Mandatory internet filtering

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, or connect with
68 Responses to Mandatory internet filtering
Filter
Order
Jonathon Reynolds Jonathon Reynolds 8:11 pm 02 Jan 08

@Vic Bitterman:
If they have implemented the filtering correctly then bypass proxies *should* not work (as you need to go through your ISP before hitting the other proxy)… there are many other work around solutions though…

Vic Bitterman Vic Bitterman 7:33 pm 02 Jan 08

I wonder if you could access a free proxy server on the internet to bypass the filters. “They” would need to block all of these sites.

Why, here’s a site with over 4,700 free proxy servers 🙂

http://proxy.org/cgi_proxies.shtml

Thumper Thumper 7:24 pm 02 Jan 08

Hey, maybe we should just be like China?

Come on, how about it?

bighead bighead 5:51 pm 02 Jan 08

I think that saying your internet speeds will be affected is an overkill. Thankfully we still hold onto ‘Net Neutrality’. At the way the US is going this may soon be gone sadly. This filter hopefully wont affect us, but if it does affect someone, then opt out. If you do nothing illegal you have nothing to hide. When I first heard about this 2 weeks ago (yes, the media takes a while to pick up on things) it was stated that your name and age would be required for any content hosted in Australia that was deemed MA15+. More incentive to host overseas if you ask me 🙂

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 4:42 pm 02 Jan 08

It is still better than the ancient Spartans, who actively supported and encouraged it.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 4:28 pm 02 Jan 08

“The Christians invented being upset about porn.”

Whilst turning a blind eye to paedophilia.

Mælinar Mælinar 4:11 pm 02 Jan 08

Thanks Skid.

The Christians invented being upset about porn.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 4:06 pm 02 Jan 08

@Maelinar:
‘Pornography’ is literal Greek for representations of whores.
The Greeks didn’t care about it, the Romans supported it as it was better to visit the venereal temples (ie: of venus, but also where the term venereal disease comes from) than stray with other people outside the sanctity of marriage.
Christians invented the wholly new idea of being upset with it.

Mælinar Mælinar 3:56 pm 02 Jan 08

First point – didn’t the Christians invent porn ?

Second point – how will they catch the pedos without advanced computer tracking ? Will it drive an already well hidden group of people even further underground and harder to find ?

Mr Evil Mr Evil 3:56 pm 02 Jan 08

Perhaps Krudd should adopt a nationwide Parent-Filter: if you’re not capable of looking after kids and don’t have any commonsense, then you are automatically blocked from breeding.

Deadmandrinking 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?

boomacat 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 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.

staria 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 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 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?

ant 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.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 2:19 pm 02 Jan 08

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

Mr Evil 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.

Absent Diane Absent Diane 1:47 pm 02 Jan 08

what is this word responsibility you speak of?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site