7
   

HELP! Australia under direct Christian attack!

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 12:00 pm
@tsarstepan,
The mass of people who are not doing anything illegal however for the most part will not go to the trouble to stop the government from spying on them and governments seem to love the ability to spy on it citizens in mass.

You can not spy on me or track me by assign ip number and I am not doing anything I know of that is illegal but how many others will stop the government from spying just as a matter of principle?

In the US they told the citizens that they are adding location abilities into the cell phone networks for 911 reasons and it just came out that one provider this years had 8 millions requests by law enforcement for the location of citizens and all this with no court order or oversight needed!

Evil child porn is a similar means to get the ability to spy on citizens at whim in place.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 06:41 pm
@tsarstepan,
Surprised

You did it?

Really?

(I did try to let you off the hook.)

You are a man with a mission, tsar! Very Happy

Tomorrow morning, when my copy of the AGE is delivered, I'll check out the letters pages first. Then check the SMH online. If you're published I'll let you know instantly!

Thanks tsar, you're a star! Much appreciated. Smile


(BTW lots of very pissed off ABC radio listeners this morning. I'm not at all surprised.)

msolga
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 08:54 pm
Extract from a lengthy, but very interesting article from today's Crikey!:

Quote:
.....So what is the government up to, when it’s clear that its proposal won’t stop pedophiles creating and distributing their material, or stop terrorists communicating online, only punish legitimate internet users?

The government’s real objective here is to shore up its family-friendly credentials. While the technologically literate may laugh at the trial outcome, and free speech advocates rail at censorship, Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy know they’re a tiny minority of voters. This is all about giving ill-informed and often lazy parents, most of whom think that you can "stumble upon" p-rnography on the internet, the illusion that their children are safe, even as their kids circumvent the mechanism and go looking for s-xual material, which is what kids have always done. That parents should be active monitors of what their kids consume in the media is apparently old-fashioned thinking.

It isn’t about changing votes, so much as solidifying the government’s branding in the minds of mainstream voters as morally middle-of-the-road and supportive of families.

The other target is the coalition. Hitherto, particularly under Nick Minchin, the coalition has been hostile to the filtering scheme. But in the end, the coalition -- which in the face of Green opposition will be necessary for Conroy’s Bill to pass the Senate -- may struggle to oppose it. Blocking the Bill will enable the government to portray the coalition as out-of-touch with families and "mainstream values". The value of censorship as a wedge far exceeds any losses that will accrue from a few IT nerds.

And if the technically competent, as the report says, can bypass these filters easily, what’s the issue? Geeks can have an uncensored internet, while your average suburban mum and dad are happy their kids won’t be clicking onto child abuse while doing their homework.

This is where this political stunt has serious consequences, and where the issue stops being about the ineffectiveness of filtering technology and about freedom of speech. Conroy insists that the censorship will only be about RC-material. "So for people wanting to campaign on the basis that we're going to maybe slip political content in -- we will never support that. And if someone proposes that I will be on the floor of Parliament arguing against it.".....


http://media.crikey.com.au/dm/newsletter/dailymail_a40b3651ab79a5f82a345eee422b341e.html?source=cmailer#article_676
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 06:06 am
google have come out pretty strongly against. Probably a witch.
http://google-au.blogspot.com/

But that's ok. All Australians will simply be required to use this search engine instead... http://www.everythingchristian.org/#
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 06:55 am
@Eorl,
Quote:
Fight Back!

When the devil hits you, attacks you no matter how small, make him hurt for it. Fight back. Attack in prayer, right then, pray for everyone around you saved and unsaved. Be specific. Pray for every backlsider on your street, every church to move forward in God, for His conviction to be felt by every soul around you right now. Make the devil hurt for what he did to you



Gibbering...
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:08 pm
@msolga,
Sorry, nah.

But it is the big (letters) issue of both papers today, tsar.

Plus in the news. Lotta people getting very hot under the collar about this!
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:10 pm
@msolga,
They should get hot under the collar about this issue. If they don't get upset now then they better not complain when they realize what they have lost. Confused
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:21 pm
@tsarstepan,
Oh they/we are complaining, tsar, trust me! It's outrageous. (But I don't need to persuade you, do I? Wink )
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 06:03 pm
@msolga,
Leo Lapote brings in Johnny Worthington, Australian Tech Guru, as a special guest on Leo's TWIT (This Week In Technology podcast):
http://www.twit.tv/226

Quote:
Leo Laporte Yeah. What's the story with this ISP filtering?
Johnny Worthington Basically the whole issue comes down to is that parents in Australia " and this is where it’s pitched at, parents in Australia don’t really understand the internet. So rather than actually taking an interest in their kids, or monitoring their kids, they are actually " it’s easier for the politicians to go, ‘no, no, wait, we’ll do it for you, you don’t " don’t have to think about the scary computers; let us do it for you’ and then they put in this filtering " and the problem with it is it doesn’t really work.
Leo Laporte That’s the biggest problem with all internet filtering: it’s crap.
Johnny Worthington It is. It’s total " it just doesn’t work because the people who really want to find the stuff are " they aren’t doing it through the normal channels or find things " ways around it. And the people who are looking for it " the people who aren’t looking for it are just going to get caught up in the web. So it’s like, it’s basically just pure political crap, basically.
Leo Laporte Hasn’t this been kind of floating around for at least a year or two?
Johnny Worthington It has. The only problem is they haven’t been able to make it work. That’s the big delay.
Leo Laporte I remember that the first time they pitched this they " didn’t they " didn’t they offer a free filter to all families on their own computers? And it was cracked the first hour, it was cracked.
Johnny Worthington It is. And they " and they actually still have that. And the biggest problem is, is that it’s not opt-in, it’s opt-out. So it’s not a " sorry, it’s not opt-out, it’s opt-in. So everyone gets switched on by default. So rather than educating people and saying, ‘look, hey, I actually think putting a mandatory filtering on ISPs is a good idea. I think if parents can’t understand and look after the kids, this is a really, really good thing to do.’
Leo Laporte But they should choose it, they should choose it.
Johnny Worthington Yes. Exactly.
Leo Laporte So, what is the status now? Is this law?
Johnny Worthington Not really, it’s kind of weird because our parliament’s sort on a break at the moment for Christmas and everything like that, so it’s " they’ve tried to bring it in and it’s not necessarily working and they’ve just finished the trials and now they’ve gone right, this is cool, we’re going to go ahead and do it. But they’ve still got to get it through the Parliament, I believe, the last little bit has got to go through the national parliament. And the biggest problem for us is that geeks in general or people who use lot of computers are very easily sidelined. So if we make a lot of noise they can go, oh, don’t worry, if you speak out against censorship or filtering against child pornography everyone is going to go, ‘hmm, why are you doing that?’ Rather than actually thinking of the issues, and going ‘no, this is actually about freedom of information.’ I mean, I’m a 29 year old male, I should have the right to view what I want on the Internet. The only problem is it’s very hard for me to say that without someone going ‘oh, do you want to look at kiddie porn?’
Leo Laporte Yes.
John C. Dvorak That’s the straw man argument. It’s ridiculous. They’ve made this thing like the be-all, end-all of all decision making.
Leo Laporte Well, it’s, well, because it’s a sacred cow, you cannot, straw man or sacred cow, you take your choice. You cannot…
John C. Dvorak The Sacred Straw Man.
Leo Laporte It’s a sacred straw man; you cannot stand up and say ‘I’m against it’ because then they can easily say, ‘oh, so you believe in child pornography?’
Johnny Worthington
‘Won’t someone think of the children?’
Leo Laporte Yeah, ‘think of the children.’ But that’s not what this is about. The question I have is why does the government want to do this? Is there some other reason or are they just stupid?
Johnny Worthington Because no, it’s actually very smart. It’s so they can say to the parents ‘look, you don’t have to understand the Internet, you don’t have to stand over your kids’ shoulders and watch what they’re doing; we will do that for you.’ Let the big government take care of it for you and it’s kind of funny because the current government in there now is sort of my political leanings, but I’m looking at them wanting to slap them across the face going no; this is stupid.

0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:43 pm
Google agrees to take down racist site

Quote:
Mr Newhouse said Google agreed to take the link down after he filed an official complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

"Lo and behold they agreed last night to take down the sites."

Mr Newhouse believes the site would be filtered under the Federal Government's mandatory filter.

"Sites that promote racial vilification would actually fall within that description [illegal sites] and therefore would be filtered."

The Federal Government plans to introduce legislation this year requiring all service providers to ban "refused classification" material.


The page in question is awful [NSFW!], but I don't think that the government should censor Google or the very internet for Australians over it.
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:48 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Agreed.

and yes, THAT is what racism looks like in Australia. That's what we deserve to be embarrassed about.

0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 09:35 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I am wondering under what legal mandate the link was removed?

I guess they just decided to do so as they CAN.

That site is awful.

Interestingly, that gem appears to be part of an anti-Oz series.



0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 09:33 pm
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/websites-fade-to-black-in-censorship-protest-20100126-mvsw.html
Quote:
Websites fade to black in censorship protest
ASHER MOSES
January 26, 2010 - 4:14PM


Hundreds of websites joined an Australia Day "internet blackout" today to protest against the Government's web censorship agenda, but even the internet industry body believes it will do little to lessen the Government's resolve.

The Greens, Democrats and ISP iiNet are among the organisations that pledged to fade their websites to black today and provide visitors with information about the Government's censorship plans. The blackout is expected to last until Friday.

The Government is determined to implement mandatory internet filtering of a secret blacklist of sites the Government's censors have determined are "refused classification" (RC).

Critics say RC is too broad and that providing the Government with a new censorship power is unnecessary, given that the filters could only ever cover a tiny fraction of the nasty websites on the internet. Child welfare groups have said it might give parents a false sense of security.

There are also fears over the lack of transparency in administering the blacklist and that the scope of what is blocked could drastically increase over time.

"My main problem with the filter proposal is that it won't work and that it sets up a really dangerous mechanism to centralise censorship of the net by the Australian Government," Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam said.

The blackout was the brainchild of web activist Jeff Waugh and is being supported by online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA).

Some of the websites taking part in the blackout are listed on internetblackout.com.au. The list includes a diverse selection of mostly smaller websites, ranging from personal web pages to media sites such as newmatilda.com and overclockers.com.au.

But Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association, said it would take 200,000 people protesting in the streets in every major capital city for the Government to pay attention.

Coroneos last week met senior bureaucrats from the Department of Broadband, who stressed to him that the Government was pushing ahead with plans to implement its internet filter legislation in the autumn session of Parliament.

"I think the Government's fairly intent on their course of action to legislate filtering - I think that's almost beyond doubt," he said.

"I would imagine that this [blackout] would be interpreted as the democratic right of a minority rather than opposition of mainstream Australia, which is what would probably be required in order to deter the Government from its intended course of action."

Coroneos said mainstream Australia had struggled to engage with the internet filtering debate because it struggled to understand the issues involved and "there is a typical level of Australian political apathy at work".

But Ludlam disagreed with Coroneos, saying it was important not to underestimate the power of the internet as a communications medium.

"I don't think we're necessarily going to need 200,000 people because campaigns have been won with much less than that. I just think we need to be a bit clever," he said.

"I don't know anybody who's in favour of this proposal once they've heard of it, so I think our job is to communicate effectively the risks of this proposal using the tools of the greatest communications medium that's ever been devised."

Whether the filtering scheme is implemented - and the associated legislation passed - depends largely on the response of the Federal Opposition, which has previously opposed the policy but since the recent leadership reshuffle has sat on the fence.

A spokesman for the Opposition communications spokesman, Tony Smith, has repeatedly refused to comment on the issue or to say whether the Liberal Party will support or oppose the legislation.

Support from the Opposition is critical for the Government as the Greens have already pledged to oppose it.

EFA spokesman Colin Jacobs said the blackout was just the first step in a long advertising and information campaign against the filter.

Online activist group GetUp! is also planning to ramp up its campaigning over the issue.

"Existing censorship is an open and transparent process but this new internet censorship power is completely secret and not subject to public review," Jacobs said.

"The scope of the filter is quite broad - although it will block the nastiest of the nasty content that [Communications Minister Stephen Conroy] likes to talk about, our concerns are around the edges where politically sensitive topics such as euthanasia, drug use and sexuality material will be blocked.

"Although the Government claims the scope is limited, there are no guarantees on what this or future governments will do with the blacklist once it's in place."

Source: smh.com.au

tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 09:38 pm
@tsarstepan,
0 Replies
 
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:03 pm
In time all governments will go this way. They want to protect their power and authority. Probably this censorship will not affect most sites .....it will affect sites that are against the ruling authority.....that is their aim.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:08 pm
Sound like someone could get very very wealthy by setting up a large and I mean large set of servers offshore of Australia to allow large scale encrypted tunneling out of the country by it citizens.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 04:53 am


I want to shout from the rooftops to proclaim a triumph of online journalism. But I can't. I want to show you all a prize-winning piece of video. But I'm banned from doing so; the threat of an $11,000 fine hangs over me and this site.
The George Polk Awards in Journalism are (according to Wikipedia) "a series of American journalism awards presented annually by Long Island University in New York" which were established in memory of CBS correspondent George Polk, killed in 1947 covering the Greek civil war.

Every year, recipients are recognised in a number of categories ranging from Foreign, legal, Economics and Education Reporting, through Television, Radio and Internet Reporting to Photojournalism.

It is this last category to which I wish to draw attention.

Announcing the 2009 winners, The University states "A reporter who was held captive by the Taliban and an anonymous videographer who filmed the killing of a woman during a protest in Iran are among those honored in 13 categories."

The announcement continues, "The George Polk Award for Videography will recognize the efforts of the people responsible for recording the death of 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan at a June protest in Tehran, Iran, and uploading the video to the Internet. Ms. Agha-Soltan reportedly was shot by a pro-government militiaman.

"The video, which shows the woman collapsing to the ground and being attended to by several men as she lay dying on the street, became a rallying point for the reformist opposition in Iran after it was broadcast over the Internet. Seen by millions as it spread virally across the Web, the images quickly gained the attention of international media."

Immediately following this citation, the announcement page includes a link to the video.
It is this link that I cannot show you.

read more at iTwire
http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/whiskey-tango-foxtro/36904-i-am-muzzled

some clarrification in the comments at the end
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 08:47 pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/06/2865643.htm
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 07:35 am
@Eorl,
What is amazing is that any government can be so dumb to spend 10s of millions of dollars on internet filtering that can be gotten around with such means as tor or even hotspots advware supported software for free in two minutes flat.

In fact the bulk of internet traffic will be moving toward encrypted tunneling and that can not be making the law enforcement/security services happy.

Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:14 pm
@BillRM,
I guess they justify it externally: what price our children's safety?
And internally; conservative Christian votes for the supposed left-wing liberal party.
This is sure to get through because the opposition are the real conservative party. Leaving us with only the fringe parties to turn to.
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 01:59:16