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
Mr Evil Mr Evil 3:34 pm 04 Jan 08

I want my porn, and nobody’s gonna stop me getting it!

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 2:49 pm 04 Jan 08

Well…they should probably consider finding someone to help them set up the internet and appropriate software before they consider using it.

Adza Adza 10:51 am 04 Jan 08

I’m not against the free filtering to those who want it either… don’t get me wrong.

But considering most parents I know can only just turn a computer on, they would find it hard to install/turn on/configure/even know about.

I think overall its safer to blanket it first, then let the tech savvy people remove it. It would reach far more of the population and not be a burden for people who don’t know what they’re doing.

Until people who are currently in their twenties grow up to be 50-60, there will always be people who are not computer literate.

Thumper Thumper 6:38 pm 03 Jan 08

Rudd is starting to sound and act like Ned Flanders….

boomacat boomacat 6:31 pm 03 Jan 08

Children should not be able to use the internet unsupervised – the computer should be in the family room where it can only be used under the watchful eye of a parent – this is the only true way to protect children online.

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 4:39 pm 03 Jan 08

Well, look, if people can’t be bothered to learn how to protect their kids on the internet – don’t get the internet. Simple!

Mr Evil Mr Evil 4:00 pm 03 Jan 08

The Govt could even make a internet filter tips fridge magnet?

Would probably as useful as the anti-terrorism one that we all got a few years ago!

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 3:45 pm 03 Jan 08

Then Adza – why not give free filtering software to all parents and educate them to use it? Why take this extra measure that affects everyone?

astrojax astrojax 2:51 pm 03 Jan 08

then, adza, if the situation was reversed, and it was offered to those who wanted it rather than imposed upon all those who didn’t, you would equally concur on the policy’s efficacy?

why should i declare to the govt, or to my ISP, or to anyone else, what i want access to on the ‘net? it makes much more sense that those who want to have restrictions request them – this is a slippery slope into a travesty of freedoms.

Adza Adza 1:49 pm 03 Jan 08

Won’t make any difference to me. I’ll ask for it to be immediately removed. As long as you can remove it then I don’t have a problem.

Why?

Because not all parents are up to speed in relation to being technologically savvy. Personally, my kids are not allowed to access chat, porn etc etc. But I’ve set up filtering and security measures myself to prevent it. Most parents don’t know how to do that, so yes I support it being introduced… as long as there are no issues with it being removed for those that don’t want it.

Chat really is bad… it’s fully of 12-20 year olds talking about sex… and yes the older people are on there trying to lure younger ones into it. There is no way in hell my kids are chatting on the net.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 1:07 pm 03 Jan 08

“we should ban bad food outlet advertising”

Katy’s working on it!

astrojax astrojax 12:57 pm 03 Jan 08

thing is, all this ‘let’s stop pornography’ chatter never gets round to showing why stopping it is a good thing, and/or why letting it be available is a bad thing.

i understand we don’t want to encourage the sexualt exploitation of children, but using them/their images in pornography is surely entirely different from allowing them to see naked people, no?

we should ban bad food outlet advertising and atrocious grammar before we stop pictures of nudity.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 10:45 am 03 Jan 08

I doubt I can post the photo directly, so here is a link.
-linky-

Thumper Thumper 10:15 am 03 Jan 08

I want to see tanks in Civic square, ah, Garema place that is.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 9:43 am 03 Jan 08

If Rudd likes China so much I wonder when we’ll start seeing giant posters of Chairman Rudd all over town, with propaganda slogans in 6ft letters underneath?

Now that he’s ‘living’ at the Lodge, he won’t have far to pop across to see his mates at the Chinese embassy either, for advice on other freedom curtailing ‘reforms’!

Thumper Thumper 8:31 am 03 Jan 08

Shauno,

left leaning governments have always wanted more and more control over the people.

It always amused me when anti Howard supporters would scream blue murder about the then howard government taking away civil liberties, when reality is that the Rudd government will do so in many more ways due to its underlying social ideology.

And I think Mr Ferret is correct, although I would suggest that Rudd is bringing his religious views into the political arena here.

Growling Ferret Growling Ferret 8:04 am 03 Jan 08

The policy is in as Rudd needs Family Firsts vote in the senate. Its nothing more than policy created to pander to Steve Fielding.

However, it will end up just like the PIN code on the R-Rated channels on Foxtel – every teenager will know the code and parents will remain ignorant of their kiddies on-line habits.

shauno shauno 3:25 am 03 Jan 08

This is just fantastic more bloody regulations and controls on our freedoms. When will it end can we be allowed to choose for our selves these days or do we need to be mothered in every aspect of our lives. Let the parents control what there children can and cant access. We don’t need the government to do it for us.

‘Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road … If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.’

What a stupid uniformed comment do they really think were all out there viewing child porn? And if people are which I would guess would be around 0.000001% of the population it wouldn’t be through normal porn sites so it would be impossible to block anyway.

This is complete bullshit and if implemented it wont stop at porn that’s for sure. They say it will be an opt out policy so you can opt out if you want but it should be the other way around an opt in policy. I can just the privacy issues here when people elect to opt out. Will they be included on a secret government database along side the pedophiles. What a joke. And I actually thought Rudd would scale back Howard’s attack on our freedom and liberty.

utah utah 2:34 am 03 Jan 08

I’m hoping they do try per-packet filtering, just for the deliberate false positives. Drop a couple of pro-paedo, pro-Osama comments into the ALP’s forums and hey presto – they’re blocked!

jemmy jemmy 1:09 am 03 Jan 08

JR, why do you say that about anymouse proxies? Once you’re at the proxy, you’re just doing POSTs into a form. There’s no way for the ISP to pick it up without filtering on the entire series of packets instead of just looking for IP addresses. Not feasible in any practical sense. If the proxy is using https, forget about altogether. Then there’s tunnelling…

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site