- Saturday, 28 November 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS
The corporate grip on opinion in the US is one of the wonders of the Western world - Gore Vidal
Aussies internet screening hitting brick wall
IT IS STARTING to look like the Australian government is going to lose the chance to censor internet sites that it does not like.
Opposition to the idea, which will turn the Australian internet into a nanny state, is growing and it now looks like ISPs are threatening to boycott the idea.
The government has been pushing the idea of filtering with the age-old idea of protecting children from everything and the nation from terrorists. However what it apparently didn’t realise is that Western Societies are not that keen on censorship these days... for any reason.
For the scheme to go ahead, it needs the support of the Green party, and the looney religious nutters who want to use it to ban porn or anything else that is not in their interpretation of the Bible.
But the Greens have said that the proposal is "daft".
Spokeshippie Scott Ludlam told The Age yesterday that the policy was technically difficult and very expensive for taxpayers.
Ludlam said server-level filtering imposed a kind of censorship that "runs counter to what the internet is all about", adding that the Government would be better investing the filtering money in law enforcement and education.
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is now saying that he does not want to set up a Great FireWall of China, or Great Rabbit Proof Fence, since it is Australian.
All he wants to do is protect the children from paedophiles he said. µ
L'Inq
Sydney Morning Herald
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Good for the Australian peeps!
First and foremost, it is the job of the parents to do that. By educating their offspring about the risks that are associated with going places, virtually or in real life, they TEACH their children what to look out for and how to react.
Second, when the child is out of reach of his/her parents, it is the responsibility of every single adult around to ensure that nothing bad happens to the child. Yes, shocking idea, I agree, but it's what civilization has been all about for the past 5,000 years - you take care of your neighbor and he'll take care of you. It's what country folk have been doing for generations and generations - it's time we go back to that state of mind.
Third, and only then, when worst come to worst it is up to the government to provide the necessary support and infrastructure to allow for the recuperation of the child and the arrest of the criminal. Yes, that's when we need the police, the social workers and the medics - when normal adult supervision has entirely failed to protect the child.

Any other state of mind is just meddling and uselessly spending tax dollars that should be earmarked to more important things - like educating parents and children, and detecting and reeducating sociopaths so that the whole bloody business doesn't happen in the first place.

Filtering the Internet has nothing to do with protecting the children from anything. Responsible parenting and responsible adults have everything to do with it.
Nick, IMHO your articles about what is happening to the Internet are great!

Perhaps the Australian government could hire Mohammad Soleimani as consultant.

Local political parties are not the only ones trying to control the Internet. If the Australian government somehow still manages to control the Internet, in Australia, then other countries will follow the plan. I think that is the plan anyway. Sounds really bad, doesn't it? But perhaps this is a chance for a new Internet, one where finally the basic issue with the current Internet is eliminated, namely the dependence and reliance on central components, which are being controlled by governments, ISPs, the entertainment industry and various interest groups. Alternative nameserver schemes, VPNs, proxies, TOR etc. are just the beginning of the Internet's end. Certainly the new Internet will not be suspended on cable either.
Set up some sting operations, catch the bad guys. Prosecute them. Scare them by creating sites that they will go to, get their details and then prosecute them, and make it public.

Lets remove the "anonymity" behind offenders.

I still think a facial/forehead tattoo for serious criminals stating their crimes is a valid idea. It should be trialled on all repeat offenders who target children (especially).
The idea of "protecting the kiddies" is a warm & fuzzy feel idea, but the solution is simply not going to work and is poll-driven rather than technology-driven.

Stephen Conroy doesn't know jack-s* about this stuff, and is just selling the dumb public what they want to buy... an opt-out from responsibility.
A video and an article in the link (below)... briefly covers some of the reasons why this filtering idea is nothing but a waste of taxpayers' money.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/communications/soa/ISP-level-content-filtering-won-t-work/0,139023754,339292158,00.htm