Mandatory internet filtering

By 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?

Please login to post your comments
68 Responses to
Mandatory internet filtering
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…

Thumper 9:07 am
02 Jan 08

Big brother….

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:

The horse’s mouth:

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.

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.

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.

Mr Evil 10:04 am
02 Jan 08

Thumper – the Socialists know best!

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:

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…

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.

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.

Skidbladnir 11:32 am
02 Jan 08

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

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.

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?

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.

Absent Diane 12:52 pm
02 Jan 08

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

staria 1:05 pm
02 Jan 08

Wag the dog? What will they try to slip in while we’re distracted by this? (sorry, couldn’t help bringing up a conspiracy)
Seriously though, if it is possible it should definitely be opt-in and not opt-out. I think the option should be there to filter that stuff out (if it is feasible), but only for those who wish to utilise it. Personally though, if I were a parent the computer would be in the living room where I could monitor the usage…

jemmy 1:20 pm
02 Jan 08

The big danger is parents will think their kids are safe and will relax from watching what they access.

It only takes one kid at school to spread the word about proxies or tunnelling and every kid now has unlimited access, and the parents don’t realise.

But, I’m like the others, I’ll believe it when I see it. I wonder if it’s really a strategic announcement so they can later say they tried but it wasn’t technically possible.

Ava 1:25 pm
02 Jan 08

This is also a way they can introduce further internet filtering. i.e. they wont stop on blocking violence and pornography, they will begin introducing it to file sharing, and whatever else suits their agenda.

I think they mentioned somewhere that it is up to the ISP to implement and maintain. As many ISP’s are small businesses, it sounds to me like this is the beginning of Governments war on them.

Mr Evil 1:29 pm
02 Jan 08

“Seriously though, if it is possible it should definitely be opt-in and not opt-out. I think the option should be there to filter that stuff out (if it is feasible), but only for those who wish to utilise it.”

Agree wholeheartedly; but again, that’d mean all parents had to be responsible for their children’s wellbeing – easier to get us all to carry the bloody can – as per usual! :)

“Personally though, if I were a parent the computer would be in the living room where I could monitor the usage…”

But then the little angels would bother the parents while they’re watching Mcleod’s Daughters/ER/Outrageous Fortune/ACA, or other such ‘important’ programs!

Snahons_scv6_berlina 1:42 pm
02 Jan 08

Lets extrapolate this to a larger setting. Perhaps labor can create a department of responsibility. Within the dept we can have separate groups for:
- personal responsibility
- parental responsibility
- community responsibility
etc etc

each group will administer related policy that in turn was used to create a series of new laws in Australia…

Wonder how the flow on effect to insurance claims and civil suits would happen….

ok so I am bored but as one other riot actor said here not that long ago “you know it makes sense” :)

Absent Diane 1:47 pm
02 Jan 08

what is this word responsibility you speak of?

Mr Evil 1:58 pm
02 Jan 08

Responsibility: some grand ideal that our parents and grandparents knew of, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside in the last 20 or so years.

Skidbladnir 2:19 pm
02 Jan 08

Its like the recycling bins, something we pay the government to take away from us.

ant 2:24 pm
02 Jan 08

There’s quite a lot of discussion about this on Whirlpool, and what is emerging is that the “nasty” stuff (kid pr0n etc) will actually be blocked for everyone, opt in or out. Then, the stuff you can choose to opt out of is the further blocking of normal porn and the like.

So, mandatory web filtering of some sort will apply to everyone, thus slowing speeds down markedly.

And there’s that thin edge of the wedge thing. If they can blanket-block stuff for everyone, what next will they block?

all because of noisy parents who can write letters to politicians but can’t be bothered controlling how their kids use the net.

staria 3:01 pm
02 Jan 08

Well, then brings in the moral implications – is mandatory blocking of things such as child pr0n (as opposed to “regular” which is between consenting adults) worth slowing the internet down? If it went any way towards helping to stop it I would say yes. But yeah, where to draw the line?

Deadmandrinking 3:03 pm
02 Jan 08

What I fail to understand is; how this will prevent dirty pedo’s (U.S. Senators) from trying to pick up innocent children? That’s the main issue that needs to be addressed – and what with the case of that young bloke *allegedly* starting fake Myspaces and all sorts of crap; unless you block chat-rooms, social networking sites and just about everything else kids use, filtering software is just not going to work.

I agree with free filtering software for families, but don’t f-k the internet up for everyone else. Anyone who visits Somethingawful or any sites of that ilk and even Loadedog knows that their displays of adult content is for the purposes of humor and adds to the experience.

I reckon we need to develop some form of online identification system for families to use so their kids can use chat/social networking sites and communicate only with people whom are actually in their age range (although I think my crazy, uneducated idea would need worldwide backing to properly work). That and properly educating your kids on how to use the internet, monitoring their usage and ensuring they don’t spend hours on the damn things anyway would be a much better way to stop kids from falling victim to sick f-k’s (Vote Foley).

And the other thing is: if the government knows where the kid pr0n is, why aren’t they getting the cops to track these f-k’s down and lock them up for good?

Finally (phew), I’d like to say, although I voted for Rudd via preferences (which I selected myself, BigDave, if you are reading) during the elections, I was under no impression that I wasn’t going to disagree with about 3 quarters of what he does. But since that’s opposed to disagreeing with about everything Howard ever did (Gun laws is about the only thing I can remember), I think I made the better choice between two evils.

staria 3:04 pm
02 Jan 08

Actually, having read what I just wrote I would want it blocked whether it helped or not…

Deadmandrinking 3:21 pm
02 Jan 08

The young bloke I was referring too was the alleged pedo whose mates had an argument on here. Thought I should make that clear.

boomacat 3:25 pm
02 Jan 08

I’ve got an almost failsafe way to protect children from internet nasties, it’s an amazing thing called “parenting”.

This ISP filter stuff is rubbish.

Deadmandrinking 3:30 pm
02 Jan 08

Yes, parents do need to show responsibility, but it can be hard in the case of chatrooms and stuff. Nobody can be expected to look over a kids shoulder for an entire internet session. Plus, kids seem to be able to access this stuff from Library. Perhaps ban them there?

Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement Newsletter Sign Up

Should school bus travel be free?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Images of Canberra

RiotACT Proudly Supports
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.