Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Politics

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Mandatory internet filtering

By astrojax - 2 January 2008 68

Look everyone, Kevin wants to filter the internet.

What I want to know is what effect this may have on sites like RiotACT? Who, exactly, gets to say which site falls which side of the line? On what basis? I actually don’t expect such a place as this would be sidelined, but mebbe dissent will be silenced? Where might this sort of policy proposal stop? Who is out-doing me-too l’il Johnny (god rest his cotton sox) now?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
68 Responses to
Mandatory internet filtering
1
sepi 8:43 am
02 Jan 08
#

I don’t care about the filtering, except that I’ve heard it will make everyone’s connection slower, and probably wont’ work as far as filtering everything to make the net ‘childsafe’ anyway…

Report this comment

2
Thumper 9:07 am
02 Jan 08
#

Big brother….

Report this comment

3
freakwent 9:43 am
02 Jan 08
#

none;ACMA, according to your link; I reckon it’s copy/paste commercial lists, after paying a fat licence fee, plus a list from ASIO/ASIS/AFP, plus community complaints; no, dissent can’t be silenced in a population that is both fed and educated; it doesn’t matter, why would anyone want to stop policy proposals? They can propose whatever they want, it still has a long way to go from there.

It’ll never ever make it to “production” status in the first place, and even if it (hypothetically) could or would, it wouldn’t achieve the stated goals anyway. Anyone close to the ideas or with a decent knowledge of the net knows this, which is why it would be never make it to production status in the first place. More from Electronic Frontiers Australia:

http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR070811.html

The horse’s mouth:
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/internet/online_content_regulation

And before we all freak out, remember you can opt out (although it should be opt in).

Show me the legislation then we can discuss it. Until then, it’s all just the usual hogwash.

Report this comment

4
pseudonym 9:59 am
02 Jan 08
#

Big brother crap. It’ll be completely ineffective for its intended purpose but coincidently sit there available for when another (or the current) government decides there is more content they want censored at a latter date.

Report this comment

5
Thumper 10:04 am
02 Jan 08
#

“It’ll be completely ineffective for its intended purpose”

I totally agree. But I’ll stand by the big brother comment as it’s is typical of a left leaning government, no matter how conservative they want to appear.

Either way, it won’t affect me.

Report this comment

6
Mr Evil 10:04 am
02 Jan 08
#

Thumper – the Socialists know best!

Report this comment

7
ant 10:39 am
02 Jan 08
#

One of their big sellign points in the election was bigger better faster internet for everyone. Now this idiot idea will put a choke on our speeds, and you’ll see all kinds of ordinary sites blocked because of it (we all know how net nanny doesn’t work), and all because some parents can’t or won’t control their kids sufficiently (not like that’s unusual, go visit any shopping centre).

This will also be expensive, and who do you think will pay?

A better way would be to offer an opt-in option for those lazy parents, and they can pay the associated costs.

there’s a facebook group for this:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9680096100

Report this comment

8
Thumper 10:43 am
02 Jan 08
#

Better way would be to have armed net nannies in black overalls who swoop in by helo, kick down the offender’s front door, and then blow up the computer with some sort of thermite device.

That’ll teach em….

Hey, anyone notice that Rudd has watered his ‘every child will have a computer’ to ‘every child will have access to a computer’.

Didn’t take long did it…

Report this comment

9
Mr Evil 11:04 am
02 Jan 08
#

Reminds me of the “No child will be living in poverty by 1990” promise dished out by the last Federal Labor Govt.

Report this comment

10
VYBerlinaV8 11:17 am
02 Jan 08
#

It’ll never happen. And even if it did there’d be too many easy ways around it.

Report this comment

11
Skidbladnir 11:32 am
02 Jan 08
#

It always -was- access to a computer at school, it was repeatedly misreported.

Report this comment

12
Thumper 11:38 am
02 Jan 08
#

Of course, it was misreported.

How silly of me to think otherwise…

And a perfect way to demonstrate rewriting of history.

Report this comment

13
Thumper 12:27 pm
02 Jan 08
#

Just thinkong about the whole issue again and, apart from the technical, financial, moral and social issues involved, one could put forward that this is the first of Rudd’s christian leaning views being pushed upon people.

By that I mean porn.

Any thoughts? Is this a religious thing? Or is it just a silly idea?

Report this comment

14
Mr Evil 12:43 pm
02 Jan 08
#

I think it might be just a silly idea, and another example of the “parents not being responsible in making sure that their kids aren’t doing the wrong thing online, so we’ll just penalise everyone” syndrome.

Report this comment

15
Absent Diane 12:52 pm
02 Jan 08
#

I think the motivations may be somewhat religious. Or just populist politics- disgraceful either way.

Report this comment

1 2 3 5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site