Breaking News - Net Filters

[Astro_Bot]

This is posted only to let people know of a very, very late policy announcement that potentially affects all 'net users. It was announced only today, with the poll only 1.5 days away!

Coalition to force ISPs and mobile phone operators to install filters to block adult content (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/coalition-announces-internet-filter-for-adult-content/4939156)

Coalition resurrects internet filter (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/coalition-resurrects-internet-filter-20130905-2t7nb.html)



Please don't turn this into a slanging match. Posted for info only.

[rat156]

Yep, saw this on the news tonight.

Just imagine how well this will work. It will stop legitimate sites because they have, in some persons view, a dodgy name or some dodgy content. But the stuff it's supposed to stop will make its way through with the help of some clever computer nerds.

A complete and utter waste of time, energy and money IMHO.

Cheers
Stuart

[pluto]

Check that ABC link (the first one), it's just been updated and they're NOT proposing mandatory filtering. We can browse whatever we want through our ADSL... over copper wire...

[Astro_Bot]

You mean they announced a "policy" to gauge response, found it to be severe even at this late stage, and are now backtracking? I have never believed the "poorly worded" excuse from anyone.

PS: I'd be just as skeptical with the other mob (actually, I was more so, during the whole censorship stoush).

[AndrewJ]

You have to laugh at the idiots behind this sort of stuff.

I was listening to a discussion on the ABC radio today
where Christmas Islands tourism dept was being blocked
by Facebook etc because they were describing one of the
tourist attractions as being the "juvenile boobies" colonies
ie a specific type of birdlife ???????

We are losing the plot to the machines.

Andrew

[Peter.M]

I love when they bring this up. It always seems to be Malcom Turnbul, I would hate to be advising him on the matter must be like talking to a brick wall. Its a great thing proxy servers exist, because if some idiot does introduce this who knows what they will deem inappropriate content. And if the infrastructure is there who says that opting out will give you 100% unrestricted access.

[Wavytone]

Meh... Storm in a teacup. It's already happening in the UK, all the carriers are blocking all porn by default unless you opt out.

Not a bad thing - get a girlfriend.

[BPO]

Better hope she doesn't like porn.

[rat156]

It starts with porn (or what someone deems to be porn, boobies indeed), then it's something else that the government doesn't want you to see (piratebay anyone??), pretty soon you're in a Nanny state internet. Governments of all persuasions have proven over and over again that the "thin end of the wedge" is exactly that and that they will not stop driving it home.

Censorship of the only free of government or media tycoon medium we have should not be allowed. Although most of the stuff on the internet is rubbish, you can at least still get the BBC and Al Jazeera for news coverage etc.

Cheers
Stuart

[Satchmo]

Any `opt out ' scheme requires ISP's holding a list of all the customers who have contacted their ISP to have the filter switched off - which essentially labels them as `porn watchers' - who wants to be first on the list ?

All ISP's offer filter software and systems at the hardware level to filter out whatever anyone wants filtered out ie kids access etc.

[Satchmo]

Thats a sexist statement :)

Some women, both in and out of relationships, watch porn too !

At the end of the day it is about the wider issue of government directed censorship of the Internet - the thin edge of the wedge.

[wasyoungonce]

You mean a girlfriend from the internet?????? EEEEWWwwwwuuuuu;)

Anyway filter idea already dropped. Now that's policy on your feet...being dropped like a hot coal. I saw the original internet filter lists that Labour proposed...they included many sites that were not porn but sites the government objected to...aka censorship at their beckoning!

[sally1jack]

Sadly that's all to true & not just the internet
phil

[rustigsmed]

Glad there was a backtrack, exactly what someone else should've done after announcing changes to the FBT.
As someone who develops policies, there is nothing that annoys me more than 'policy on the run' it always misses the mark.

[AstralTraveller]

I think what you should say is that talk of the filter has been dropped. If they are going to drop it so easily why was the idea ever in print?

Although porn is a blight on society attempting to control it in this manner is likely to be about as effective as the 'war on drugs' (which has been failing since 1971). I don't know how it will happen but, if the demand is there, someone will find a way around it. Then there could be (will be?) creeping censorship. First the risque and erotic will be lumped in with porn and in the end, if some people have their way, you won't be able to watch Billy Connolly because of the F-bombs. Next would be what some will assert to be 'illegal sites' such as Wikileaks and other whistleblower sites and then 'subversive' sites such as GetUp and the socialists. In the end even the IPCC would be banded for spreading panic about the climate!

Exagerated? Probably. But this is certainly the direction the policy points us and history has shown that when good people don't (or can't?) stand up to bad policies then very extreme outcomes can result. Nip it in the bud.

[Astro_Bot]

My thinking is along similar lines ..... Propose a policy with an implementation/cost that is acceptable to the electorate but will fail. After it fails, launch a "study" that shows how it failed and propose an alternative that "works" but would have been unacceptable as an election policy. Claim a mandate (you voted for this, they will say), then implement it, safe in the knowledge that the only other party likely to hold power secretly wants the same thing. Meanwhile, the majority of the people don't want anything of the sort (according to the last poll I saw, which showed opposition at around 85%).