7
   

HELP! Australia under direct Christian attack!

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:08 am
I hear that the whole silly program had been placed on hold is that true or not?

Lord to spend tens of millions for something that anyone can defeat by downloading tor or similar software for free is beyond belief!
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 10:21 pm
"There's a staggering number of Australian's being in having their computers infected at the moment, up to 20,000, uh, can regularly be getting infected by these spams, or scams, that come through, the portal."

Senator Conroy - 6 June 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gl7X6peh-w&feature=player_embedded
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:45 am
I'm gonna jump through your portal and rip yer bloddy arms orf!
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:29 am
This doesn't quite fit the "Oz under direct Christian category", but it's sort of related, because Google strongly criticized the Australian government's censorship plans ... and now the Australian police are investigating Google! (Yes, that's right!)

Quote:
FEDERAL police have begun investigating Google and some of its employees over what may be the biggest breach of privacy in the country.

The federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, revealed yesterday the police were asked on Friday to investigate allegations that Google workers illegally collected private information from wireless internet connections while photographing streets for the Google Maps website.... <cont>


http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/federal-police-start-google-investigation-20100606-xn8c.html
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 08:13 pm
@msolga,
Are you really saying that, or are spams or scams being in having you coming through the portal?
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 08:17 pm
@dadpad,
dadpad wrote:

I'm gonna jump through your portal and rip yer bloddy arms orf!

Don't forget your companion cube. She might come in handy! Wink
http://themcp.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/weighted-companion-cube.png
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 08:21 pm
@Eorl,
The Australian government is indeed investigating Google for recording hundreds of GB's from computer users on WiFi networks that happen to be in the vicinity of Google's street mapping team.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07google.html?scp=1&amp;sq=Australia%20Google&amp;st=cse
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 08:57 pm
@tsarstepan,
Yes, that's right, tsar. (see my post above.)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 05:20 am
@tsarstepan,
Good grief.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:24 pm
Interesting, interesting ...

Hopeful signs? Dare we hope?

It appears that the internet censorship legislation will not be debated in the parliament prior to the next Australian election (before the end of this year). The Labor Party is already in deep trouble with the electorate (according to just about every poll) without adding what's described as yet another "toxic" issue to the mix. Even if it was debated in the parliament before the election, it would most likely be defeated by the Greens, in the upper house. The Labor government, under the leadership of the ever-pragmatic Kevin Rudd, appear to be finally understanding that it's very much on the nose. I suspect the Liberal Party (currently the opposition are getting this message, too, given how non-committal they've been about it lately ...
All of which leaves the future of the legislation, following the election, looking rather shaky. (I hope I'm not being too optimistic here, but things are looking rather promising! Smile ) Here's hoping the internet filter quietly vanishes from the Oz radar. Forever. Fingers crossed! :



Quote:
Toxic net filters 'shelved until after election'
ASHER MOSES
June 18, 2010 - 12:36PM/Sydney Morning Herald


The internet censorship policy has joined the government's list of "politically toxic subjects" and will almost certainly be shelved until after the federal election, Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam says.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - already facing a voter backlash over several perceived policy failures - is expected to call the election before the end of the year and the feeling of many in Canberra is that next week will be the last sitting week of Parliament.

Parliament is not due to sit again until August 24, leaving little time to introduce the legislation and have it debated and passed in time for the election.
http://images.smh.com.au/2010/06/18/1613385/katelundymain-420x0.jpg
Pushing for filters to be opt-in ... Labor Senator Kate Lundy. Photo: Elliot Woods

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has said he expects legislation to enable his internet filtering policy, which will block a secret blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australians, to be tabled in the second half of the year.

He has said delays have been due to issues working out transparency and accountability measures.

Senator Ludlam said in a phone interview that these issues were only part of the reason for the delay, saying the policy was now "on the list of politically toxic subjects that you don't in your right mind run during an election campaign".

Senator Conroy's spokeswoman has repeatedly refused to deny claims that the legislation would be shelved until after the election, saying only that she did not yet know when the election would be.

The scheme has attracted immense opposition from Senator Conroy's political opponents, the internet industry including several ISPs, Yahoo and Google, academics, lobby groups, some childrens' welfare groups including Save The Children, the US government, Reporters Without Borders and even Labor MPs.

The opposition has failed to state a definitive position on the matter since Tony Abbott took over as Opposition Leader, and his communications spokesman, Tony Smith, has refused to comment despite several requests from this website.

However, it is likely the legislation would not be passed even if it was introduced in the near future, as the Greens are committed to opposing it and several Opposition heavyweights, including Joe Hockey, have criticised the net filtering policy in speeches.


"The industry are telling them that what they are intending to do is formidably difficult - the government won't be able to draft a bill saying 'OK ISPs, you go and make this happen', because the ISPs are pushing back telling the government 'No, you tell us how you think you can make it work,'" Senator Ludlam said.

"I don't believe he will be able to get the chamber time from his colleagues [before the election] unless he's fairly sure that he's going to be able to pass it; the government at the moment don't have time to burn a couple of days of chamber time only to have it voted down.


Senator Ludlam is on the newly formed cyber-safety committee but, in the round-table meetings, "nobody brought it [the filters] up because they're dealing with issues that are front and centre as far as child safety is concerned and the filter won't help them".


One of the main issues raised by critics of the filter is that it would impose mandatory internet censorship on all Australians and would inevitably catch content many regard as innocuous. Leaked versions of the blacklist have seen a Queensland dentist, pet-care facility and school cafeteria consultancy caught up among the child porn and sexual abuse sites.

Senator Conroy argues he is just porting censorship models applied to other mediums over to the internet but the key difference with offline mediums is that citizens know what is being blocked and why. Prominent critics feel the current policy will be the thin end of the wedge, with little stopping successive governments from expanding the scope of the filters.

Labor Senator Kate Lundy has been pushing Senator Conroy to scrap the mandatory aspect of the scheme and make it opt-in. She wrote in a blog post this month that she was working to change the policy "to better achieve the policy goals of protecting children through empowering and educating parents".

She is pushing for two key amendments:

1. Protect in legislation the availability of an unfiltered, open internet service.

2. Require all internet subscribers to make an active choice as to whether they want an unfiltered, RC filtered or additionally filtered internet service (with the latter being personally customisable at any time).

Senator Lundy said although she originally discussed making the filters opt-out, "it has become clear that the community has a preference for [an] opt-in approach, rather than an opt-out compromise".

Today, Senator Lundy said: "I have received a lot of support and constructive feedback both publicly and privately about the amendments I am proposing to this policy, and I look forward to presenting the federal Labor caucus with a constructive alternative approach that upholds the principles of open government, net neutrality, and empowers parents to take responsibility for the cybersafety of children in their care."

The filtering policy has attracted international criticism and ridicule, most recently in Time magazine, which covered the policy in detail and wrote: "Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the internet is restricted by the state."

It has also been the subject of several spoof videos, including one dubbed "censordyne", created by the online activist group GetUp!. Much to the group's dismay, it was banned from being shown as an ad on domestic Qantas flights into Canberra, although it got a good run online.

Today, online electronics seller Kogan Technologies released its own parody clip featuring a supposed new product developed by two alleged engineers, Con and Roy, which will provide an alternative to the government's proposed filter.

Made from "the finest 8000-thread count Egyptian cotton", the "Portector" goes "on sale" for $2999 today.


http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/toxic-net-filters-shelved-until-after-election-20100618-ykvj.html?autostart=1
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:42 pm
@msolga,
People power?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:10 am
@dlowan,
Potential voter power, Deb.
Very pissed off voters. Wink
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:17 am
@dlowan,
So who's going to protect you nice ladies from the porn people now?
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:18 am
@Thomas,
"from" or "for" ?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:19 am
@dlowan,
Yes, they want to avoid having it be an election issue, but have every intention of making it happen right after.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:20 am
@Eorl,
Eorl wrote:

Yes, they want to avoid having it be an election issue, but have every intention of making it happen right after.



Maybe, maybe not.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:21 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
So who's going to protect you nice ladies from the porn people now?


Oh my goodness, I hadn't even considered that, Thomas!

I guess we'll just have to avert our eyes! Razz
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:22 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Quote:
So who's going to protect you nice ladies from the porn people now?

I guess we'll just have to avert our eyes! Razz

Just dont look down whilst showering.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:28 am
@Eorl,
Quote:
Yes, they want to avoid having it be an election issue, but have every intention of making it happen right after.


(In spite of what the polls say) I'm assuming the Labor Party will win the election Eorl, with a much reduced majority. I'm also assuming we're likely to have more Greens/independents, in the upper house, especially. (Maybe one or two in the house of Representatives) If I'm right, I think Labor would be asking for big trouble to pursue internet censorship onto such a hostile public.. Also, I doubt that the upper house (in which the Greens might well hold the balance of power) would allow it to pass.

If the Liberals won (which I can't see happening, but anyway ..) they'd have as many problems pushing internet censorship as Labor has had. PLUS the same problem in the upper house. It would also lead to a very short "honeymoon period" for a new liberal government. Internet censorship is a can of worms for any political party.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:40 am
@dadpad,
Oh I won't, dadpad! Of course not. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

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 10/14/2019 at 09:17:43