Can't spell scunthorpe without thorpe.
Or cunt.
EDIT: I hope your country hasn't filtered this post out, mr Q! What's that all about anyway?
A Magical Christmas, Ljubljana-style
Our Prime Minister has delusions of being Chinese premier I believe. The government wants to impose mandatory ISP-level filtering of the internet. They want to block access to child porn and other 'inappropriate material'. People won't get to know what that 'inappropriate material' is - the blacklist will be secret, and won't be open to public scrutiny. Certain content - such as child porn - is already illegal obviously (and rightly so), but there's no guarantee that the filter will even block all child porn. Specifically, there are doubts as to whether it will apply to peer-to-peer networks where much of that content is distributed - though our Communications Minister just yesterday announced that P2P could be covered by the filters, despite all the expert analysis previously suggesting that wasn't possible. A more material concern for all Australians is the effect it will have on internet speeds: ISP-level filtering could result in our connections being slowed by over 80%. It could also force smaller ISPs out of business due to the cost of implementation, which would reduce competition and could contribute to higher service prices.Sput wrote:EDIT: I hope your country hasn't filtered this post out, mr Q! What's that all about anyway?
So, all in all, just another case of governments doing what they can to mismanage a 'problem'. But that's entirely off topic in this thread.
Exactly - but what's troubling is the cost that 'solution' imposes. We already have one social-conservative Senator who wants the government to block all pornographic websites, and another Senator who wants to ban access to offshore gambling sites. Now, I have no interest in either of these things, but I object to the idea of entirely legal content being banned just because it objects with some politicians' sense of morality. I believe individuals are more than capable of making their own decisions in life without having bible-thumping wowsers dictate what people can and can't do.Sput wrote:Ah! Sounds like the classic solution in search of a problem.
I haven't seen that report myself, but it wouldn't surprise me. That would be a direct concession to the 'old media' industry, which instead of trying to take advantage of the internet to grow their business, would rather stick their heads in the stand and persist with a dying business model. In fact, not just business models - some of the worst offenders are the public service broadcasters. In terms of two of my favourite shows, we're about a season-and-a-half behind with Top Gear (shown here on SBS) and probably around two or three seasons behind with Spooks (shown on ABC). People don't want to wait, and frankly shouldn't have to - so increasingly they are going online to download their favourite shows.Sput wrote:I see they're planning on blocking bittorrent entirely. How poor.
Apparently the feedback from the biggest 3 ISPs has been "fuck off", "fuck off unless you can prove it'll work" and "okay, just to show you're idiots". Best of all they're going to try and implement a testbed over just 3 days.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story ... 39,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story ... 39,00.html
Knight knight
That's about right. The thing that scares me is that I can't see where the advantage for the government is in pursuing this if you take what they say at face value. We know the technology won't stop child pornography - it might force paedophiles to access their content in different ways, but it'll still be out there. We can be fairly certain it will slow internet connection speeds though, and the government has not given any consideration to the cost which will be imposed on ISPs as a result of the filter. So there would seem to be a net cost. But, if you consider the possibility the government might use the filter as a tool for political favours: for instance, blocking offshore gaming sites to secure the support of an independent Senator on a critical vote, or restricting access to BitTorrent as a result of lobbying by TV networks, then the proposition becomes a whole lot more attractive for politicians --- and a whole lot worse for the Australian public.Sput wrote:Apparently the feedback from the biggest 3 ISPs has been "fuck off", "fuck off unless you can prove it'll work" and "okay, just to show you're idiots". Best of all they're going to try and implement a testbed over just 3 days.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story ... 39,00.html
The thing that I find most confusing is why they can't just attempt to shut down these subversive webites, rather than blocking them. The very existence of a list like that seems dangerous to me.
What's even more galling is that the senator involved is indeed following the intense criticism and debate.. http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_ ... ety_online
What's even more galling is that the senator involved is indeed following the intense criticism and debate.. http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_ ... ety_online
I do love the name of the whole inquiry: "Promoting a civil and confident society online", as if the internet is some dangerous anarchy which needs government intervention to tame it...
TBH I think the name of the entire department is a bit wanky. Kevin and company disappoint me because he seemed like such an intelligent and eloquent person, when these days all we seem to see is a sort of parrot who just reads off press releases and focus grouped gobbledegook ad nauseum. Oh well.
I find it very hard to believe that they'll be able to put this plan into place - just about everyone is crying foul on it. The last election was dominated by WorkChoices, this could be the equivalent come 2010..
I find it very hard to believe that they'll be able to put this plan into place - just about everyone is crying foul on it. The last election was dominated by WorkChoices, this could be the equivalent come 2010..