Internet Filter.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 10 Dec 2008 07:59 pm

Awesome. GG telstra and internode. Same that iiNet and optus only have one testicle.

Reka · Post by **Reka** » 13 Dec 2008 12:59 am

Alright fuckers, get out there and have your say tomorrow.

I know we're all lazy mofo's who would rather play videogames in our spare time than join a crowd of strangers in protest, but fuck it, get out there and tell Rudd where to shove his internet filters.

If nothing else, turn up and point your finger and yell "NEEEEEERDS!!!!" at the crowd of protesters.

It's bullshit that they can even propose internet filters when they don't even pre-define what's acceptable and what isn't. If this gets through then it sets a really bad precedent and the slippery slope is sure to follow.

Cue Gamehead or any other conspiracy theorist out there, because this is certainly a precursor to supression.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 13 Dec 2008 12:16 pm

There is simply no need for it. If people want a filter you can get it free already FFS. The lack of people downloading it for use is an indication that it simply isn't wanted by majority of people who use the internet frequently and that parents are supervising their children over trusting an imperfect filter. But the option will always be there for those who want it. But for those who don't want it, you have no option. There is a nefarious intent behind it.

It was never abou the kiddies, it's about control. Less government intervention in your private life means more happiness and more choice to live as you want to live. Politicians are not dumb they know the plan isn't perfect, but they need you to believe that the purpose for the usage of the filter is for protection of kids and not because they want to control people's access to any legit material they don't like.

Cletus · Post by **Cletus** » 13 Dec 2008 03:12 pm

Just got back from the city.

There wasn't anyone there....two very small soaked cardboard placards but no people.

MiNiStRy · Post by **MiNiStRy** » 13 Dec 2008 04:03 pm

Well taking quotes out of the age blog it looks like its in tatters anway.

And the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has written to critics saying that the so-called "live" trials would be "a closed network test and will not involve actual customers". Greens Senator Scott Ludlam said this was a sign the Government was slowly backing away from the heavily criticised policy.

And..

Given that the traffickers of genuine abuse material will not let themselves be slowed down by a filter and are already covering their tracks, the net result that will be achieved here is exactly this: inconvenience, chaos and expense with absolutely no dividend for the children."

Senator Ludlam said in a phone interview he believed Labor would drop the mandatory filtering policy in the new year once the now scaled-back trials were completed.

He said the Government could not abandon it now "without losing significant political face".

Imo this was never going to happen!

Twiztid Elf · Post by **Twiztid Elf** » 23 Dec 2008 06:50 pm

In a post on his department's blog, Senator Conroy today said technology that could filter data sent directly between computers would be tested as part of the upcoming live filtering trial.

"Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial," Senator Conroy said.

Torrents=Gooone!
What's the impact on legitimate torrents, such as legal content or WoW patches???? Who knows?
This has been one of my suspicions right from the start of this madness. The whole thing is being driven by big companies seeking to protect their copyrights via filters that will also block legal content.

'Not like China'

Despite announcing the live pilot trial would likely include filtering peer-to-peer traffic, Senator Conroy rejected accusations that the scheme was similar to internet censorship in countries such as China.

"Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content," Senator Conroy said.

"In this context, claims that the Government's policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified."

This is the real scary thing. Sure, they aren't going to censor political views now, but the platform is there to allow it later.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 24 Dec 2008 12:35 am

I would say it's a right wing conspiracy but then my message will probably get filtered.

Shaneus · Post by **Shaneus** » 24 Dec 2008 01:09 am

You would say what? I can't read half your post.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 24 Dec 2008 01:21 am

Holy shit the filter is active already - so effective! Oh well maybe that means we no longer have to worry about rocco again if he ever comes back to put gay porn on the site.

pilonv1 · Post by **pilonv1** » 24 Dec 2008 09:43 am

id like to see how they plan to block/filter torrents or peer to peer connections.

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 24 Dec 2008 10:56 am

Stephen Conroy is a cunt face.

Let's see you block THAT, cunt face.

stanard · Post by **stanard** » 24 Dec 2008 11:09 am

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 24 Dec 2008 11:12 am

The plan is to put this in place late next year. Right before an election.

Some people didn't learn anything from WorkChoices.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 24 Dec 2008 11:44 am

All this tax money going to waste just to slow down the internet by 87% and make australia like china which is where all the piracy is rampant.

Spend the money on something that is actually useful and above all, wanted, you fools.

BruceCamblzChin · Post by **BruceCamblzChin** » 24 Dec 2008 11:46 am

won't somebody think of the children!

Jesus, how about spending $$$ on education and cutting the fucken welfare bill this cuntry has, you fucken morons. Is there no politician in this country that wants to actually acheive something?

General Chaos · Post by **General Chaos** » 24 Dec 2008 12:24 pm

There was but every one hated him.

Pointy Cat · Post by **Pointy Cat** » 24 Dec 2008 02:26 pm

Vzzzbx wrote:The plan is to put this in place late next year. Right before an election.

Some people didn't learn anything from WorkChoices.

It'll make me vote Liberal again. Sure, one could argue many of the right wing nuts in the Liberal party would actually want to do the same thing over the next few years had they been in power, but they're not. That said the Liberal party hasn't come out in support of the filter, saying they'll need a lot of convincing to support it. Hopefully Turnbull is sane enough to oppose it, but I'm sure he'll have some on his backbench trying to convince him it's a great idea.

I'd also like to know how they really plan to filter peer to peer. Sure, I suppose the tech is there to do it... in a highly controlled lab setting. But in the real world? Heh. Conroy is probably too stupid to understand the difference.

flipswitch · Post by **flipswitch** » 24 Dec 2008 04:46 pm

Hackers will always find away through the filters when they're active.

THE POLICE · Post by **THE POLICE** » 24 Dec 2008 06:09 pm

EVERYBODY STAY RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE. WE HAVE THE PLACE SURROUNDED. WILL THE MEMBER KNOWN AS VZZZBX PLEASE EXIT THE FORUM. YOU ARE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING.

THE REST OF YOU HAVE 12 MINUTES TO VACATE THIS THREAD BEFORE IT IS DELETED. WE ARE AUTHORIZED TO USE FORCE.

BruceCamblzChin · Post by **BruceCamblzChin** » 24 Dec 2008 06:21 pm

lol.

Fuck you THE POLICE!!!!

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 24 Dec 2008 07:42 pm

Pointy Cat wrote:It'll make me vote Liberal again.

It'll make me vote Liberal again, too (unless the Liberals propose a Howard-like agenda, obviously).

Pointy Cat wrote:I'd also like to know how they really plan to filter peer to peer. Sure, I suppose the tech is there to do it... in a highly controlled lab setting. But in the real world? Heh. Conroy is probably too stupid to understand the difference.

It's a mean feat when you consider the giant bags of stupidity that preceded him.

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 24 Dec 2008 08:38 pm

Conroy is officially inviting discussion here but the 'add comment' link doesn't work.

pilonv1 · Post by **pilonv1** » 24 Dec 2008 08:43 pm

people on whirlpool have said there comments have been deleted if they were negative

@ the police

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 24 Dec 2008 08:58 pm

That's just it. There IS NO DEBATE. They are just plain wrong to even put a filter at isp level which doesn't allow you as an individual to opt out of one. It's not going to protect you if the content was never harmful to an individual to begin with. People should be given the freedom to just opt out of any filter and leave the internet alone. You can still protect everyone who wants the filter. Just don't force people who don't want one to HAVE to use it.

It IS about freedom of speech and the more they try to deny that it isn't, the less there is to say about the issue. If you can't agree on certain things it's just best to not waste time trying to argue with someone who can't think logically. If someone wants to increase the speed by 87% so that they can download stuff faster and not have to deal with the problem of the filter stopping them from seeing websites that are completely legit but incorrectly labelled as bad by the filter, then imo that is as good a reason as any to allow individuals to be given freedom to opt out. No ifs, buts. It's a human rights issue!

Any idiot can see this.

By tricking you into thinking there is a debate and that they have any valid reason to need this stupid thing is an attempt to make them out like the good guy trying to help you all.

If there is no opt out. There is no freedom. People can't find the information they will want without worrying that the stupid filter isn't giving them all the legit results. The filter even if it worked perfectly, wouldn't protect the people who will just bypass it.
If people don't want something and there is no demand for something then you as a leader have to admit you are not serving the people but some other interest/agenda. A mandatory filter is just like china.

Tax dollars should go towards more important things. No excuses.

It's just like the fluoride thing. There is not just one solution to any problem. When you deliberately ignore the more effective alternatives which make the most number of people happy, you are suspected of serving some kind of hidden agenda, and in this case, people know it's not to protect children because if it was, you would allow anyone who can prove they are adults with ID and give them the ability to opt out, right? You still can't defend this! Like with the fluoride thing: why use force to make people do what you want instead of giving them the freedom to choose for themselves.

Stop the BS "for the children" crap. Taking away people's options and choices and making this mandatory is the big problem. Parents who want to protect their children will only be able to if the computer they use is placed in the living room for them to see and supervise over them the old fashioned way. Not rely on half-arsed solutions that is just wasting our money and slowing down progress. Parents need to be with their kids at all times until they can prove that they are mature enough to act responsibly. The government can't provide proper parenting because you view people as a mere resource or statistic and want to gain points with the public. Not look at issues realistically and think logically.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 24 Dec 2008 09:05 pm

Agreed gamehed.

If they know what sites to block (for containing child pornography) then they should know where they are hosted and have some leads to investigate. Fair enough, no-one would complain about that. Blocking them is fine in principle, but it might also just drive the perpetrators further underground and make them harder to find.

Thankfully Ive never come across anything of that sort, nor do I know anyone who has. So obviously its not something that turns up in regular web browsing, even by accident. In the vast majority of cases at least, I would conclude.

But why should an entire country suffer because some people don't monitor their children's computer usage, install their own filters and make sure google safe search is on. Everyone else has the right to look up whatever else they fell like looking up because as a responsible adult they should have the right.

Further, who is to say that the agenda of future Puritans won't change and then topics such as abortion, birth control, blasphemy and sedition might trigger visits from law enforcement agencies.

It's yet another case of Puritans deciding that their morality needs to be imposed on everyone. Puritans though are usually the worst offenders and more than likely to be rockspiders than anyone else.