Internet Censorship

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by vztrt

With the Anniversary of Tiananmen Square incident. The chinese show us how wonderful censorship is.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/china...0604-bvxf.html

If I was responsible for the murder of a bunch of civilians I'd like to keep it under the blanket too lol.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by vztrt

With the Anniversary of Tiananmen Square incident. The chinese show us how wonderful censorship is.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/china...0604-bvxf.html

I was there a little while ago. My local guide was absolutely paranoid about us even mentioning it as we looked about.

There are alegedly microphones everywhere.....

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

But Work Horse, if the internet filtering is implemented, all I have to do to bypass it is to start using an overseas proxy or establish a VPN connection to a server outside of Australia. Both of these tasks take less than 5 minutes to set up and then I have an unfiltered internet connection again. I'd have access to all the child porn, bestiality and Queensland dentist web sites that are on the blacklist again.
Is it worth spending so much of tax payers money on something that simply is not going to be effective?

I'm not an advocate for the internet filter sgt_doofey. I'm on the fence with the whole idea and will wait with interest for the results of the government trial.

People who are advocates may accuse you of invoking a Homer Simpson mantra, "can't win, don't try". They may point out we will never stop drug traffickers, people smugglers or any number of things we have rules about. But is that a reason not to try?

My problem is with the debate and it being hijacked by industry spin doctors. There are some genuine concerns about this filter. The government needs to be held to account for what they are actually proposing.

Forming an opinion on an internet filter from the information on Whirlpool is like forming an opinion on gun control with information from the Sporting Shooters Association. Sure they are both well informed, but the information is one sided.

Mark Newton is the pin up boy over on Whirlpool, it seems everything he says is taken as gospel. "The gentleman doth protest too much". He claims the filter will not work, and could never be made to work. Then says he will come down to parliament when it starts and beat it in 30 seconds? OK if he believes this to be true, why not wait until the trial is over and say "I told you so"?

Mark Newton is everywhere http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2536879.htm was posted earlier in the thread. The IT expert that believes the filter can never be made to work is apparently very worried about it effecting our freedom of speech? "The gentleman doth protest too much".

I believe ISP's don't want the filter because it will effect their business. It's incredible that 90% of all e-mail traffic is spam. How much of ISP's business will be effected by the government filters? Remember the government are proposing opt-in filters that, if they work, will filter way more than the blacklist.

Who knows how much porn that is downloaded could be blocked?


ISP's do.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Who knows how much porn that is downloaded could be blocked?


ISP's do.

But, wouldn't people who would want the blocked porn simply bypass the filters and still download it? That means that they'll still use the same amount of traffic and the ISP won't see any difference in their traffic, apart from the fact that encrypted data will increase.

The other thing about Mark is that yes, he does work for an ISP here in Adelaide, but he has said all along that the views he express on the filtering is his own and not that of the ISP he works for.

Me personally, I do see a use of the opt-in filter for families that would like it. I have no issues with that what so ever. I'm personally against the mandatory filtering as who regulates the regulators of that list and the filter doesn't address the issue of the illegal material being produced in the first place. Sure, block one continent from being able to see it, no problems. What about the other continents on the earth? They'll still be able to see this material and it'll still be produced as the demand is there.

Governments should be cracking down on the production of these materials, drugs also as you alluded to. Doing something about the distribution of it won't stop the production.

[bdave351]

Workhorse you failed to give any answers to the points that were made earlier and have yet to give one single reason as to why this is a good idea!

Talk about spam and the like has nothing to do with this.

And as for the bypass......http://proxy.org/cgi_proxies.shtml

click. done. didnt take 30 seconds did it?

[adsm]

Guys there is big uproar about this. You can see what is happening and show support here. http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by bdave351

...
And as for the bypass......http://proxy.org/cgi_proxies.shtml
...

Depending upon how the filter is implemented, this won't necessarily work. If the traffic is not encrypted, they'll still block it between your IP and the proxy.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Depending upon how the filter is implemented, this won't necessarily work. If the traffic is not encrypted, they'll still block it between your IP and the proxy.

No they won't because all of your traffic is between the proxy and you. The proxy does all the work fetching from the Queensland dentist site on the blacklist and the passes the page back. For all intent and purposes, the filter will see an interaction between you and the proxy and nothing else.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

But, wouldn't people who would want the blocked porn simply bypass the filters and still download it? That means that they'll still use the same amount of traffic and the ISP won't see any difference in their traffic, apart from the fact that encrypted data will increase.

Lets wait for the results of the trial before deciding the filter is easily bypassed. Teenage boys using their parents account (I'm guessing a major consumer group of porn)may have a little trouble if their parents are given enough information.

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

The other thing about Mark is that yes, he does work for an ISP here in Adelaide, but he has said all along that the views he express on the filtering is his own and not that of the ISP he works for.

Mark may well be a well meaning individual on a personal quest. He may also be no better than the doctors that backed tobacco companies claims that smoking did not cause cancer.

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Me personally, I do see a use of the opt-in filter for families that would like it. I have no issues with that what so ever. I'm personally against the mandatory filtering as who regulates the regulators of that list and the filter doesn't address the issue of the illegal material being produced in the first place. Sure, block one continent from being able to see it, no problems. What about the other continents on the earth? They'll still be able to see this material and it'll still be produced as the demand is there.

Governments should be cracking down on the production of these materials, drugs also as you alluded to. Doing something about the distribution of it won't stop the production.

"Who regulates the regulators" is defiantly an issue. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. It is simply a problem we need to find a satisfactory solution for.

The filter is not designed to stop the production of illegal material so I don't see that as a reason to not do a trial.

We can not demand other countries followed Australia's lead with a filter, but many may. Cracking down on the production of illegal should and is being done, but we should be doing a range of things including trialing a filter.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by bdave351

Workhorse you failed to give any answers to the points that were made earlier and have yet to give one single reason as to why this is a good idea!

Talk about spam and the like has nothing to do with this.

And as for the bypass......http://proxy.org/cgi_proxies.shtml

click. done. didnt take 30 seconds did it?

Originally Posted by bdave351

What exactly is the benefit here then work horse?

Please let me know.

.

I can not disprove a negative bdave351.

You don't think the filter is a good idea, and you don't see any benefits. These statements are true, you believe them and I believe you believe them, I can not prove otherwise.

[Perana]

In a business sense I don't think ISP's really care about if it blocks a certain types of traffic or not, they don't make money on how much stuff is downloaded, infact the opposite is true really.

As far as spam they would all be very glad if it blocked all spam believe me!, the main business reason why they care is the cost of implementing these systems that the majority of users do not want, and systems that are easily bypassed. (And they are!) The only way to stop it would be to stop VPN traffic, which will not happen.

Mark is vocal about this because he like a lot of us do not want the great firewall of Australia! Especially since this Firewall will make the $44bn NBN slower than 90% of current ADSL access..

[4Vman]

The ISP's wont like it because if people's average monthly download needs are reduced by way of restriction/censorship they'll reduce their plans.

[Perana]

Most of the traffic is P2P though, which something else that cannot be filtered.. Most things that will be blocked by the filter are websites, which are in reality only a small amount of data, compared to how things are obtained in other ways.

In reality the only effect the Big Firewall of Australia on the amount people download will be the speed that they can download, even then they'll still be able to download their monthly supply of porn still, it will just take a bit longer!

[bdave351]

Yes workhorse I do think its a bad idea! And no I cant see any benefits!

But if you can give me one based on fact then I am happy to take it on board!

All the discussion about pron is extremely misleading. Even the Senator is only talking about blocking up to 10,000 sites.
So it wont have any impact on teens looking up porn.....

242,000,000 results in google. That only leaves 239,990,000 sites.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by bdave351

Yes workhorse I do think its a bad idea! And no I cant see any benefits!

But if you can give me one based on fact then I am happy to take it on board!

The government plans to bring the restrictions that currently apply to print and broadcast media to internet content. This is a fact. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it is certainly one that has wide support. The devil (and yes I am his advocate) is in the detail:evil3:

Originally Posted by bdave351

All the discussion about pron is extremely misleading. Even the Senator is only talking about blocking up to 10,000 sites.
So it wont have any impact on teens looking up porn.....

242,000,000 results in google. That only leaves 239,990,000 sites.

The government is also trialing an "opt-in" filter. So "at the push of a button", according to the government, parents can block a range of web site from a menu, including porn. This also has wide support and I believe it has merit.

There is much debate about; how, what, when, who regarding the filters. So the government is having a trial to see what is feasible. This is a fact, I think it is a good idea, and has benefits.

What problem do you have with a trial?

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

...
The government is also trialing an "opt-in" filter. So "at the push of a button", according to the government, parents can block a range of web site from a menu, including porn. This also has wide support and I believe it has merit.

There is much debate about; how, what, when, who regarding the filters. So the government is having a trial to see what is feasible. This is a fact, I think it is a good idea, and has benefits.

What problem do you have with a trial?

I have less of a problem with an opt-in filter... if someone chooses to use it, fine. However, I suspect that ISPs will use the filter as an excuse to surreptitiously traffic shape users - lowering performance - and raise prices, blaming the performance hit and price increases on the cost of installing and maintaining the filter.

If it was purely opt-in, why bother? There is already filtering software available to implement this and, until recently, it was available for free under the previous government's policy. I believe the free software was scrapped, partly because hardly anybody used it - there's an indicator of the popularity of filtering, I guess.

As for the "benefits"... if you're going to tout the benefits, you also need to consider the drawbacks - of which there are many raised in this thread. In any other arena, you would consider a cost/benefit analysis before attempting to implement such an idea. If the costs (not just monetary) vastly outweigh the benefits (as they do, in my opinion), its farcical to continue down that track.

Finally, I think my crystal ball is on the money: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=111

Originally Posted by balthazarr

...
What this means is that any game that has content that is considered suitable for adults only is refused classification (as there is no adults-only classification for games) and cannot legally be sold.

So, as these games are refused classification, technically under the rules proposed for the filter - any gaming site, review, etc. that makes reference to these games should be blocked. Of course, the filters aren't particularly smart - so if you go to a typical gaming site, they might have a Top 10 list, or similar, which will likely list those games that are refused classification - effectively blocking the entire site.

From: http://www.theage.com.au/digital-lif...0625-cxrx.html

The Federal Government has now set its sights on gamers, promising to use its internet censorship regime to block websites hosting and selling video games that are not suitable for 15 year olds. ... Australia is the only developed country without an R18+ classification for games ...

So, because some site somewhere sells video games with 'adult' content (which, as the article points out, it quite legal in the rest of the developed world), the entire site will be blocked.

How can you possibly support such a ludicrous policy?

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

So, because some site somewhere sells video games with 'adult' content (which, as the article points out, it quite legal in the rest of the developed world), the entire site will be blocked.

Rubbish, nothing of the sort is intended or would happen under the governments proposal. It is futile debating anything other than what is actually planned.

Originally Posted by balthazarr

How can you possibly support such a ludicrous policy?

There is no policy to support, there is a trial to see what is possible. I support the idea of a trial to see what is possible.

[Teflon Turbo]

are we actually being censored becasue I can't see it, I can still do everything I was doing 13 years ago and even more thanks to high speed internet.

in fact 100% of my digital entertainment still comes from the net, whether it be movies [of all kinds], songs, games etc... the list goes on and on and apart from the ISP costs it's all FREE!

i don't see censorship anywhere on the net, i see it more on tv, in victoria you wouldn't think any other sport exists on the planet bar AFL.

[bdave351]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Rubbish, nothing of the sort is intended or would happen under the governments proposal. It is futile debating anything other than what is actually planned.

There is no policy to support, there is a trial to see what is possible. I support the idea of a trial to see what is possible.

Umm thats EXACTLY part of the proposal.

Anything that is RC will be able to be added to the list.

And any game that is rated more than MA15+ is RC in Australia.

Welcome to the reality of the proposed censorship.

And Torquen Turbo, it hasnt started yet except for a trial thats covering about .001% of users.
Rudd has to get it passed in the senate yet to make it law.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by bdave351

Umm thats EXACTLY part of the proposal.

Anything that is RC will be able to be added to the list.

And any game that is rated more than MA15+ is RC in Australia.

Welcome to the reality of the proposed censorship.
...

What bdave351 said.

Did you (Work Horse) read the article from The Age that I linked?

Here it is with additional emphasis by me:

Web filters to censor video games
Asher Moses
June 25, 2009

The Federal Government has now set its sights on gamers, promising to use its internet censorship regime to block websites hosting and selling video games that are not suitable for 15 year olds.

Separately, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has been nominated by the British ISP industry for its annual "internet villain" award, competing alongside the European Parliament and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Australia is the only developed country without an R18+ classification for games, meaning any titles that do not meet the MA15+ standard - such as those with excessive violence or sexual content - are simply banned from sale by the Classification Board, unless they are modified to remove the offending content.

So far, this has only applied to local bricks-and-mortar stores selling physical copies of games, but a spokesman for Senator Conroy confirmed that under the filtering plan, it will be extended to downloadable games, flash-based web games and sites which sell physical copies of games that do not meet the MA15+ standard.

This means that even Australians who are aged above 15 and want to obtain the adult-level games online will be unable to do so. . It will undoubtedly raise the ire of gamers, the average age of which is 30 in Australia, according to research commissioned by the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia.

Colin Jacobs, spokesman for the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the Government clearly went far beyond any mandate it had from the public to help parents deal with cyber-safety.

He said Australians would soon learn this the hard way when they find web pages mysteriously blocked.

"This is confirmation that the scope of the mandatory censorship scheme will keep on creeping," said Mr Jacobs.

"Far from being the ultimate weapon against child abuse, it now will officially censor content deemed too controversial for a 15-year-old. In a free country like ours, do we really need the government to step in and save us from racy web games?"

Senator Conroy's spokesman said the filter would cover "computer games such as web-based flash games and downloadable games, if a complaint is received and the content is determined by ACMA to be Refused Classification". All games that exceed MA15+ are deemed to be RC.

The filtering could also block "the importation of physical copies of computer games sold over the internet which have been classified RC", the spokesman said.

Ron Curry, chief executive of the IEAA, said the move highlighted the "unacceptable situation" of not having an R18+ classification for video games. The industry has been fighting for changes to classification laws for years.

"It's through the introduction of an R18+ classification that adults will have access to age appropriate material and parents will have the full tool kit to understand the suitability of content for their children," he said.

Mark Newton, an ISP engineer and internet filtering critic, said the move to extend the filtering to computer games would place a cloud over online-only games such as World of Warcraft and Second Life, which aren't classified in Australia due to their online nature.

He said the online distribution of such games has historically been exempt from customs controls on RC material because they have only ever covered physical articles.

"That exemption is the only reason why multi-player games with user-generated environments are possible in this country; without it, it'd only take one game user anywhere in the world to produce objectionable content in the game environment to make the Australian Government ban the game for everyone," said Newton.

Nine ISPs are trialling the web censorship plan, which will block all content that has been "refused classification" by ACMA. Results of the trials are due to be published in July.

In Britain, Senator Conroy was nominated for the annual internet villain award "for continuing to promote network-level blocking despite significant national and international opposition", George White, press officer with Britain's Internet Services Providers' Association, said.

"We would be delighted if Mr Conroy wishes to attend the Awards and collect the trophy should he win," Mr White said.

Senator Conroy's spokesman refused to comment on the award.

Unlike your assertion that "nothing of the sort is intended or would happen under the governments proposal", I and others have provided evidence to support our argument - where is yours?

You claim that you support the trial, to see what is possible... yet in the same sentence you say there is no policy to support. If there is no policy, or no agenda if you like, then where is the filtering trial stemming from? What's the point of the trial if they don't plan to implement anything?

Anything is possible. It's possible for the government to block access to the Internet entirely... maybe we should trial that next?

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

...
I believe ISP's don't want the filter because it will effect their business. It's incredible that 90% of all e-mail traffic is spam. How much of ISP's business will be effected by the government filters? Remember the government are proposing opt-in filters that, if they work, will filter way more than the blacklist.
...

It's interesting that you mention spam and spam filters... how many spam emails do you get, and how many legitimate emails are marked as spam?

I'd wager the numbers of each is greater than zero.

If 90% of the volume of email traffic is spam, does it not stand to reason that the spam filter vendors would want those filters work as best they can possibly make them? Yet spam still gets through, and legitimate emails still get marked as spam incorrectly.

The point I'm trying to make is that the problem with spam and email is far, far greater than the ~10,000 sites that the web filter is intending to block (out of, what, hundreds of millions of sites?) - if they can't get the spam filters 100% effective and accurate, what makes the government think that the web filter will be any different?

Practically every email service now has a spam filter attached to it - out of necessity, really.

Has implementing spam filters had any effect on the volume of spam messages being sent? Doubtful.
What was the response from the spammers once filters were in widespread use? They came up with clever ways to bypass the filters - misspellings, embedding images and even embedding warped images to thwart any analysis of the text contained within an image.
Is spam still an issue and a problem? Absolutely.

Take the email analogy and apply it to the web filter.
Will the web filter do anything to stop the production of objectionable material? No.
Will those that still want to access this material find ways to bypass the filter? I wouldn't bet against it.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

What bdave351 said.

Did you (Work Horse) read the article from The Age that I linked?

Here it is with additional emphasis by me:



Unlike your assertion that "nothing of the sort is intended or would happen under the governments proposal", I and others have provided evidence to support our argument - where is yours?

You claim that you support the trial, to see what is possible... yet in the same sentence you say there is no policy to support. If there is no policy, or no agenda if you like, then where is the filtering trial stemming from? What's the point of the trial if they don't plan to implement anything?

I'm unsure what is going on here; perhaps you actually don't understand what it is the government is proposing. Perhaps you do understand what is proposed and are deliberately posting misinformation because you believe it somehow makes your opinion more persuasive. Perhaps you refuse to believe anything the government says and rely on the hysterical rumor mill, sources such as whirlpool, for your information. What ever the case, it is futile debating anything other than what is actually planned.

Originally Posted by balthazarr

So, because some site somewhere sells video games with 'adult' content (which, as the article points out, it quite legal in the rest of the developed world), the entire site will be blocked.

This is rubbish, as the article you posted quotes from the Ministers office;"if a complaint is received and the content is determined by ACME to be Refused Classification", then and only then will that content be blocked. Clearly not, "the entire site" as you claim, and only if a complain is made and deemed R18+ by an independent bunch of public servants. I'm sure the conspiracy theory dictates the ACME are all in the pocket of the government. Current events with "Utegate" would suggest public servants don't always do the governments bidding.

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Anything is possible. It's possible for the government to block access to the Internet entirely... maybe we should trial that next?

This type of hysteria does not help your argument. The government has no agenda to block internet access, there are no votes in that. They have a mandate to trial an internet filter, it was an election promise, and the majority of the electorate want it. This is a given, the government's problem is how to make good on the promise.

The government can not simply block sites at will, or they would rightly be accused of doing so for their own ends. So the government are keeping the decisions about which sites are blocked at arms length by delegating the authority to the ACMA. Now the ACMA have their own problems, but that is a whole other argument, and not a reason not to trial a filter IMHO.

The criteria the ACMA use to decide what is restricted content was set down by the previous Howard Government. The current government may or may not be happy with it but that is what they have to work with. The anomaly with video games that do not meet the MA15+ standard, being classed as R18+ was in place before the current government was elected. The idea that it is some conspiracy to increase censorship or a reason not to trial a filter hold no water IMHO.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

It's interesting that you mention spam and spam filters... how many spam emails do you get, and how many legitimate emails are marked as spam?

I'd wager the numbers of each is greater than zero.

If 90% of the volume of email traffic is spam, does it not stand to reason that the spam filter vendors would want those filters work as best they can possibly make them? Yet spam still gets through, and legitimate emails still get marked as spam incorrectly.

The point I'm trying to make is that the problem with spam and email is far, far greater than the ~10,000 sites that the web filter is intending to block (out of, what, hundreds of millions of sites?) - if they can't get the spam filters 100% effective and accurate, what makes the government think that the web filter will be any different?

Practically every email service now has a spam filter attached to it - out of necessity, really.

Has implementing spam filters had any effect on the volume of spam messages being sent? Doubtful.
What was the response from the spammers once filters were in widespread use? They came up with clever ways to bypass the filters - misspellings, embedding images and even embedding warped images to thwart any analysis of the text contained within an image.
Is spam still an issue and a problem? Absolutely.

Take the email analogy and apply it to the web filter.
Will the web filter do anything to stop the production of objectionable material? No.
Will those that still want to access this material find ways to bypass the filter? I wouldn't bet against it.

Homer J Simpson would be proud of you "can't win don't try"!

What sort of efforts do we go to trying to stop; murders, drug trafficking, sexual assault, drink driving or any crime on our statutes? And how many crimes that we have laws for have we actually managed to stop? It's not an argument to stop trying IMHO

[bdave351]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Homer J Simpson would be proud of you "can't win don't try"!

What sort of efforts do we go to trying to stop; murders, drug trafficking, sexual assault, drink driving or any crime on our statutes? And how many crimes that we have laws for have we actually managed to stop? It's not an argument to stop trying IMHO

This is in NO way trying to stop crimes though, its called STICKING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND GOING LALALALALALA.

Its merely hiding the crime that still occours, while doing nothing to stop it (except taking the money that could have been used to stop it to pay for the LALALA noises)

And if the post before that (and Im sorry but I dont know how to qoute the second bit so I have cut and pasted it) "This is rubbish, as the article you posted quotes from the Ministers office;"if a complaint is received and the content is determined by ACME to be Refused Classification", then and only then will that content be blocked. Clearly not, "the entire site" as you claim, and only if a complain is made and deemed R18+ by an independent bunch of public servants".........

Hang on your agreeing with us here...... when a site is sent to the ACMA and its content is determined to be RC (As all MA15+ games are) then its blocked.

Accusing everyone who can read the admittedly ever changing policy of hysteria when its clear thats the case be they for or against it seems to be very much a case of blindly believing Conroy or the ACLs hype?

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Homer J Simpson would be proud of you "can't win don't try"!

'Can't win, don't try'? Absolutely.

If there is no real benefit in what you are trying to do or if the benefits of what you are trying are far outweighed by the detriments ('Can't win'), then why waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money trying to implement a scheme that:
(a) many don't want,
(b) cannot possibly be 100% effective (even if they come up with a magical filter that is 100% effective, it only covers web protocols - what about p2p, ftp, etc.?),
(c) is easily bypassed by those that still want access,
(d) will likely have significant effects on performance/cost, and, most importantly,
(e) does absolutely nothing to stop those committing the crimes in the first place (in fact, by diverting funding from law enforcement - as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, it may even have the opposite effect)
('Don't try')

Originally Posted by Work Horse

What sort of efforts do we go to trying to stop; murders, drug trafficking, sexual assault, drink driving or any crime on our statutes? And how many crimes that we have laws for have we actually managed to stop? It's not an argument to stop trying IMHO

Of course not. I have never once advocated that we give up, or stop trying to catch those responsible for committing what I consider to be one of the most heinous of crimes (child pornography). On the contrary - we should be committing more resources to their capture, not wasting them on an ineffectual (practically and in terms of policy aims) filter that has potentially far-reaching consequences.

The thing you don't seem to understand, or what to admit, is that this proposed filter will do absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop, deter, punish or help catch those responsible.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by bdave351

This is in NO way trying to stop crimes though, its called STICKING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND GOING LALALALALALA.

Its merely hiding the crime that still occours, while doing nothing to stop it (except taking the money that could have been used to stop it to pay for the LALALA noises)

Originally Posted by balthazarr

'Can't win, don't try'? Absolutely.

If there is no real benefit in what you are trying to do or if the benefits of what you are trying are far outweighed by the detriments ('Can't win'), then why waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money trying to implement a scheme that:
(a) many don't want,
(b) cannot possibly be 100% effective (even if they come up with a magical filter that is 100% effective, it only covers web protocols - what about p2p, ftp, etc.?),
(c) is easily bypassed by those that still want access,
(d) will likely have significant effects on performance/cost, and, most importantly,
(e) does absolutely nothing to stop those committing the crimes in the first place (in fact, by diverting funding from law enforcement - as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, it may even have the opposite effect)
('Don't try')



Of course not. I have never once advocated that we give up, or stop trying to catch those responsible for committing what I consider to be one of the most heinous of crimes (child pornography). On the contrary - we should be committing more resources to their capture, not wasting them on an ineffectual (practically and in terms of policy aims) filter that has potentially far-reaching consequences.

The thing you don't seem to understand, or what to admit, is that this proposed filter will do absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop, deter, punish or help catch those responsible.

The government plans to bring the current restrictions in place on print and broadcast material to the internet. The current restrictions in place on print and broadcast material do not stop the production of "restricted material", and do,"absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop, deter, punish or help catch those responsible". That is not the only intention of the restrictions. They are also a line drawn in the sand by the Australian public to say we have moral standards and support censorship in certain areas.

If we extent the argument you are trying to make about internet content, back to where the restrictions came from, would you remove all restriction in place on print and broadcast material? No need to answer that one.

We can, and do argue about where the line in the sand should be, but that is no reason to not trial a filter IMHO

[bdave351]

"Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has urged detractors of the Government's proposed Internet Filtering scheme to have faith in their elected parliamentarians to pass the right legislation."

To have faith in the censorship of debate on euthanasia, abortion and such evils as grafitti.
To have faith that censoring 10000 urls out of a trillion urls will keep kids safe everywhere.
To have faith that 30 year olds everywhere in Australia will be free of the scourge of evil computer games like lesuire suit larry and fallout 3.

If you think the internet is so evil then use one of the FREE filters that many ISPs offered..........admittedly many have dropped them as people were NOT using them.
Obviously there is a huge public mandate for something that no one would even take up for free.

I fear you are putting far to much faith in far to incompetent man in Conroy. He clearly does not understand any of the policy effects let alone the technical side of things.

[rawr]

Throwing it out there that the Victorian Sex Crimes division has only four officers working on catching pedophiles in online environments. They share a PC, Wii, PS3 and 360 and say it's "like shooting fish in a barrel". Interesting how we spend millions on stopping adults from accessing legitimate content online (say flash games - govt has stated that the filter will now cover unclassified content online, so flash games, ITunes app store, MMOs like WoW are all out) and yet there are only four guys protecting the children.

The filter is beginning to cross over into the issues affecting the woeful classification system in Australia. I'm a gamer, so I worry that games like Bioshock that are classified as an adult game in other countries is given a badge that lets a 15 yo play it.

By all means, protect the kids. But internet filtering is doing it wrong.

[4Vman]

The internet filter concept is no different to the speed camera concept, its a subliminal admission that they cant isolate and deal only with the problem so they broad-brush blanket target everyone. Its the old story 1% stuff it for 99%....

[RG]

Originally Posted by rawr

Throwing it out there that the Victorian Sex Crimes division has only four officers working on catching pedophiles in online environments. They share a PC, Wii, PS3 and 360 and say it's "like shooting fish in a barrel". Interesting how we spend millions on stopping adults from accessing legitimate content online (say flash games - govt has stated that the filter will now cover unclassified content online, so flash games, ITunes app store, MMOs like WoW are all out) and yet there are only four guys protecting the children.

The filter is beginning to cross over into the issues affecting the woeful classification system in Australia. I'm a gamer, so I worry that games like Bioshock that are classified as an adult game in other countries is given a badge that lets a 15 yo play it.

By all means, protect the kids. But internet filtering is doing it wrong.

Where did you hear that?