'Net filters "required" for all Australians, no opt-out

No part of your post justifies a contention that the second amendment protects free speech. It doesn't, free speech is protected by the first amendment. Your snotty remarks are par for the course, and show the poverty of your ability to argue.

its time to create an underground government-free internet.

globally. ill begin plans immediately.

You really are stupid, aren't ya fat boy?

You may be interested in the TOR (the onion router) project.

As i pointed out, you completely lack the ability to sustain the contentions you make. You make a stupid comment about free speech, attempting to link it to your fire-arms obsession, and you fail. Your response to being called on it is name-calling and lies--you don't even provide a logical argument to support that stupid contention.

We expect no less of you.

Hey SFB, it was in the original post. Now STFU cuz it's my turn on the soapbox, and if you don't, I'll MAKE YOU.

Capiche?

Yeah, right. You couldn't make change.

This was your brain-dead contention:



This suggests that those with fire-arms are the only ones "that could stand on the soapbox." The implication is that if citizens did not arm themselves, they would not have the rights guaranteed in the first amendment. You don't logically support this idiotic contention, you don't provide any examples of how this works, and when it has been effectively accomplished. You just call more names, tell more lies--you just generally act like an elementary school playground bully.

Odd--your possession of fire arms hasn't guaranteed that you can shut me up, or that you can stop others from pointing out that the "arguments" you post are incredibly stupid.

Hoist on your own petard.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2008/11/29/25235_hpopinion.html

Howard was booted out of office because of bad laws .. The same can happen to Rudd ..

Opposition is slowly growing in Australia, Mr Rudd better take notice or your reign will be short lived!

This short summary from "Get Up" issued a few minutes ago gives you an idea which direction we're heading.

Our campaign to 'Save the Net' is gaining momentum faster than all expectations, as the Government's ill-considered plans to slow down and censor the internet is "facing a major backlash", according to media reports.1

Their internet censorship proposal goes further than any other democracy - making the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocking up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missing the vast majority of inappropriate content.

Only a massive public outcry will make the Government see sense on this issue. Please take a moment to sign this important petition:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet


More than 55,000 fellow Australians have already signed the petition to Communications Minister Senator Conroy, against "draconian government restrictions on the internet that will hold back the digital economy and miss the vast majority of unwanted content."

His plan has even been slammed by children's welfare groups, who say the filter is "fundamentally flawed" and simply will not work. Join children's welfare groups, internet providers, consumers, engineers, network administrators, and 55,000 everyday Australians in defence of our freedoms and internet:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet


At a time of financial crisis, the Government should not be introducing measures that will hamper our economy for no real benefit to the protection of the community from material that is already illegal.

Stand up in defence of our rights to prevent Australia joining Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and Burma in an undemocratic club of governments who view the internet as a threat.

Thanks for being part of the solution,
The GetUp team

PS - 55,000 Australians have signed the petition to save the internet from being slowed and censored. Click here to join them.

1'Children's welfare groups slam net filters', The Age 1 December 2008

I think the Labor government has badly misread the likely response to its "measures" on this one , Reyn.

I suspect a lot of internet users are not even aware of what is proposed by the government. I suspect that all hell will break loose when they do realize.

As GetUp says, who wants to be part of this exclusive club? And why should we?:

I like Austrailia.
I visited there about 20 years ago.
I had only good things to say or think about it.

It pains me to think of it falling under despotism.
We & thay did not defend it from the Japs
so that it woud fall under despotism.

I 'd LOVE to agree that the Austrailians will not tolerate censorship
and will energetically defend freedom of speech,
but sadly, we have already observed them ignomineously
surrender their rights to defend their very LIVES
when thay were docile enuf to hand over their guns to government.

Based on that, I don 't expect to see much heroism from them.

Thay can recriminate that WE, in America are on the brink
of as bad or worse, having elected a marxist
who has announced his plans to establish a militia personally devoted
to HIM, like the S.A. "Stormtroopers."

The stupidity and the hysteria of the reactionaries in the United States is just breathtaking. What is most pathetic, of course, is that this clown probably literally believes this to be true. Was is sad is that there are people sufficiently stupid and gullible to believe tripe like this when others spread such propaganda.

It would be embarrassing to me as an American, were it not for the fact that i've never considered that i can be reasonably considered responsible for the idiocy of my fellow citizens.

The govt. of Australia clearly views the people of Australia as sheep and means to treat them as such. Only questions are, will the people (or sheep) tolerate it, and for how long and, being disarmed, is there anything they can do about it?

I just heard Set say "baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa".

The Aussie govt. wishes either to protect the people from dirty/lascivious thoughts, or to prevent their access to certain kinds of information, most likely political information. The only safe assumption the Australian people have is that it is the later.

In other words,
that government believes that is has jurisdiction
to control, by law, what its subjects
(folks held in subjection) THINK ABOUT.

The political, social and technical ignorance of Dave and GunKKKasnake both amuse and appall me.

Aaaah!! Great...I came here to post Get Up's stuff

Here's their fact sheet:


FACT SHEET " INTERNET CENSORSHIP
What is the scope of the prohibited material?
The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen
Conroy, often refers to the blocking of !prohibited" content and !child pornography". In fact, the
proposed scheme will block a range of material that it is perfectly legal to view both online and
offline.
The Government has proposed a two-tiered system. The first tier will apply mandatorily
nation-wide blocking a range of !prohibited" material. The second tier will be available to
families who wish to limit access to a broader range of content.
Senator Conroy has suggested that the mandatory filter should block access to !inappropriate"
material and !unwanted" material, including !euthanasia websites". Others types of material
that are being considered for inclusion on the blacklist are gambling sites (the suggestion of
Senator Xenophon) and all pornography (the suggestion of Senator Fielding). It is easy to see
how the blacklist can quickly become a greylist " a process made even more dangerous by
the fact that ACMA"s secret list of prohibited material is not subject to oversight, appeal, or
review.
The debate around this internet filter should not be stifled by accusing those that challenge
the scheme of an interest in access to child pornography.1 The scope of the mandatory filter is
far broader than child pornography alone.
Speak out against the proposed internet filter: www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet
Will the filter accidentally block legitimate material?
Yes. In addition to the broad range of content that will be intentionally blocked under the
scheme, trials show that an ISP level filter will accidentally block huge numbers of legitimate
sites. At best, it will accidentally block one in 50 sites; at worst, one in 12 sites.
Will the filter be effective in blocking material that the Government deems
inappropriate?
The protection of our children is vitally important and we must ensure that they are not
exposed to inappropriate material on the internet. But this internet filter will only affect one
third of internet traffic, because it does not apply to peer file sharing networks or email. In fact,
users can very easily avoid the filter entirely using VPNs, proxies or anonymising software.
1 The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, Estimates, 20 October 2008 (Canberra):
Sen. Conroy: […] I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.
Sen. Ludlam: No. That is why I was interested in asking about the law enforcement side of it as well.
Sen. Conroy: No, we are working both angles at it. We are just trying to use technology to enforce the existing laws.
Sen. Ludlam: I am just wondering if I can put these questions to you without being accused of being pro child pornography.
That would assist.
Do other western democracies have a similar scheme?
Senator Conroy has said that a number of western democracies already have a similar
scheme in place. In fact, as Senator Conroy later admitted, no western democracy in the
world has introduced mandatory server-level filtering. In countries where it has been
introduced " countries such as Saudi Arabia, China and Iran " the schemes have not
effectively done the job for which they were designed. In each of these countries, the filter can
be easily avoided. No country in the world goes as far as dynamically analysing web traffic in
real time, as Australia is proposing. Doing this will cause increased congestion and an
increased rate of false positives, and has led experts to conclude this scheme will be
technically unfeasible.
Evidence from Saudi Arabia suggests that the central filtering system currently blocks a list of
more than 12 million addresses, slowing internet access by as much as half, with up to 10 per
cent of prohibited sites still getting through.2
Will the internet become more expensive?
The scheme makes it mandatory for ISPs to provide internet filtering. The government has set
aside $44 million over four years, but this is not going to cover the costs of such a system. In
2004 a Coalition Government commissioned report found that the cost of mandatory ISP level
filtering would cost around $45 million in the first year, and $33 million every year after that.
The costs will likely be passed on to consumers. And while larger ISPs may be able to absorb
some of these costs, smaller ISPs (who exert competitive pressure on prices) are at serious
risk of going under if such a scheme is introduced.3
Will the proposed scheme slow down the internet?
The measures will make the internet up to 87% slower,4 which is bad for access to
information, and terrible for e-commerce. The Government has invested $10 billion in the
development of a high-speed broadband internet " an initiative that will be drastically
undermined by this ISP-level filter.
What measures can be taken to protect our children from inappropriate internet
content while avoiding the worst features of the ISP-level filter?
The previous Government spent $84.8 million on a scheme to provide free PC-based filtering
2 Liberal Senator Helen Coonan (former Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts), Protecting
Families Online " Address to the National Press Club, Canberra, 14 June 2006
<http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/36697/20071105-
0005/www.minister.dcita.gov.au/media/speeches/protecting_families_online.html>.
3 Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Review of the Operation of Schedule 5 to the
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (2004) 3. After outlining the cost implications of an ISP based internet filter, the report
said: ‘Given the limited benefits of an ISP-level filtering system, the costs of a mandated requirement to filter do not appear
justified.’
4 Australian Communications and Media Authority, Closed Environment Testing of ISP-Level Internet Content Filtering
(June, 2008) 45.
to all Australian families. This scheme is far superior to the ISP-based filtering proposed by
the Government.
• It allows parents to track and monitor their child"s access to the internet, and thus
intervene concerning harmful content that couldn"t be picked up by an ISP filter;
• It won"t slow down the internet or interfere with online commerce;
• It will cost less to run.
Resources should be spent on educating parents about this PC-based filter to ensure that
more families can take advantage of the existing system. In addition, we should be making
sure that the Australian Federal Police's Online Child Sexual Exploitation Team has the
resources needed to reduce child exploitation/abuse on the internet.5
Join us in sending the message, loud and clear, that this scheme is unacceptable:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet






They have almost reached their target re the petition.

Its always good to know what appalls HIngehead and amuses him.