or abusive ect) I think end up as sex slaves with the elite. See the movie Taken. I bet that is based on true story. I think in New york looking at kiddie porn is legal but making it is not. So kiddie porn is already being legalised now! The world is getting more evil. No wonder music videos are being so sexualised to get your kids to dress like preteen hookers with makeup all over their face and communicate to predators online through the internet with strangers. Get off your fat arses parents. They are everywhere, hiding as good people. In fact my belief is when the future society gets chipped, and all humans are monitored by government workers; who might also secretly be part of these secret pedo organisations, they can monitor where they are so it is easy to know if they are close by while the parents are far away. (kidnap is less risky - just like your computer is never 100% secure with the latest antivirus software) Things are not always what they seem. Places you think are trustworthy could be the opposite because they are drawn to positions of power that nobody suspects. (so getting a job with tsa protects a pedo)

http://gizmodo.com/5908870/kiddie-porn- ... n-new-york" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are many missing children around the world. Where did they all go? Possibly sex slaves for the wealthy into kids.
"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." -Shigeru Miyamoto
User avatar
Cletus
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
Posts: 15563
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Location: Aboard the HMAS Todd Margaret
Contact:

Re: Internet Filter.

Post by Cletus »

Rather than re-arguing this topic let's just agree we're saying the exact same things but for different people.
User avatar
pilonv1
Eels - regular season champions
Eels - regular season champions
Posts: 19049
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 11:08 am
XBL ID: pilonv1
PSN ID: pilonv1
Steam ID: pilonv1

Re: Internet Filter.

Post by pilonv1 »

Isn't it an opt-out solution? Seems like an outrage over nothing
User avatar
unfnknblvbl
googlebomber
googlebomber
Posts: 9783
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
XBL ID: unfunk
Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
Location: Just behind GameHED

Re: Internet Filter.

Post by unfnknblvbl »

The labor solution was opt-out too. The problem is/was that even if you opt out, there's a component that still runs, blocking shit the gubm'nt doesn't want us looking at. Dunno if that still happens though.
The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars
User avatar
pilonv1
Eels - regular season champions
Eels - regular season champions
Posts: 19049
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 11:08 am
XBL ID: pilonv1
PSN ID: pilonv1
Steam ID: pilonv1

Re: Internet Filter.

Post by pilonv1 »

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/digital ... 2t7nb.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like it's not server side
The proposal sees filtering software installed on new modems and smartphones as people take up new services

...

The Coalition's communications spokesman, Malcolm Turnbull, said the filters would not be at the ISP-level as previously proposed by Labour.

"The filter will be contained in software installed in either people's smartphones, or modems if they've got fixed-line broadband, which can be disabled at their option," Mr Turnbull said on Triple J's Hack on Thursday.

"So it is not a filter that operates at the server-side at the ISP. So it doesn't slow down the internet. It's basically the same as installing a filter on your own computer but by making it available as a default...

"So what [our policy] does is essentially install that software either in the smartphone or in the modem as a default which you can switch off but then that's at your call."
I don't like it either but I'll just turn it off. Seems like a bit of an outrage just because people want to yell at Tony
Madmya
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
Posts: 19118
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
XBL ID: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
Location: Brisbane

Re: Internet Filter.

Post by Madmya »

That's actually not that bad at all.

I was pissed when Labor introduced it all those years ago, it was an ultra conservative move and gave the libs a free pass to do the same thing.
User avatar
Misly
Blackened is the end
Posts: 1069
Joined: 03 Sep 2006 05:49 pm
XBL ID: Misly
Location: Sydney

Re: Internet Filter.

Post by Misly »

Yep, If its on my side and I can fully control it, and people who want it on can turn it on, then I am happy. A service instead of potential conflicting interests censorship. Much better solution. Just dont fuck the NBN with copper crap!
:rock:
Post Reply