Posted @ DBCDE blog site ...

Posted to: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/minister_tanners_welcome

See: http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/12/get-up-stand-up-getup-for-your-lefts.html for more on "GetUp!"

"If not ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) then something needs to be done (and is well over-due) in terms of making the internut/McNet/McWeb we currently have a better place for one and all to use as well as set it in the direction of being something that is more of a benefit to the ongoing development of our society and culture than the ever increasing demeaning and putrid negative it currently is.

My advice to the government is to ignore the pathetic and self-indulgent bleatings of the selfish Oz minority who are worried about being cut off from their chosen poisons and the feeds they use to steal intellectual property by, and instead continue to consider the wishes of the businesses being robbed left right and centre by the likes of that aforementioned bleating selfish minority, as too the wishes of the Oz majority who want a safe virtual backyard for their kids to play in.

That the likes of the putrid lefty "GetUp!" lobbying group have now chosen to now align themselves with this latest public fad topic (no doubt in order to fleece a new breed of sheep then redirect conned, uh, donated funds to their more extreme lefty agendas where-ever possible) is one of the best indications that the likes of ILCF is not only well justified but also well overdue.

Why ? Well since when did the likes of GetUp! ever get involved in supporting what is actually Good and Right for Australia ?

regarDS
http://derblatz.blogspot.com"

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt16

Firstly, those who've been busy putting money on "derspatz" being anyone else in here other than "derspatz" and for a brief moment "derspatz13" early on in the piece (before requesting that ID be deleted as I'd finally remembered my password to my former account created years ago) please donate your losses to the "Royal Flying Doctor Service" ... where it might actually do some Real World Good rather than sponsor the evil lefty agendas of "GetUp!". I'm too narcissistic to hide behind aliases ;)

Anyway, too slow and quiet by half in here ATM, so here is something to cheer the regulars up.

Quotes from "Prune", the 2008 "ISP Level Content Filtering" initiative directed by Senator Conroy, based on the novel Dune by Frank Herbert.

Cast:
Princess Irulan: Bernadete McMenamin
Paul Atreides/Muad'Dib/Usul: Senator Conroy
Chani: Senator Conroy's wife.
Duke Atreides: KRudd.
Alia Atreides: Hetty Johnston
Gurney & Stilgar: Loyal Conroy and/or ILCF Supporters
Guildsmen: ISP Representatives speaking for themselves, and Whirlpool Mods.
Baron Vladimir Harkonnen: Org'asmo
Bene Gesseret Reverend Mother: derspatz in drag after a very bad haircut.

"The beginning is a very delicate time. Know then that it is the year 2008. The Known World Wide Web is ruled by the Protocul TCP IPvIV. In this time, the most precious substance in the WWW is the packet data "pr0n". The pr0n corrupts life, the pr0n perverts consciousness, the pr0n is vital to the profits of Internut Service Providers. The Internutting Guild and its representatives and high-bandwidth customers, who the pr0n has mutated over 20 years, use the fleshy coloured pr0n pixels, which gives them the ability to bond across space. That is, to virtually fornicate with anyone else on the web without actually moving. Oh, yes. I forgot to tell you. The pr0n exists in packets throughout the entire web, a dangerous child unfriendly desert with vast potential to bring harm to one and all. Hidden away within the addresses of this desert are a people known as the Freemen, who have long held a prophecy that a man would come, a messiah who would lead them to true freedom. The task is called "ILCF", also known as "Prune" - Princess Irulan

"It is by will alone I set my hand in motion. It is by the packets of "unwanted" that hands acquire speed, my pants acquire stains. The stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my hand in motion." - The Late Night Solitary User Mantra, (played by The Plugged In, all over Oz)

"Some URLs have a certain smell ..." - Paul Atreides

"FIIIILLL-TAAR!" - Shouted by supporters of ILCF in attack mode.

"Send a third stage GetUp! Advertiser to google to demand details from the Governet. The pr0n must flow..." - a pr0n warped/changed member of the Internutting Guild, from a special report within the Guild, speaking on his own behalf.

"The Bene Gesserit witch must leave." - a Guildsman says that the Truthsayer has to leave the forum.

"when the storm hits... set off the atomics. I want an opening through the entire Shield Wall. Stilgar, do we have wormsign? Stilgar: Usul, we have wormsign the likes of which even God has never seen." (Storm = "Holiday Season when no one is around, Atomics = ILCF, Wormsign = "pr0n to be pruned by ILCF")

"You suggest the son of the Duke is an animal?
Let us say I suggest you may be human." - from a conversation between Paul and the Reverend Mother.

"We Freemen have a saying: God created Prune to train the faithful. One cannot go against the word of God." - Muad'Dib.

"Behold, as a wild ass in the desert, go I forth to my work." - Gurney

"Father... father, the sleeper has awakened!" - Senator Conroy commenting to KRudd how GetUp! have chosen to attached themselves to this latest publicity related fad-concern so that they can fleece the naive of funds so that their more extreme left-wing goals can be further supported and promoted. As described at:
http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/12/get-up-stand-up-getup-for-your-lefts.html

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." - Senator Conroy during Parliment Question Time.

"talk without rhythm and you won't attract the worm." - Senator Conroy during Parliment Question Time.

"Tell me of your homeworld, Usul." - Chani, wondering what she has married :)

"We foresee a slight problem. The Duke's son. We want him killed. I did not say this. I am not here." - Guildsman speaking for himself.

"I'll miss the 747s, but a person needs new experiences. They jar something deep inside, allowing him to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - KRudd commenting to Conroy what it may be like to be a single term government (we can all only hope so. And there you have another aspect of derspatz pragmatism. Heh.)

"I will have Prune back for myself! He who controls the pr0n controls the Web ..." - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen

"The pr0n must flow." - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen

"Long live the filters !" - Muad'Dib/Conroy

"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." - Muad'Dib/Conroy, speaking of the internut.

"And how can this be? For he is the ersatz spatzattack!" - Alia Atreides talking of Paul.

regarDS

Posted here in response to - ILCF pt15 @ WP

"Why should these parents who are, by your admission, unable to protect their children by monitoring their internet use, be allowed to be in posession of alcohol, deadly household chemicals, deadly weapons (cars), matches and lighters which can cause fires and sharp knives and instruments which can maim or kill?"

A question from a user call "Non Sequitur" choosing to example just why that particular user name was chosen, and who is still yet to realise the folly of its repetitious asking of an obviously foolish question.

Hmmmm, should I apply Proverbs 26:4, or 26:5 in this case ?

Oh well, its troll has now received the attention it so desired and its folly is now further exampled for a greater audience to judge.

A case of "careful what you wish for ..." ?

regarDS

So Long And Thanks For All The Fish ...

Taking a break.

Visit http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/12/get-up-stand-up-getup-for-your-lefts.html should you ever miss me and/or need a bit of annoying. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

Eeeek, this thread seems to have gone mad. Anti-"religion" oozing out of every other keyboard and pore and to compound that (on the subject of poor), we've now apparently got money being thrown at a new hopeless cause.

Which, come to think of it, is somewhat ironic considering the charge being levelled at ILCF being an alleged waste of money !

Oh well. Prolly silly to be part of this topic ATM – maybe I'll return to it when it becomes a little more sensible.

To paraphrase one Captain Oates, "I am just going offline and may be some time."

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

Thought some might find this interesting re: Internet control in the UAE. From wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai

SOQ
"Etisalat, the government owned telecommunications provider, held a virtual monopoly over telecommunication services in Dubai prior to the establishment of other, smaller telecommunications companies such as Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company (EITC — better known as Du) in 2006. Internet was introduced into the UAE (and therefore Dubai) in 1995. The current network is supported by a bandwidth of 6 GB, with 50,000 dialup and 150,000 broadband ports. Dubai houses two of four DNS data centers in the country (DXBNIC1, DXBNIC2)[90]. Internet content is regulated in Dubai. Etisalat uses a proxy server to filter internet content that is deemed to be inconsistent with the values of the country, that provides information on bypassing the proxy, dating, gay and lesbian networks, sites pertaining to the Bahá'í faith, and sites originating from Israel. Additionally, VoIP services such as Skype that challenge Etisalat's monopoly over international calling as well as multimedia sharing and social networking websites such as Flickr, Lastfm, Hi5 and Orkut are blocked"EOQ

The entry seems a bit hay-wire the positioning of the phrase "that provides information on bypassing the proxy" mind you ...

Either way, it seems that the proxy server is far from dead.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

I typed that I thought an even better way would be for a rating system like happens before TV programs.

This site is rated MA15+ as it contains sexual content (or whatever). Mature viewing is recommended.

That indeed would be inline with current laws governing broadcastable material and may well be the "middle ground" that is finally settled upon as a compromise in the long run.

And compromise is generally how these things work when it comes to "Government Initiatives", yes ? First they work out what they are prepared to settle for, then the present a couple of objectionable solutions of varying offensiveness, and then are seen to be giving in to public wishes by implementing the lesser of the deemed evils; The People reckon they have had a win, and The Government have the solution they were prepared to accept in the first place.

Part of the Hegelian approach for the Powers That Be to Get Things Done ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

Derspatz, do you not agree that perhaps people should rise up against the religious far rights pushing for control of the masses through censorship? Or are you one of the religious sheep that try to push your beliefs onto others?

Neither/Nor.

I don't see the first of that happening; I see the a more middle/middle-to-right ground trying to be maintained, and one that I am in support of. That being said, if it happens to help bring the down-fall for a long time to come of the ALP, then it is a "Win-Win" AFAIC. :)

No to the second, as per: http://derblatz.blogspot.com/2008/11/posted-whirlpool-ilcf-pt5_4744.html

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

If parents are too stupid to protect their own children from dangers in the home, then they don't deserve to be parents.

No argument there. Which is why our elected government is obliged to step in as best can be managed.

As in "intervention", etc.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

Perhaps if you chose to see my efforts in here more akin to "lighthouse warning ships of the rocks and reef - derspatz

Perhaps that is what the filter should do. Warn you that are you about to view something that the government doesn't want you to see and ask you if you want to continue. Think of your well known Perth band The Waifs.

Lighthouse man can’t help us all
Some he’ll save and some will fall
He’ll show you where the danger lies
But he can’t help it if you capsize
He’ll light your way but that is all
Steer your own ship back to shore

The "skull and cross-bones" and "warning, danger Will Robinson" audio-visual pop-up could be part of the solution, along with the SMSing of a responsible Adult if you like. There are going to be many ways of approaching this required to get the job done properly.

I like the lyrics you provided (which are somewhat topical ... I certainly get your gist) but never heard of the band nor could actually name anything they have done mind you.

No radio on the motor-bike, no radio antenna on the 4x4.

How is that for an example for filtering at the user end of things rather than at the provider side ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

The government is elected by us, for us. They work for us. If they aren't working for us, there is no point having them, we may as well fire them.

No problem with that, except you missed the bit where "they ARE us".

IE, just a bunch of public servants who prolly get into the job because they aren't much good at anything else and also because they enjoy trying to tell people what to do a bit more than the next bloke, but still not all that different from the next bloke.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

Are you part of the conspiracy or merely an innocent chump who has been taken in by misleading promises of child protection?

Which reads as "Have you stopped beating your wife yet ?"

Rest assured that my motivations and views have nothing to do with popular conspiracies and go way beyond mere child protection.

As I'm sure both Mark and Richary can confirm.

Heck, they could also confirm that when it comes to proving a point and how serious I am with my views, I'm also known to spend my own coin in very Real World (ala "offline") ways.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

he was preaching the monumental failure of NetAlert because noone adopted it, yet he claims that there is public desire for this mandatory filtering.

He makes no sense.

I reckon it makes perfect sense in the context of a high probability that many folk who do want filtering for their kids/families/etc found/find it all too hard to actually figure out how to do it themselves and would much prefer a system where it is all done for them much like how their ISP takes care of spam filtering for them.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

I agree a referendum on a bill of rights has to happen!

1+ providing it goes hand in hand with a "bill of responsibilities".

TANSTAAFL. ("There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch")

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

I can't quite understand why you are supporting the filtering. If you were really a purely religious nutter as some people have suggested that wouldn't explain your past history on LTUAE, because that wouldn't have been the sort of forum you would have wanted to be on. And in the early threads you pushed the Gibsonesque or whatever free net with no government controls - the opposite of what you are pushing for with filtering. Is the filter a means to an end for you?

If you're asking if I have personal selfish reasons as well as community welfare reasons and a lot more besides for supporting ILCF and/or greater/easier control of online content then my answer is yes on all counts.

I think it is both near-sighted and foolish to only view this issue in terms of black and white, us and them (etc) when in fact it is quite a complex multi-faceted broad spectrumed many layered issue that similarly can be viewed/debated from far more angles than the typical dualistic "one or the other"/"if it ain't xmas, it must be easter" seemingly preferred by most around here.

I also think it is somewhat silly if not counter productive to be basically in support of static treatment of a dynamic medium (yup, I realise that is a knife that cuts both ways, dualistically speaking), and I am really not interested that much in pointless preservation of something just the way it is when there is clearly room for much improvement and much that should not be preserved at all ... with as many differing opinions on that as there are people using it or are affected by it.

As many layers, facets, spectra there are to this issue and regardless of my truly selfish attitudes regarding it, the percentages and check sheet I'm judging it by still oblige me to say "yes, this or something like this needs to be done".

I'm not in the least offended and threatened by the fact that at least in here there are many who choose to disagree and disapprove of my view, for as you well know, due to the beliefs that have sustained me for well over half my life, I've been made no stranger to being of the relative minority view when it comes to quite a list of issues and controversies. It all goes with the territory.

A territory which can't help but include the attempt to censor that which increasing demeans and by doing so is destructive to our society.

Perhaps if you chose to see my efforts in here more akin to "lighthouse warning ships of the rocks and reef" than "oh, he is being contrary, he is wrong because I am right so therefore he must be trolling", a better understanding of where I am coming from may be achieved.

I have no disagreement that unjust forms of censorship should nearly always be resisted, but I am no where near being convinced that ILCF is one of them, or even of much concern to Oz as a nation even if it was reduced to the level of "governet" (credit to whoever it was who first coined the term in these forums) only showing/allowing "safe for Oz" ala "safe for work" information.

regarDS

PS: To prove another point, unmoderated comments have now been enabled at derblatz.

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

There are way too many Sunrise viewers in Australia to risk putting it to a referendum.

An admission that the majority of Oz are more likely to be either for ILCF or so ambivalent about it that they are more likely accept it than be bothered resisting it let alone trying to circumvent it ?

Tis refreshing to see such a realistic admission made in here despite the likely smack-down to come from localised majority/unity enforced/approved party line on the topic.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

derspatz writes...So as not to enable or give undue oxygen to any vocal/militant minorities ?

60K signatures on a petition in less than a week would seem to suggest that this scheme is not popular with the general public.

Who of us in here really thinks that 60k hits to a presumed online petition (happy to be corrected on that) can be deemed either indicative or representative of what may or may not be popular with the overall "general public" ?

Ah well, you can at least be greatful for the enabling/oxygen I'm affording this topic, if even just for the practice ?

Strength through diversity and progress through conflict, and all that. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

I was brought up with the understanding that democracy was based on the belief that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I've got no problem with that at all ... which is also why I reckon that if not ILCF then something like it will become the norm sooner or later.

Necessity re: "the needs of the many" will make it so.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15

DS, If the filter has such a mass following and support, why does the senator consistently refuse comment and interviews?

So as not to enable or give undue oxygen to any vocal/militant minorities ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14

... remembered that even Jesus Christ had a soft spot in his heart for a prostitute:)

Whom He allegedly not only had compassion for but also advised to "go and sin no more", yes ?

Seriously, don't we all, especially those of us who deem and herald what I prefer to call "the internut" (and have been saying so for a long time) so high in Oz (if not the whole globe) have a responsibility if not duty to help create and keep it as a tool and facility that is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of, especially when it comes to the presentation and respect of our mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, and daughters, etc ?

Doesn't even common decency oblige us to promote it and encourage it in a way that edifys and demonstrates love and care for both our neighbour and ourselves and shouldn't near any method (not merely limited to ILCF) that can help make the net a better place for us all as a nation be worthy of promotion ?

How does it help us as a nation to have one rule for some and no rule for others ... surely we should all be adopting a beneficial common ground that benefits us all as a society rather than continuing with a flawed system that favours questionable individualistic and selfish (and obviously unhealthy) wants over majority community needs ?

I'm happy to support the "go and sin no more" angle in that regard - tis hardly any kind of price to pay at all AFAIC (so I guess no great sacrifice), but I do find it both disturbing and distressing to realise that there may be many among us who deem the price to be unacceptably high.

All the more reason that something like ILCF is not only well and truly warranted, but also well over-due, AFAIC.

regarDS

Posted here in response to - ILCF pt14 @ WP

"Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not." - derspatz

[deleted] writes ...
Yep, the language of confidence there.

Heh. I learned that style from reading the original literature put out by the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14

invoking the "mothers, Wives and daughters" to justify your opinion. Yet we have women who clearly disagree, including women on this forum, my daughter and her friends (adult and teen), and even Holly from "Save the Children" organization. I can speak for them because I have personally talked to them or read their public comments.

I don't see how any of that could be deemed representative, especially considering if I too trotted out a list of names and anecdotal references to match, it similarly would be rejected out of hand.

Surely there are husbands, fathers, brothers, boyfriends in this forum who would at very least shudder at the thought of their wives, children, sisters, and girlfriends selling themselves to be the subject matter of pr0n and the various forms of prostitution ranging from telephone conversations through to skimpy/strip work through to lap-dancing, spiraling inwards and downwards towards being the drugged-up diseased dying by degrees kurb-side hooker who is fed and clothed and truly loved by the likes of Salvo's donations and the similarly compassionate ?

Surely there are parents in here who are doing everything in their parental power and influence to ensure their children don't grow up to be seduced or fooled or coerced into making such bad decisions ... all the while having to fight off the never ending influences pouring out of nearly every publicly available mass-media technology possible ?

Surely those parents and those who shudder at the thought of their own blood and loved ones being seduced into making such bad choices, or even just being regularly confronted with it in various ways, would welcome any measure that might help make being a family easier and simpler while keeping the developing minds entrusted to their temporary care safer and beautiful in their innocence for as long as possible ?

Surely most family minded women don't want their husbands and boyfriends lusting over other women ? Surely most charity minded regular non-specific-denomination-or-faith community orientated church/temple/mosque (etc) attending souls of either gender or family or relationship status would prefer a society that encourages and promotes the respect and protection of womenfolk and the young over degredation and corruption ?

Yes, obviously I am personally of the view that Oz would do well to deem illegal all pr0n, but I accept that I'll have to wait for Kingdom Come for that one. In the mean time, it isn't all that unreasonable nor hard to imagine that all those "surely"s just mentioned (and a lot more that could be mentioned) add up to quite the majority, and a majority who will support and continue to support the development of ILCF or whatever it takes (and we seem to be forgetting the other aspects of Senator Conroy's proposals, with the ILCF only being one part of it) to help keep our society, culture, and nation on a better path.

If no one else around here thinks that majority exists in Oz in those terms, then I reckon we have come to a very sad place in our history.

Sad enough already to think that as a nation we have become so irresponsible and untrustworthy that such measures as ILCF is deemed necessary by way of Intervention.

Another personal opinion for you. I reckon tolerance for the sake of tolerance is a far greater evil and destroyer of civilised society than censorship, and that there are degrees of censorship that are virtually mandatory in order to create a healthy, safe, just, and worthwhile culture.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14

DS only mentions his assumptions in order to support his arguments ...

Etc. And here was I thinking I was merely replying using the language of the question put to me by [deleted] when asked Why are you assuming the majority of Australians want this plan?

[deleted] asked using the word "assuming" so I responded using the word "assuming" ...

Aside from that, I'm noticing a nasty habit around here of the tending to make (and take) things personally and zone in on the individual than the topic and ideas/views presented, regardless of how carefully impersonal and generic (as per whirlpool forum guidelines) those ideas/views have been expressed.

For example, I suggest that democracy is obvious working and a response comes back that I'm in need of (presumed mental health) help. I make a point that can be distilled down to the commonly understood concept of "internet widow", with an obvious intent for it to serve as an "illustration of" and "appeal to" presumably something every last one of us participating in here can relate to in some way, yet the response is to merely make it somehow about me rather than even give the slightest concession that there may be a sizeable population of females in Oz who not only resent the amount of time their partners and/or family spends online, but would also settle for nearly anything that might make it less of an attractive place for them to click and tap their lives away in.

Such responses are neither warranted nor appreciated ... but moving on, surely the "internet widow" argument can be answered without trying to make things personal ... in fact I don't see how it can be answered properly if all that is going to be presented is along the lines of mere personal anecdote or by fallaciously suggesting that because the person who dared to suggest it isn't of the demographic then they can have no valid opinion. Actually, in certain ways the latter rules most of us out of most of what we've been discussing, yes ?

On any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and children out there who not only wish their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers were not nearly so "always online", but also have even come to hate the presence of the "always on" computer in the house in the same way no doubt many of our Grand Folks used to hate the "always on" TV when visiting ... and how even more of us hate the ever present mobile phones that are everywhere we turn these days.

Also, on any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and (sadly) children, out there who not only wish that it wasn't so easy and simple for "unwanted" material to be brought into their homes, but also that the very material didn't even exist in the first place.

There is absolutely no doubt that there are folk and families in Oz who wish there was less emphasis or cause for "being online" (along with less negative and more positive to be found online when there anyway) and equally no doubt that when it comes to overall population, there would be proportionally (and traditionally) more females than males who object to specific things such as pr0n and violent activities (especially when it somehow relates to children and entertainment), so it isn't too hard to imagine that a nation who voted in a government perceived to be the friend of families (and "working families" at that ... whatever that mean), would be more inclined to support the efforts of that government to make this country a better place for families.

Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14

Why are you assuming the majority of Australians want this plan?

Part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that a probable majority of non-single women in Oz, especially those with children, would happily agree to all sorts of government enforced constrictions put on the net (and way beyond anything ILCF might manage) if it would return a greater degree of attention from their partner back to them and their family, especially if it came with the added bonus of making it harder for either their partners or children to accidentally or deliberately view material not beneficial to healthy family life regardless of whether it was via their own net connections or connections at other people's houses, etc.

Another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the majority of Oz population are more interested in their TV and mobile phones than the "online world", and just as long as they can still do their banking, ebaying, check out sports scores and tv guides, book holidays and hotels, and maybe even get the odd cheap international phonecall, the net is never going to rise above being much more than a novelty and convenience to them and never going to figure as being "the last bastion of free speech". If anything, such people just want easier to use online systems, and care not much as to how it is done.

Yet another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the more certain minorities bash on about "free speech" and the like in the face of a government talking about controlling pr0n and attempting to bring similar law and order online as is done offline, an increasing majority will side with the goverment on this, for there IS something distinctly worrying and suspicious about such long bows being drawn re: alleged "attacks on free speech" etc in response to a proposal to help clean up the online world to make it all the more child and family safe and friendly.

I've got other assumings to add to that if you really wish ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14

This is Whirlpool syndrome. Pretending that this forum is an indicative sample of the rest of the Australian population. People are far more worried about things like the economy right now and will be going into the future for Labor to actually lose an election based on a filter.

An accurate observation and good point well made, AFAIC.

I don't think the Government will cancel the trial, even if they intend to scrap the policy. They'll go through with it and say "K it didnt work, not our fault".

A fair observation but one I'm less inclined to totally support. Sure, given the right kind of circumstances, it MIGHT come to that, but surely only more as a last resort.

Now that our government(s) are at last seriously thinking along the lines of better controlling online content as per the presumed majority wishes of the general population (as well as with a view to a better future for one and all ala what makes a better a society and all that), I don't think it is going to go away regardless of whether ILCF is deemed a suitable pass or hopeless failure.

I reckon that if ILCF is deemed to have truly failed, something else will be attempted, if not by our current government then then next one, and the one after that, and the one after that, until something that truly works properly is achieved.

It isn't too hard to imagine the general online environment of Oz future being called "the governet" with all communication feeds in, out, and around about the country going through government owned/controlled facilities, and even I'm willing to admit (in my support of our current government's attempts to bring a better level of law and order to the net in its current form) that even if such a network was created, it would still be somewhat difficult to achieve the aims and results that is bringing about the introduction of ILCF.

Hmmmm ... a case of 'better to try and fail than not to try at all" ? I guess I'm in more support of your "K it didn't work, not our fault" angle after all.

[deleted writes] ...
Should we sit by and allow a minority in this country rule by repression..
This isnt democracy and it needs to be stopped.

To begin with it is extremely doubtful that this is a case of "minority rule". Also, the method of its introduction is no different to anything else our elected levels of government do as per the form of democracy we have here in Oz.

Thus, there is no evidence of any kind of attack on democracy going on here, nor any indication that our elected government is doing anything contrary to the wishes of the general population let alone detrimental to the long term welfare of our nation.

Those of us who are deemed "voters" all still have the democratic opportunity to express our approval or opposition to our elected government's decisions in relation to ILCF, so democracy is obviously still alive and well and doing the job required of it, so I don't see a problem regardless of whether this particular item is popular or not.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

Too much monies to be made with the "ILCF Buster 2008™", it's the capitalist way! :)

I know it is too soon to be doing the actual coding on this one sheepboy, but any chance we can get a peak at a rough draft of some of the documentation that will accompany it ?

How about a config file layout ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

The Morally Vetted Internet Experience that tools like you 'approve' of for the rest of the plebeans, less able to discern the moral high ground? ...

(etc, etc, etc)

Wanna lighten up on the ad-hominem, thanks ? You really don't have to be taking alternative opinions to yours on ILCF so personally and it does none of us any favours to try and take your own obvious dissatisfaction re: the ILCF trials, out on me.

I've stayed out of the thread dedicated specifically to the support of preventing ILCF, for I have no right to be there because of my contrary view point, but I would thank you to lay off with the abuse and lazy appeals to "trolling" directed my way, for I have just as much right to my opinion and presense in this particular thread as you do, regardless of how much we may disagree with each other's chosen stance. Cheers.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

Do you understand the concept that the banned list will not be available to the public? How is there going to be any sort of accountability?

Why should Joe Shmo be privy to such controlled material ?

Isn't it the job of a created/delegated/accountable department to do the accounting ? Wouldn't suitable avenues be created to allow a degree of controlled public access as required – ie, via court orders/requests in relation to criminal proceedings or lawsuits and the like ?

I'm no more interested in knowing the contents of any banned list than I am of knowing where the Oz navy was last week or much else of what our elected government may have put under seal (or whatever) for our country's own good.

We cast out vote and trust the system we have created for ourselves, and when we cannot, we pressure for improvement.

Which, as it relates to ILCF, gets back to numbers again.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

I do have to question derspatz's bona fides – mate – why do you hide? Notice all of us here have our whims turned on. Except you.

Already explained at my blog (which doesn't have comments turned on either – nor do I log/track/sitemeter visitors). I have neither the time nor interest in exchanging private messages here or on any other forum or blog and in fact I barely even use email or the telephone for anything other than taking care of business.

I am known to leave the odd comment or message on other folk's blogs and web pages on rare occasions, but even then I prefer that things said are deemed public domain.

I don't respond to "friend" invites on my "facile book" and "my spaz" accounts, either – I've already got all the friends I want and barely communicate with them in the offline world (let alone online one) anyway.

Private implies confidential and I'm not interested in keeping confidences or having people making inaccurate claims about me based on private exchanges, or leaving avenues open by which cowardly anonymous abuse and threats or stalking like behaviour can easily occur.

In over 20 years of online communications, I have never been the fan of (nor encouraged) recreational private communications where I could get away with it being public. That isn't about to change any time soon.

Suggesting that by only partaking in public conversations is somehow "hiding" has got me scratching my head though. Heck, my blog link is up there on the left and it links through to heaps of personal information (including my full real name), yet I only know the real names of two people in this forum (richary and -mark) and that is only because we go back near 20 years to a time of online communications that preceded the proliferation of the web.

Anyway, if you've got something to say to me, then say it so that the public record can remain proof of it, and I'll return the same decency. Cheers.

If you can't say it in the foum then it probably shouldn't be said, hmmm ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

I will continue to use the internet the do the 'wrong thing' because it will not and cannot stop me, nor many others.

If it does try to stop me from doing something I want to do, I will circumvent it within seconds.

It will fail to achieve its intended purpose, but rather merely limit our nation to internet speeds that other countries had many years ago.

I cannot see why you think this is a good idea.

So even with your circumventions in seconds, it is still going to slow you down ?

Not only that, but going to slow a lot of other people down too ?

One would think that if things got slow enough, lots of certain folk would give up on doing a whole bunch of stuff that they couldn't be bothered (or were unable) to wait around for.

Sound like a bit of a win to me. :)

The reality though is that the general population probably won't notice any kind of slow down that they are not already used to.

I do accept though that the slightest speed drop anywhere at anytime WILL be blamed on ILCF even though it will be the same old same old being actually responsible. IE, peak periods, holiday times, sporting events, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc.

Sad to read that you're bent on doing "the wrong thing" in Oz mind you. That isn't very community minded or neighbourly, let alone something to be proud of. Please reconsider.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

As for the 'unwanted' part, 'unwanted' by who? You? Conroy? His mum?

The general population of Oz, But Of Course. Sure, not everyone need agree, but since when is there ever 100% agreement even around the xmas dinner table, let alone the entire nation. So we maturely and sensibly go for consensus, "near enough", and compromise.

amazed this concept does not horrify you.

Why should it horrify me ? We are only talking about the internut here – it isn't like I'm being oppressed or stifled in any way, anyway.

Its probably because you trust them, which is extremely naive.

I don't really trust any typical human individual entrusted with power over others, but I do have a reasoned/reasonable faith in the systems we have created in Oz to ensure no few individuals get power without accountability.

We have a system and we elect people in and out of that system by the system.

So what is the problem here ? Seems strange to suddenly stop trusting the system the moment it has something dear to you in its necessary sights ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

[deleted] writes...And what does a "data centre" actually do

Converts electricity into heat, mostly :-)

Heh. Nice one centurion.

They also serve to feed the paranoid their daily conspiracy.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

I am acting in the interest that there are no mechanisms in place to stop further Governments and various groups, family or religious for that matter, adding to the filter all things that are deemed inappropriate and unwanted by their standards.

Uh, that would be "our standards", not "their standards". Our elected government consists of fellow citizens of Oz; we are all in this together. Our elected government represents the general business and community and society interests of our country and when it fails to sufficiently do so, it is replaced by a new government consisting yet again of fellow citizens of Oz, but this time hopefully more inline with what the majority/consensus of our population what for our country and future.

As my blog shows (down to a complete list of order of my federal election preferences), I didn't vote in the government we currently have, and I'll no doubt be casting my vote against them next time around as well. However, I recognise that the voters of Oz put them into power this time around (and placed me into a minority) so I'll support this government in what I personally feel it is getting right, and whinge and moan about what I personally feel it is getting wrong – just like I do with any Oz government.

Generally, we elect our governments so we can prosper as a people, nation, and society; we put our trust in them (with the right checks and balances) to have a vision for our future and methods to get us there – methods that might even seem unpopular or inconvenient in the short term.

Without a vision though, we perish. I reckon that we can only remain a nation of the "fair go" while most of us are in support of doing the right thing. The "fair go" has been put under threat by too many trying for the "free ride", so now is the time to re-educate by all means possible as fast as possible before "fair go" becomes not much more than a memory.

TANSTAAFL, and it is time to pay what is fairly due or be deemed something less than flattering.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

derspatz writes...How can you be sure (or even prove) that you haven't been "blinded by personal ideology and devoid of practical rational thinking" ?

Because I (and the others here) are basing *all* of our arguments upon the facts, and logic, whereas you, bernadette and conroy are resorting to scare tactics, lies, speculation and hyperbole

But you would say that, wouldn't you.

I've not seen much in the way of "facts and logic" as you've just claimed, but rather something consistently more comparable to addicts trying/using every line/excuse/justification under the sun to maintain a link/feed for their own selfish and questionable habits.

The reality is that our government is NOT out to "get you"; it is just out to make Oz a better place for everyone, especially our future as is supposed to be delivered by our children, as generally desired by no doubt the majority of our population ... especially the women of Oz (whom we would all be wise to support.)

Most of us are not going to be adversely affected one whit by ILCF. In fact, I dare say that in large (as in "some/most but not all"), anyone who IS adversely affected probably deserves to be and also probably isn't worthy of consideration.

I do believe that ILCF will only be the beginning, and the beginning of a good thing at that (and one that stands to make ISPs a lot of money when they truly realise the potential and get onboard), especially when the untold millions who have been busy parasiting instead of paying are at last forced to either cough up or log off.

Complaining about alleged threats to "freedom of speech and expression" when one is really more worried about being cut off from freeby downloads and/or questionable material, is hardly going to see one taken all that seriously. Yet what do we have in this forum ? Thousands of messages about how free unclean feeds are going to suffer and how one might get around the blockage and maintain free links to the pollutants and stolen © material, etc.

Yeah, SURE the authors of those kinds of messages are worried about their so called "freedom of speech". (rolls eyes again)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

I have never come across child porn in a decade of net use

I thought filtering out CP was just part of the proposed design ... ie, you've forgetting "unwanted" material.

There isn't one of us here who has never come across "unwanted material" in a decade of net use.

Obviously, what I deem to be "unwanted material" is going to differ somewhat to your idea.

So. May the majority/consensus win out on that one ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

[deleted] writes...I still don't understand how in a democracy one very vocal minority can make decisions that effect everyone around them. Just boggles the mind.

Yes its Bloody Scary isnt it??

What ? You're both kidding, right ?

ILCF is small potatoes compared to the kinds of changes and effects inflicted and wrought upon Oz society by all sorts of vocal minorities ... and unlike ILCF, rarely for the better at that.

In fact, ILCF would be part of pushing back the other way re: some of those "vocal minorities".

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

Childwise also want to record/log ALL traffic passing through an ISP level censorship system so that it can be scrutinized and, if required, actioned upon at a later date.

Sounds prudent and worth supporting. Referable archives can serve to vindicate just as well as they can to condemn.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

What about your self-interest?

That a reference to my blog ?

Keep your beliefs and values private!

You first.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

Question for you: The Government could have tried all manner of things to protect children. Why, out of all of those things, is this one the one that's worth supporting?

Pure straw Mark, and you know it. This is not "The One" ... it is but one of a constantly necessary continuing and evolving many. The Anti-ILCF crowd just want to make it "the one", because of the unhealthy, unrealistic, and blinkered view they have of their sacred cow; the internut.

I doubt if anyone in here is really worried about losing a voice (regardless of what they might choose to vocalise). At most I reckon it is all merely the worry that they may be personally cut off or inconvenienced in access to their chosen anti-social poisons and/or forced to actually start paying for what they consume for a change.

In short, I reckon near everyone who is presenting themselves as being anti-ILCF is basically acting out of self-interest.

why aren't you dissing this proposal and advocating for something better? (oh, I know, "ILCF2.0." ...

I continue to try to redirect and push against the stream for the same reasons (and self interests) as I continue to cut my nails and hair.

ie, as the need arises according to personal tolerances.

... Pre-emptively: "Get a freakin' grip, David.")

And to those who have made the internut their sacred cow and dogmatically (and with all the conviction of a standard Fanatical Religious Zealot) seek to preserve its current incarnation no matter what the cost or reason, I ButOfCourse retort "Get a life ..."

Yet I'm deemed to be the Bad Guy because I happen to think it would be a great idea to drink from a clean stream and have peace on earth with goodwill shared/given by all. (rolls eyes)

A tolerance of "anything goes" is never going to deliver either.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

What a dumb uneducated mole. Totally blinded by personal ideology and devoid of practical rational thinking. Totally the worst type of person to be running this or any agenda, but totally expected. People like her make my blood boil.

LOL. Cheers for the giggle. Obviously examples of Pots calling Kettles Black are good for my blood circulation. The truth is that if this concerned lady happened to share your view you would be singing her praises and updating the wiki.

How can you be sure (or even prove) that you haven't been "blinded by personal ideology and devoid of practical rational thinking" ?

When it comes down to "individual wants" vs "community needs", shouldn't the latter generally be favoured regardless of all manner of conflicting "practical rational thinking" and logic streams used to define and justify both positions ?

Especially when the welfare of our future, ie, The Children, is the ruling issue.

In short, shouldn't the welfare of the children in your community be deemed far more important than your individualistic wants ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

I'm pretty sure my wife would prefer me to "lust" after a picture of a woman who lives on the other side of the planet, rather than the woman next door.

Surely she would prefer you to be lusting after her alone ... and I don't see much point in pretending/lying about being with someone when one's heart is obviously elsewhere.

"What the eye can't see, the heart can't grieve".

I believe that might be from one of the TV adverts for ILCF. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

_More than_ 99% of any ACMA blacklist is not going to be illegal – everyone here knows that!

The general public doesn't know that – and desperately needs to find out.

Once again, many if not most of the so called "general public" aren't really going to care at all just as long as they can still get the TV guide, lotto results, footy scores, do some ebay and banking, and get a local weather report.

Add to that all the women who would pragmatically be glad for nearly any reason at all for their husbands, partners, kids, etc to be spending less time plugged in and more time "as a family" or doing things with them and before long all you are really left with are all the usual suspects that add up to a minority not really worth worrying that much about.

Your sacred cow is not theirs nor mine and nor is it ever likely to be, so I think the "desperately needs to find out" angle is quite inaccurate, for "they" are probably not in the slightest bit interested in even respecting (let alone protecting) your sacred cow.

You know how prolly most of us in here have no time for the many kinds of door-knockers who come around and bang on our doors to try and get us to join up with their version of Reality ?

Why should the anti-ILCF zealots be treated any differently ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

I agree with Jary and a number of others posting in here that "the religion" angle being repeatedly tossed into the mix by a particular few, is at most only tenuously linked with the subject of ILCF being discussed here.

I reckon a stronger argument could be given for women, mothers, grannies, wives, girlfriends being more likely to be in support of ILCF and a whole lot more besides if it meant that their partners, husbands, boyfriends, children would have less reason to spend so much time glued to a computer monitor and instead being giving them (The Women) more attention or doing "together" and "family" type things – or just getting outside and building a tree-house or something.

I suspect that virtually ALL guys in here with wives or girlfriends know darn well that more often than not their partner wishes they were not "online" so much. I bet many of those wives and girlfriends would be a whole lot happier if a whole bunch of "unwanted" information was less likely to be viewable by their partners too.

I reckon most Oz women not only wouldn't give a hair-flick about "internet censorship" in terms of Computer Nerdy Geek types saying "it's a bad thing", but also would probably be in somewhat support of it when it comes to their loved ones and love interests.

Sure, religiously (and predictably) draw your long bows against "Religion" if that is what makes you happy, but realistically, I reckon your wives, mums, girlfriends, and daughters are more likely to be in favour of Net Censorship regardless of which kind of faith they belong to.

Especially when it comes to pr0n.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Published a couple of hours ago on the APCMAG site. Way too much data to cross-post into here, so here is the link and intro.

[quote]
http://apcmag.com/why_iinet_will_probably_lose_the_piracy_lawsuit.htm

Why iiNet will probably lose the piracy lawsuit

Dan Warne22 November 2008, 12:41 AM

A look at the Copyright Act suggests the movie
and TV industry have an unfortunately strong case
against iiNet. PLUS: Read the court documents yourself.
[/quote]

and

[quote]
the Copyright Act makes clear that an infringement doesn’t need to be proven first in order for an ISP to be liable for allowing it to happen. The group of movie studios suing iiNet are represented by the same lawyer (Michael Williams of Gilbert+Tobin) who sued Kazaa and won, and also successfully sued Stephen Cooper and his ISP E-Talk Communications for the MP3s4free.net website.

In those lawsuits, the industry didn't have to prove the copyright infringements were taking place before it sued the providers — the court accepted evidence during the cases of the infringements.

Unfortunately for iiNet, the law is angled in favour of copyright holders, not ISPs.
[/quote]

Which ever way you want to look at it, with ILCF being brought into play from our elected government side of things, and Big Business bringing legal pressures to bear from their copyright infringements and profit-loss side of things, it certainly doesn't look like a very good time to be a traditional sort of ISP at the moment.

Seems to me that ISPs interested in maintaining profits and avoiding fines etc, are going to have to learn to jump through a whole new bunch of hoops in the near future.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

When are we going to start holding Energex responsible for providing the electricity which makes this all possible?

Electricity production is a State affair isn't it ... and how much of it is foriegn owned at that ?

Better idea is to hit the actual telcos for what they mule ... but not before telstra has been totally sold off.

OTOH, here is another idea I shared on another forum re: another method of ILCF that could be done if Whirlpool is correct in what they say here:

From: http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=WP_Censorship

[QUOTE]
Censorship & Freedom of Speech

Under Australian law, the only protected form of speech is that of a political nature, and even then, it's only protected from governmental interference. Private entities can not, by definition, be guilty of censorship. Whirlpool is a private web site – owned and operated by an individual.

In short, you have no "freedom of speech" on Whirlpool, nor is the cry of "censorship" at all valid.

In the interest of fairness and balance, as well as to help focus and improve quality of discussion, there is a team of moderators who have the ability to remove posts and threads from the public eye. There are many legitimate reasons for a moderator to remove comments, which are outlined elsewhere in the Forum Rules.
[/QUOTE]

My idea for better ILCF based on the above ?

"So, a simple solution for The Government of Oz re: controlling the internut would be to buy back Telstra and out-compete/banish all foreign intrusions into Oz communications by making access to the Public Owned Telstra communication system free for all domestic telephone and net access.

Then, after the public are well and truly addicted to the freeness of it all, blat/block to hearts content anything muled about on the infrastructure and delivered via url, etc, and not have to worry the slightest about any "waa, waa, waa"ing from the public plugged into the free communications, because after all, if it ain't political speech it has no protection anyway."

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Don't quote me on this, but I remember hearing something that under the copyright act, it is illegal to bypass a protection scheme. If the filter goes into law, couldn't that be applied to it, since the filter would be a legal protection scheme, as much as we all hate it?

If so, then let's go one better. What happens when little Joey deliberately circumvents the filter and little Joe's mum catches him and complains. Will the ISP be held accountable for allowing the filter to be circumvented ?

Also (but not related) assume that after ILCF is trialed and implemented, a mum walks in on her little Johnny one day just as he has finished receiving via msn or some such program, a little home-movie made by little Jenny at school – a webcam movie she was sucked into making by little Jeffrey at the same school coz she thought they were, "like, in [heart] like 4eva", but really he was just stringing her along so he could get the goods and then share it with his mates.

"but ILCF was supposed to stop this, wasn't it", waa every mum and dad who learns of the story, and but of course a number of the mums and dads go and see the police and see who can be arrested about all of this, and also see their lawyers to see who they can sue for damages about it too.

ATM, who can get arrested and who can get sued over such a (not unlikely) scenario ?

I've got a feeling that our elected governments would far prefer it if the ISPs could be held responsible on the financial side of things ...

Sure, ILCF 0.9b on its own ain't ever going to prevent the likes of the Little Jenny Show, so if "protect the children" is going to be forefront of our government's charge into achieving believable internet control for the sake of The Child, I think it only stands to reason that in the end, ISPs are going to be MADE to be responsible for the traffic of a lot more than mere url/web data.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

better education to bring people up better

Agreed Kj ... trouble is we are talking about Oz here. As a nation, we can barely be trusted to do the right thing by our pets (how many unregistered and non de-sexed cats and dogs running around out there ?) and neighbours (both in the homes near us, and in the vehicles sharing the roads with us).

Add to that the pity poor state the standard education of our children and youth is and it soon becomes apparent that the main educational options available in the short term consist of a national Intervention coupled with a figurative purgative followed by an enforced better diet and supervised activities until new behaviours have been learned and trust earned.

Yeah, like laid-back Oz is ever going to easily opt for that !

So, apply another band-aid. ILCF being but a part of it if we are going to consider ILCF on face value as opposed to looking at it through the lense of ultimately being used to protect the profits of Big Business and the power of Governments.

Cheers re: the song ... which should give you a better idea of how laid back I am in everything, too. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

can't whim you as you have it disabled , why is that I wonder ?

You can get the plain and simple answer to that one towards the end of the blog entry at: http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/11/internut-by-any-other-name.html in a section between the tags: "[Overly Offensive Mode] ... [/Overly Offensive Mode] found towards the end.

In short, I'm not interesting in entertaining privately sent anonymous cowardly abuse either here nor on any blog, etc, and so do not have "Private Mail", nor "Whims", nor "Comments" enabled for forum and blog participation.

Deem it to be a form of pro-active filtering.

See, I'm not just about our Government trying to do the filtering for us via ILCF ... I am happy to put into place my own filters as well – as do the many of us who use filters like Ad blockers, Pop-up blockers, Firewalls, Spyware Blocker/scanners, Anti-virus scanners, spam-guards, etc, etc, etc.

There is always room for one more filter and I can't see that changing regardless of ILCF 0.9b ... not that anyone is actually thinking that ILCF is going to be the all-powerful magic bullet.

Tis just another filter, and just like all the other filters we do, it will get some things very right and other things very wrong.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

If someone goes to an illegal site (not unwanted) they go to JAIL. So we don't need a filter for that.

Better to build a better Net than yet more jails. Probably cheaper for the Oz tax-payer, too.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

And since 'spatz hasn't bothered responding to the question, I'll ask it again...

Uh, if I didn't respond to it before because of its trolling and hijacking nature (which was appropriately dealt with by WP moderation) then there is little point in you asking it again, one would think.

If you are so interested in taking the discussion into areas that are beyond the generally approved and typical tolerance levels of most users and moderators at WP, then perhaps you should find a suitable alt group or something to sound off in on the side.

A fair suggestion, yes ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Did it ever occur to you that the real problem for a growing number of families has more to do with state Labor governments eroding parents (and schools) rights to appropriately discipline kids.

Add the foundationless subjective morality of atheism and darwinism to your mix and you'll get no disagreement from me.

As for my more literal politics, a quick trip to: http://derspatz.blogspot.com/search/label/Election (especially the last blog entry of the four) will show you exactly who I voted for in the last Federal Election and give you a fair clue as to why.

Hint. I didn't (nor have ever) voted Labor [1], nor ever likely to. That being said, apparently a majority of Oz wanted Krudd and Co over all others, so as an Oz tax-paying citizen I am obliged, until the next election, to support to a reasonable degree Who The People wanted to tell them what to do for the next year or two.

Please don't confuse my support of our current Government's aim to try and tackle, by using ILCF, certain illegalities (etc) on the internut, as being some sort of approval of typical Labor politics or wish to retain that particular party in power for more than one moment than can be avoided.

Just like compulsory unionism, I've always seen the Labor party as being a boil on the back-side of progress and I am yet to see good reason to change my mind on that short of being worked over by the kinds of lazy bullying thugs who love compulsory unionism and/or the Labor party.

Are we clear now on my politics ? Anyway, once again, aren't we drifting somewhat from the subject of ILCF and the need for it ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

How about we neuter everyone and ban children. That would fix all of these problems in an efficient and quick manner.

Heh. I'm inclined to agree. Deem http://www.vhemt.org included ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Many years ago when I was a kid, I cracked my father's bios password used to keep me from gaining beyond "post boot" :)

So it is pretty safe to say that there will always be kids who will be rebellious and disobedient and disrespectful of their parent's wishes and guidance, regardless of how hard their parent's work to keep them on the straight and narrow.

All the more reason to add yet more layers of inconvenience in the hope to at very least slow these kinds of children down and offer yet another way of policing and guiding them for the sake of us all.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

I'd just like to put a few questions out to supporters of the filter (yeah i'm looking at you derspatz).

See anything you like ? :)

- When the goal is supposedly "protecting the children" why is it that the silver bullet is to create a fantastically magic list of webpages to block. How many cases of 'grooming' have you heard of that take place on non-chat based webpages?

Bound to be addressed with ILCF 2.0b, don't you think ?

Websites discussing or giving advice for Social issues – Should support be given to the notion that certain 'social issues' such as websites designed to educate the young about homosexuality, abortion websites that give advice to teenagers or as one senator is pushing for, a block on websites that promote gambling.

Uh, what is the question here ? Happy to try and answer if you could try and clarify exactly what it is your are intending to ask here.

Supervision at home – Is it not the responsibility of the parent to monitor and control the usage of their child's internet? Does education not start in the home?

Yup ... but even just watching "Today Tonight" demonstrated that there is a growing number of families out there whose parents are failing their children and the positive future of Oz in every way.

Should the government intervene at other levels of potential exposure to "unwanted" material in the home?

Tis standard of those who want Left Wing Governments, to want more Government involvement in everyone's lives, and standard of those who want Right Wing Governments, to want minimal Government involvement in everyone's lives. We generally get what the majority vote for ... and guess what was more voted for this time around ?

If they're not capable of monitoring their child's internet usage how are they to monitor anything else they do around the home?

So you are arguing FOR Government Intervention now ?

False positives – In the case of false positives how would they be taken off and how quickly could they be taken off? What would the government do in the case where a website unintentionally put on the list lost business, Would they be compensated for loss of business? Or would it be "too bad too sad".

Details, details. When I was in the USofA in 2003 and trying to make light of "The Patriot Act", one thing that was made clear to me is that "we all need to do our part", even if it brings personal inconvenience.

What makes you so special or your business so special that you should be excused from something we all should be sharing the burden of/for ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

The "good men"? Where are they?

[edit] removed veiled ad hominem

Maybe you can stop child abuse at Aboriginal communities up north? Now there is a worthy cause for you.

Actually, I regularly (as in "on a monthly basis") put my own money behind all sorts of charitable causes, and nearly all of which are of some benefit one way or another to our indigenous brethren. How about you ?

Anyway, wasn't it just the other year that it was deemed necessary to stage an "intervention" for our remote brothers and sisters in relation to communities being destroyed by nearly a lawless society created out of too ready access to illcohol and pr0n ?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander don't you think ? If we're going to deny our remote brothers and sisters what has proven to be disasterously bad for them, then shouldn't we also be willing to make similar sorts of sacrifices etc in order to save ourselves ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

I just found a site that should be put onto the blacklist: http://derspatz.blogspot.com

What I found on this site is very disturbing.

Then stay away from http://derspatz.webng.com then ... particularly http://derspatz.webng.com/feelings.htm :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

regarDS

Figures that you wouldn't bother addressing /forum-replies.cfm?t=1089849&p=25#r497

I actually herring it earlier today for its blatant attempts to troll/hijack/take the thread off topic.

As I suggested in my earlier message to that, trying to distract things by throwing up "religious this" and "religious that" and similar such "us and them" thinking, isn't going to be serving the subject very well at all.

So how about you quit trying to take us all down that path, [deleted] ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

derspatz writes...About time those kinds of the holes in The Net got sewn up.

What?

All 65536 of them?

Who knows just how the ISPs will sew them up when legally required to do so, but I'm sure there is an ISP type employee or two in these forums who can tell you a way or two as to how it could be done if the ISPs really had to do it or face being closed down or fined to pieces.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Is it coincidence that IINet, who have been very outspoken about Internet Censorship, is being sued by the film companies?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-pirates-put-iinet-in-the-dock/2008/11/20/1226770617457.html

Not so much coincidence as long over due action.

About time those kinds of the holes in The Net got sewn up. Maybe more/better prevention of the illegal obtaining of legal information might take some of the load off and speed it all up for us all, too.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

everyone will be asking if someone has a saved page of the reference your looking for and they will sell it to you for a price, looks a like a new ecomerce business idea that could make someone lots of money

Now you are really thinking "outside the filter". :) Progress is being made as to not allowing ILCF to be so much of negative.

Which reminds me, has anyone told Senator Conroy about "usenet", "newsgroups" and "binaries" ?

Another "ooops" for The Filterers, eh ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

TANSTAAFL,

i dont speak israeli so i dont know that term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", popularized by science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein in his 1966 novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"

"TANSTAAFL means that a person or a society cannot get something for nothing. Even if something appears to be free, there is always a cost to the person or to society as a whole even though that cost may be hidden or distributed"

Well worth a read as a reasonable education re: politics and how to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical Government. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

derspatz writes...I doubt if ILCF is going to negatively impact on my day to day internut use in the slightest.

and if it did ?

Part of the acceptable price one has to pay in order to protect the rights of the children (yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll deem that quote of Rabbi Daniel Lapin's, as so frequently mis-used and mis-attributed in here, already included by way of reply) and the interests of Big Businesses that help sustain our economies.

TANSTAAFL, and for too long too many have been trying to eat for free at the expense of the rest of us. ILCF is but a small part of bringing about a more controlled user-pays system, among other things.

So my short answer is "fine by me".

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

'Young people' do what they want on the net, and nobody will stop that. Not governments, not schools, not parents, nobody. We are not idiots like Senator Conroy thinks we are. We know about Tor, We know about UltraSurf, we know about anonymous proxies, we know about VPNs. And those who don't will be taught by people with a level of knowledge like my own – and people like me are hardly in short supply.

So what are you worried about ? Apparently, just like with me, neither ILCF nor Senator Conroy nor FF are going to negatively impact your day to day internut use either.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Let me draw you attention once again to the ACMA Blacklist:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/webmaster/ACMA.PNG

What a pretty picture. Who made that and for whom ?

99+% of the material to be blacklisted will not actually be illegal!

How can you justify and defend such blatent prudishness?

I've not actually been given any kind of example on non illegal prudishness, but as I've said before, I doubt if ILCF is going to negatively impact on my day to day internut use in the slightest.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

there are far too many Good Financial Reasons for ILCF

Such as?

Such as the ones listed in the message where I wrote that.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

You seem to think that it's going to remove the stuff from the net entirely

No I don't, and nor do I think ILCF is going to do a perfect job of keeping "unwanted" stuff out of every home everywhere in Oz – and my many contributions in these threads should have made that sentiment clear by now.

If they want to clean up the net, spend more on law enforcement who can track down and shut down these sites

I reckon "do both". Track down what can be tracked down and shut down what can be shut down, BUT ALSO filter what can be filtered. The problem is multi-faceted and so it isn't unreasonable to assume that the solutions employed will have to be too.

that ultimately is going to help favour the profits of Big Business as well as putting the Government in more favour when it comes to families and families of traditional faith

"Big Business" isn't going to benefit at all, since most businesses have things like this which sit between the net connection and filter things as well as managing antivirus, antispyware, antispam and so on.

The context of "Big Business" as I've been using it, is not so much to do with people at work being unable to access certain material, but rather the Businesses themselves not wanting the general public to have such free and unfettered non-profit giving access to what is their property/information that they have spent good money to obtain or develop in order to sell in one way or another.

Such as (I've mentioned a number of times) the News Media and the Music and Film industries. Etc.

Sure, ILCF isn't aimed at protecting the business of those Big Businesses right off the bat but you can bet your favorite P2P software that it is rightfully on the agenda for further down the track.

Which brings me back to my point that the opponents of ILCF aren't just up against the likes of FF and most married mothers with children, it is up against some prime big businesses who have very little to lose and lots to gain by a better control and regulation of information on The Net.

Which in turn convinces me that the opponents of ILCF are backing a losing horse; there are far too many Good Financial Reasons for ILCF than against it from the POV of Big Businesses who are currently losing money that could easily be gained by the introduction of suitable filtering and controls.

regarDS

[EDIT] Spelling.

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Edit: Original Message Deleted. No point. I shouldn't have responded to an obvious attempt at a Troll. Please delete.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

derspatz writes...I'm suggesting that one should rise above it ... "let the dead bury the dead", and all that.

Yeah, because not getting involved works out so well...

That would depend on whether something is actually worth getting involved with. The internut in its current form is your sacred cow, not mine, and while it remains so broken, so out of control, so misused and abused, so much like a virtual Babylon and cesspit rather than clean and beautiful Eden, (etc, etc), I for one am not going to deem it worthy of involving myself in keeping it that way ... I'll deem the "Clean the Stream" mop up crews the more worthy of involvement with and support of.

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

The "good men" are doing something; they are working on cleaning the stream and flushing the mire and disease and corruption away for the benefit of the whole community.

Tis a tough job (and obviously not popular for everyone) and I don't expect them to get it right straight off the bat, but that is not to say that the attempt and efforts should not be made at all.

Status quo is up against Big Businesses such as the News Media, Music and Film Industry, "Working Families" everywhere (especially children and the mother's of children), citizens of traditional faiths, and a Government who is historically more interested in protecting the profits (and taxes from) Big Businesses and Families over a small minority of selfish singles who although might protest about loss of rights that have neither been defined nor earned, are actually/realistically/selfishly more interested in maintaining links into the kinds of materials that either they ought not to, or at very least should be paying what is due for.

Who/what do you think is going to win when the situation is presented in those terms ?

ILCF phase one probably IS the thin end of the wedge that ultimately is going to help favour the profits of Big Business as well as putting the Government in more favour when it comes to families and families of traditional faiths.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

OK, so here's the full letter I'll send off to Rudd's office today.

Mr. Rudd,

Etc. You probably should have used "PM" or "Prime Minster" there ... giving respect where it is due and all that (regardless of whether you voted for him or not. Manners and all that) but at a guess, that kind of letter is getting a bit long to get much in the way of attention or reply.

Be interested in what you get back but long experience has shown me that long-windedness gets one nowhere.

I said "shown", not "taught" or "learned". :)

Better 5 short letters sent, each covering part of the topic, than one single letter sent trying to cover the whole subject.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

In case you want to change things on the other hand if you don't vote in Australia you can get fined.

That might not be the case for too much longer as there is a new push for voluntary voting and believe it or not, it is actually coming from some pollies !

BTW, voluntary voting typically favours conservative parties, yes ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

so your saying the Mp's and senators are lazy and dont really care, why do we bother voting for them then, its all a waste of time isnt it ?

Not too far off from what is basically my view. Add a bit of "acting out of self-interest" (which can take many forms, including some good ones) and we've nearly got the whole golem animated.

are you suggesting that we should just accept the nanny state scenario and just shut up about any opposition towards it and give up ?

I'm suggesting that one should rise above it and not get too sucked into wallowing around in the stink with the floaters.

"let the dead bury the dead", and all that.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

So the week before last I rang my local MP Mr Peter Lindsay and was told to put my feelings in writing.

I did so and also emailed his office and heard nothing.

Etc, etc.

I don't understand why this sort of thing surprises you. At very least, doesn't the way you and most of your work mates approach their own jobs and virtually everyone you have ever observed in Oz in the way they go about their business, give you a fair idea of how the pollies and their offices go about theirs ?

There is no conspiracy – it all boils down to whatever the minimum is to get the necessary job done, and very little more on top of that.

We've elected a PM who (when not busy throwing away our surplus) likes to watch (as opposed to "do"), and cultivated a number of generations who not only see welfare as a right but also still whine and moan about it (let alone show the slightest bit of responsiblity towards contributing in any positive and useful way to our society). Is it any wonder that the rest of us have given up caring all that much any more ... what is left to care all that much about anyway ?

Our nation not only has become a Nanny state, but it now both needs and expects it.

Hence both the cause and necessity for ILCF or something like it.

Squeaking to your local member will only get you the kind of oil they mistakenly think you need ... you'd probably fair better at getting water from rocks than actually what you want from getting in the faces of pollies.

It's just another job after all – and one typically done badly.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Jeff's family is typical middle class double income and his parents take their parenting role seriously. Gary's parents, on the other hand, are complete yobbos and, when they're not blowing thier welfare cheque down at the TAB, they're sitting at home in front of the TV with beer in one hand and bong in the other.

So why are Jeff's parents letting their child hang out at Gary's parent's, again ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

We don't allow racists (a minority) dictate the policies of the country, why should we allow religious fundies to do the same?

Because unlike the racists (who are always arguing from a nonsense POV because of the fact that humanity consists of but one race; homo-sapien), the so called mis-named "religious fundies" are right ... and you are wrong ? :)

How about we leave all the "us and them" out of the discussion, hmmm ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

HAhaha Lol i was sent a link from a mate who edited the wikipedia page with conroy to show rather um dirty pictures that he photoshopped :P

Uh, I'd be quite shocked if most of us in here didn't think that such vandals are deemed to be the similar sort of scum of the earth that graffiti vandals and bus/train window scratchers are.

Tis for those kinds of people that the acronym "FOAD" was prolly invented.

Lowest of low, isn't funny, should never be encouraged, and shame on those who do it or encourage it or give approval to it.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Anyone anti Filter were very quickly cut off.

Which should go a long way to informing you why, if not ILCF gets up, SOMETHING will.

Big business, especially business in relation to news media and the music/film industry, who also usually share a bed with The Government in order to get what they want, are ALL for Controlling teh interwub (:compromise, anyone ? :)

The pr0n angle is just a pragmatic means to an ends and a mere low down plat in a whip with a sting end you are yet to see.

The News media are faced with dwindling sales and advertising opportunities as their print form sales diminish and their online content goes out for free, so But Of Course they would like to see The Net being far more easier to control and extract an easy penny from.

The Music scene is continually suffering from p2p/sharing/piracy so would also love to see a more controllable Web in order to better extract what they rightfully feel is due them.

Same again with the film/visual media industries.

Ah, but you're never going to sell a filter to the masses by talking about controlling that sort of stuff – far better to sell it by talking about what at least most FEMALE members of a family want for their family. ie, making it hard for their children and HUSBANDS etc to access pr0n.

Take it as read that the FF (whom I voted for and agree with here and there) would ultimately like to (rightfully) see ALL pr0n removed from Oz eyes whether it be via the internut or via magazines in the news agents, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are a Yay crowd being ILCF ... and I reckon "Good on 'em" for it too.

So, what do we have ?

We have most normal/general families wanting to protect their families from the ready access to pr0n, and we have big businesses wanting to stop their profits being pirated away, and we have The Government which wants to keep the most number of voters happy whilst also keeping Big Businesess happy and making taxable profits, and maybe even helping make our society a nicer/better/safer thing.

Which generally translates back to "you lot waa, waa, waaing" about ILCF are baracking for the losing side".

While there is money to be made (that is currently being lost) out of The Net, and pressure on The Government to be seen to be making things better for "Working Families and their children", you're going to remain on a hiding to nothing and in fact are more likely to attact negative attention in the long run.

Yes, we all know that to begin with, the ILFC isn't going to help (or target in favour of) the Big Businesses I mentioned – but once the system/software is in ...

"unwanted material" ? Unwanted by whom. Big business ?

Bah, leave the internut to those wanting to make money out of it ... let's go back to something free and sociable and only use th McWeb when we actually need to, and even then, never in
support of it making money for someone else.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

The problem is centralised communication networks are far too easy to be taken over, subverted to the will of a government or other authority.

Exactly my point from way back in the piece.

I see the concept of the "internet" evolving, either with a greater effort to undermine government control, or with cheaper, more powerful transceiver, individuals seeking to make their own internet.

Ditto.

What about the days of BBS? An enterprising fella living on a hill could roll out their own wireless BBS, charge a access fee and start rolling out small leased line circuits connecting to other like minded types.

For our W.A. participants, a visit to http://www.wafreenet.org
and http://www.e3.com.au (Hi JJ) may be in order to see (and even participate in) what chugs is talking about.

Sometimes the way forward is to back-track a bit, with the keys to the future to be found in the past.

However, I personally reckon that if an individual has something to fear and/or lose some access to thanks to ILCF, then they were probably up to no good in the first place. I really can't see it affecting any of my Browsing and internut habits other than in a mostly positive way.

WWJB ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

I just realised my art portfolio could be banned because it's hosted at DA DeviantArt.

Could be false positive under filters

Or correctly filtered based on the subjectively/complaint based "unwanted" list, depending on how hand in hand various big business Art House types are with the prevailing Government and how strong the desire of both are in relation to stamping out independants and rogues.

Just like with the news media, music industry, and film distributors etc.

Tis plain to see what sort of things are going to end up in the "unwanted" basket – and who will be making the efforts to have them put in that basket ... and I reckon that the likes of FF are the LEAST of your concerns in that regard.

As for being filtered, I had my first "google has hidden/removed one search result due to content reported as being illegal by complaint system" type message the other day.

Interestingly enough, I was searching the word "internut" (and discovered that folk have been using it for a long, long, LONG time) but I've just gone back to search for it again so I could get the exact text to quote in here of the message google presented at the bottom of the results list, and it no longer appears for that particular search.

Anyone else ever got that kind of message and can still duplicate it so we can all take a look at what it looks like ?

Anyway, I suspect a similar sort of messaging system will be used when ILCF is brought in.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

It's going to stop the ATO from collecting funds and/or add immense costs to everyone meeting ATO obligations.

I doubt it. The current ATO portal/certificate system for BAS and PAYG etc if not merely "whitelisted" is destined to be taken to a new level down the track as per usual "keeping up with technology", anyway.

If anything, the client/ATO relationship is probably easier and better (and now a long way from the "us and them" of old – tis just like doing online banking these days) than it has ever been thanks to the portal system, and I for one can only see it getting even better regardless of ILCF.

(Some) banks already offer business clients VPN/securid token access ... maybe this is the path the ATO may take in the long run as well. Dunno, don't care, I just reckon that the ATO will remain on their current path of making it as easy and cost effective as possible for Oz income earners to pay their taxes.

Still, feel free to count "the ATO won't be able to easily collect taxes" as one of the arguments against ILCF ... :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

My work is all about computer programs/algorithms, and how best to solve problems via logical code via observation of biology

Seems to me to be the way mankind usually comes up with the best solutions for most of our self created problems. Back engineer and plagiarize someone else's imaginative design.

So I think you are guarenteed a win there CP, for the ground work is already done and mostly only a better understanding of it required.

perhaps you are against my data mining techniques to discovering a cure to every cancer that has plagued humans?

Not at all. Go for it if that is what makes you happy. I have a more "the clock is winding down" attitude and approach to existance though and feel that there will only be more and more requirement for the increase of medical knowledge (etc) just to coax each new iteration/generation out of us before humanity becomes not all that different from Daleks in terms of melding decrepit flesh with artificial means of keeping it going.

Anyway, perhaps a better "internet" AND filter for the same could be built if we compared the web to our own nervous and circulatory systems and modelled accordingly ?

regarDS