My main worry would be that this can be used to block any site that those in power deem not in "their interest".
It was mentioned in another article that sites can be added to the list on the decision of government, allowing the government complete control of
what their citizens see and read on the internet.
This is not about protecting the citizens or preventing crime, it is about restricting information.
How many people in any country would use the internet for the reasons they've suggested?
And when you consider that question, how is it right to use this excuse to restrict the freedom of the entire country?
It's like suggesting that 5000 people are killed by cars every year, so cars must now be banned.
Because this doesn't make any sense, it is clear that this is entirely about a government controlling the freedom of the people.
Uproar in Australia over plan to block Web sites, page 1
privacy
Topic started on 26-12-2008 @ 11:35 AM by Dave Rabbit
The Full Article
Okay.... I get it. I totally understand why the Government feels this is a good thing from their prospective. Who wouldn't want to get rid of these things? But here's the deal..... what about the RIGHTS of their citizens? Is this just the tip of the iceberg? Are their more countries that are going to follow suit including the United States?
Let's Hear Your Opinion!. You may hear this on an ATS MIX Show in 2009.
Dave
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - A proposed Internet filter dubbed the "Great Aussie Firewall" is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.
Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 Web sites prohibited by the government - mostly child pornography, excessive violence, instructions in crime or drug use and advocacy of terrorism.
The Full Article
Okay.... I get it. I totally understand why the Government feels this is a good thing from their prospective. Who wouldn't want to get rid of these things? But here's the deal..... what about the RIGHTS of their citizens? Is this just the tip of the iceberg? Are their more countries that are going to follow suit including the United States?
Let's Hear Your Opinion!. You may hear this on an ATS MIX Show in 2009.
Dave
reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 12:11 PM by bandaidctrl
reply to post by detachedindividual
I'd have to agree with Detached on this one. Who is to say what is considered worth blocking and not?
Who exactly is making the choices of what is allowed through that firewall to the general public and what exactly is behind those decisions?
Would they say that Joe Schmoe's online gardening site is legit? Or is that really a cover for drug dealers who want to grow their own?
There are just so many factors to this I wouldn't know where to start.
-JR
I'd have to agree with Detached on this one. Who is to say what is considered worth blocking and not?
Who exactly is making the choices of what is allowed through that firewall to the general public and what exactly is behind those decisions?
Would they say that Joe Schmoe's online gardening site is legit? Or is that really a cover for drug dealers who want to grow their own?
There are just so many factors to this I wouldn't know where to start.
-JR
reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 01:53 AM by atlasastro
They have already trialed the filter and found that it also blocked legitimate web sites. Which is a big fear here, fro those that oppose the filter.
Just what parameters are they using?
The filter report is being denied as negetive by the Govt. The minister responsible for Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: stephen Conroy. Any Australians on ATS I urge you to contact the Senetor and voice your concerns about this filter if you have any! E-Mail Senetor Conroy
My the Govt. in my home state released this paper into the reality of such a system.
Who compiles the list. Who decides what is to be black listed.
Child ponography is simple, people will not tolerate it(well most of us). But when they also include what the deem terrorist supporting websites etc. Well, that is when the lines get blurred and people get rights ripped away due to fear. This is what we see happening now and in the past 7 years since a day in september. A day in london, a day in spain, one day in bali.
The filter report is being denied as negetive by the Govt. The minister responsible for Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: stephen Conroy. Any Australians on ATS I urge you to contact the Senetor and voice your concerns about this filter if you have any! E-Mail Senetor Conroy
A REPORT showing a mandatory internet filter will not work has been dismissed as untested by the Rudd Government.SOURCE
Senator Stephen Conroy yesterday made available the ISP Level Content Filtering Feasibility Study he received in February, commissioned by the Howard government.
The report found content filtering as proposed by the Rudd Government would not work or be economically viable using current technologies, will slow internet speeds, block legitimate websites and be easily circumvented.
My the Govt. in my home state released this paper into the reality of such a system.
"In terms of the practicality of ISP-level filtering, various issues arise including the potential impact on internet speed and the indiscriminate blocking of innocuous material. There is also the point that URL based/index filtering only blocks access to pages on a pre-determined list. In other words, access would only be blocked to material that has been identified as prohibited by the ACMA."SOURCE
Who compiles the list. Who decides what is to be black listed.
Child ponography is simple, people will not tolerate it(well most of us). But when they also include what the deem terrorist supporting websites etc. Well, that is when the lines get blurred and people get rights ripped away due to fear. This is what we see happening now and in the past 7 years since a day in september. A day in london, a day in spain, one day in bali.
reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 02:23 AM by Chadwickus
Even child protection groups are condemning this filter:
Australia's largest TelCo has also condemned it:
The funny thing is, there are ways around it already!
HERE is a good blog regarding how to get around this filter.
No one wants it, there are ways around it already, so why the bloody hell are they STILL going ahead with it?
The site in my sig has some great information too:
nocleanfeed.com...
Cheers.
Support for the Government's plan to censor the internet has hit rock bottom, with even some children's welfare groups now saying that that the mandatory filters, aimed squarely at protecting kids, are ineffective and a waste of money.
Link
Australia's largest TelCo has also condemned it:
As the Internet filtering debate continues rocking Australian ISPs, Internet users and the Federal Government, Australia’s biggest ISP and dominant Telco, Telstra, has shared its views on the merits or otherwise of filtering. Telstra executive Greg Winn, speaking at a journalist and analyst briefing on the NBN (National Broadband Network) described filtering the Internet as "like trying to boil the ocean", and followed this up by saying "as soon as you install it, someone is going to find a way around it".
Link
The funny thing is, there are ways around it already!
HERE is a good blog regarding how to get around this filter.
No one wants it, there are ways around it already, so why the bloody hell are they STILL going ahead with it?
The site in my sig has some great information too:
nocleanfeed.com...
Cheers.
reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 07:37 PM by Raustin
reply to post by andy1033
Mods, can we delete this guys post or something. Fairly off topic and some of the members are cops. Would like to know where the figures are for this statement. Cops are the biggest users of child porn? They will put cameras in the houses of children they like? Come on.
DONE.
Dave
[edit on 12/31/2008 by Dave Rabbit]
Mods, can we delete this guys post or something. Fairly off topic and some of the members are cops. Would like to know where the figures are for this statement. Cops are the biggest users of child porn? They will put cameras in the houses of children they like? Come on.
DONE.
Dave
[edit on 12/31/2008 by Dave Rabbit]
reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 07:38 PM by Thurisaz
Originally posted by kattraxx
Child pornography indeed. Who would argue against that? (Not counting them.)
Definitely not me. I am all for restricting/filtering 'prohibited content' such as this.
But to take away my right to access/info from Exit International I don't agree with.
Getting a balance is going to be the issue...
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 06:55 PM by Mikey84
Originally posted by ZindoDoone
I'm not sure of Australia's Constitutional stance and language of free speech is or how its worded.
Here in Australia we don’t even have a bill of rights and there is no provision of free speech either.
In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 19 affirms the right to free speech:
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.(1)
Australia is a signatory to this treaty and, in order to incorporate treaties and conventions into Australian law, governments must pass a specific Act of Parliament. Although some parts of the treaty have been implemented into law, such as the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 no Australian government has implemented the free speech provisions and therefore they are not enforceable by Australian courts.
The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system. There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116).
The United States incorporated a Bill of Rights into its Constitution in 1789. Other countries have legislated more recently for freedom of speech, mainly in legislation which is separate from their constitutions: Ireland in 1937, Canada in 1982, New Zealand in 1990, South Africa in 1996, and the United Kingdom in 1998. The European Union has included freedom of expression and information in its Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights for possible adoption by member states. This makes Australia alone among like-minded countries not to provide for freedom of speech in legislation or the national constitution.
So technically we don’t have free speech – most Australians don’t realise this and just assume we do because they see it on TV all the time.
Mikey
Free Speech and the Constitution
[edit on 31/12/2008 by Mikey84]
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 08:30 PM by truthquest
reply to post by Dave Rabbit
US Federal income taxes were re-introduced in 1913 at a 1% rate for the purpose of paying for the military. Liberals (at the time known as "reformists") were elated while conservatives said it would be “a first step toward complete confiscation of private property.” Today the tax rate can exceed 30% or more, or 30+ times what was intended. Yet very little of the enormous increase goes towards its original purpose of funding the US military.
Likewise, Australia's internet censorship will rocket from 1,300 websites to 30+ times that and the stated purpose for the censorship will turn out to be a complete lie as well.
[edit on 31-12-2008 by truthquest]
US Federal income taxes were re-introduced in 1913 at a 1% rate for the purpose of paying for the military. Liberals (at the time known as "reformists") were elated while conservatives said it would be “a first step toward complete confiscation of private property.” Today the tax rate can exceed 30% or more, or 30+ times what was intended. Yet very little of the enormous increase goes towards its original purpose of funding the US military.
Likewise, Australia's internet censorship will rocket from 1,300 websites to 30+ times that and the stated purpose for the censorship will turn out to be a complete lie as well.
[edit on 31-12-2008 by truthquest]
