derspatz writes...Admittedly, in their worlds free of spam,
that system assumes that people care what others think of them.
the fact that known spammers (and criminals) continue to spam
Oh, I should have described it a little better. At least one of the mentioned authors described in detail the fictional email/messaging system that made spam all but impossible. Once again, it involved everyone having their own permanent implant id/email address and no such thing as an anon id, nor the ability to create bogus ones. As the sending of anything was all biometrically linked, the only way a spammer could get their message out without giving themselves away, was to drug and kidnap someone and use their interface ... but in a world of constant passive surveillance etc, etc, etc, it wasn't worth the trouble.
Anyway, do you think we are going to end up with similar sorts of communication systems described in popular sci-fi ? Do you think we will end up opting for implants in relation to ID, debit/credit, network/voip access and the like ? Actually RFID implants for ID and debit/credit are already being used here and there if you care to look it up ... so how long before it is far more common along with imbedded mobile phone type devices that are also linked into the web to skype over to anywhere it can be tapped into ?
I reckon it and a whole lot more is all closer than we might imagine. No wonder the Power That Be want to try and get in with a level of greater control now ...
regarDS
Friday, October 31, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
he was responding to derspatz who can only get 256/64
I can get whatever speed I want, 256/64 is all I'm prepared to pay for, and I mainly only did that so the phone was freed up for my partner to use. I'm just not driven to keep up with the latest and greatest while it still isn't all that great.
regarDS
I can get whatever speed I want, 256/64 is all I'm prepared to pay for, and I mainly only did that so the phone was freed up for my partner to use. I'm just not driven to keep up with the latest and greatest while it still isn't all that great.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
So how do you propose the new internet without any control from ISPs or government will make people safer?
Policy4 ? :)
Actually, I more prefer the ideas on the subject by authors Ian M. Banks and Peter F. Hamilton, and truth be told, I've no memory of ever reading Gibson.
Admittedly, in their worlds free of spam, with complete free'n'easy access to any sort of information at any time (including pr0n), a lot of historical/traceable data retained in worlds having much in the way of passive surveillance and wet-ware identification systems rendering anonymity pointless and impractical considering a lack of non electronic legal tender, all makes for illegal behaviour somewhat difficult to get away with.
Which works as a great deterrent ... well, at least in print.
No point asking me the details on how it will be done, for I too am mostly one of those useless consumers along for the ride these days. I really would love to see the end of our reliance on ISPs and telcos though.
[whole bunch of probably unworkable ideas typed in then deleted ... maybe another time]
regarDS
Policy4 ? :)
Actually, I more prefer the ideas on the subject by authors Ian M. Banks and Peter F. Hamilton, and truth be told, I've no memory of ever reading Gibson.
Admittedly, in their worlds free of spam, with complete free'n'easy access to any sort of information at any time (including pr0n), a lot of historical/traceable data retained in worlds having much in the way of passive surveillance and wet-ware identification systems rendering anonymity pointless and impractical considering a lack of non electronic legal tender, all makes for illegal behaviour somewhat difficult to get away with.
Which works as a great deterrent ... well, at least in print.
No point asking me the details on how it will be done, for I too am mostly one of those useless consumers along for the ride these days. I really would love to see the end of our reliance on ISPs and telcos though.
[whole bunch of probably unworkable ideas typed in then deleted ... maybe another time]
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Enjoying your glorified dial up?
It serves, [deleted], it serves.
regarDS
It serves, [deleted], it serves.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
did I miss anything?
Yes, how about if everyone goes to VPNing and the filters are left guarding a figurative empty cell ?
The Government will be happy enough because they will be able to say they did everything they could/was expected of them, and move on to doing the next thing on the list required to keep their voters onboard.
At the end of the day, Senator Conroy only wants to look good so he keeps his job for as long as he can and take home the biggest guarenteed super/benfits package at the end of it all ...
regarDS
Yes, how about if everyone goes to VPNing and the filters are left guarding a figurative empty cell ?
The Government will be happy enough because they will be able to say they did everything they could/was expected of them, and move on to doing the next thing on the list required to keep their voters onboard.
At the end of the day, Senator Conroy only wants to look good so he keeps his job for as long as he can and take home the biggest guarenteed super/benfits package at the end of it all ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
derspatz writes...The Hebrew letters engraved into the very ring I'm always wearing, Maniac. :)
hehe this is the hebrew letters i have לנשוך את התחת שלי
Ouch, I bet that was unpleasant to have tattooed. :)
Shalom
hehe this is the hebrew letters i have לנשוך את התחת שלי
Ouch, I bet that was unpleasant to have tattooed. :)
Shalom
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
This cause is useless.
When your old, you can tell your grandkids you fought to keep child porn on the net. I am sure they will appreciate that.
Bwahahaha. Post of the day I reckon.
regarDS
When your old, you can tell your grandkids you fought to keep child porn on the net. I am sure they will appreciate that.
Bwahahaha. Post of the day I reckon.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
no how are things with 256/64 ??? we want to know ...
A little bit faster than dialup if you remember what that was like, [deleted].
Anyway, isn't this proposed ISP level content filtering going to give you everything you need to know about experiencing 256/64 ? :)
regarDS
A little bit faster than dialup if you remember what that was like, [deleted].
Anyway, isn't this proposed ISP level content filtering going to give you everything you need to know about experiencing 256/64 ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Hitler video's out.
Derspatz might appreciate it because he is constantly using jewish phrases.
Don't worry...this too shall pass
The Hebrew letters engraved into the very ring I'm always wearing, [deleted]. :)
The video has at last finished downloading for me and I agree – it is a laugh and a half. Loved the "vpn" bit, and the end was perfect.
Well done, who ever it was who made that !
regarDS
Derspatz might appreciate it because he is constantly using jewish phrases.
Don't worry...this too shall pass
The Hebrew letters engraved into the very ring I'm always wearing, [deleted]. :)
The video has at last finished downloading for me and I agree – it is a laugh and a half. Loved the "vpn" bit, and the end was perfect.
Well done, who ever it was who made that !
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
DS, your inconsistencies are starting to show. First you claim you want to protect us against things that *you* don't believe we should be allowed to view or stumble across.
Then in other messages you are advocating filtering to force the creation of an uncontrollable version of the net such as William Gibson's cyberspace.
And in some messages, both, whilst also maintaining a view that while our elective government can try and control that which is illegal both online and offline, it should, for it is obliged to. Where is the "I" in any of that richary ?
Also, there is no inconsistency for my views are not mutually exclusive in terms of the overall picture and progression I am viewing this all from.
Once again, here is my personal take on this.
1) Our elected government is obliged to administer law and protection and all that when it comes to things deemed illegal.
2) This is done reasonably well (but obviously not perfectly) in our offline world, and I for one as a citizen of Oz am glad of it and support it regardless that our elected government is not the one I voted for.
3) The internut is used extensively within Oz for all sorts of legal and illegal activity.
4) Just as it is our elected governments duty as per points 1 and 2, it similarly should apply to point 3. In other words, the same sort of regulation and application of law should apply, and as a citizen of Oz I support our elected government in their attempts.
5) I also recognise that governments are generally not to be trusted (only a fool would not think that) and as far as possible within the support of reasonable and just laws, one should never place anything too much in their control that they aren't justified in having or are likely to misuse.
6) Computer based communications are a hobby and interest of mine that goes back a long long time (was once even quite involved in radio, just like you are now) and I am in somewhat awe of what has been managed thus far in that regard in such a short period of time. I remember the days of FIDOnet when our main feeds between Oz and the USofA relied upon the donated time, effort, money, and good will of just two people; a Born Again Christian, and a (self professed) "Rampant Homosexual" as he called himself. We've certainly come a long way since so few were doing something great for so many, and I for one don't want it to stop with just what we have now regardless of what it is used for.
7) Yes, I share the dream of many that our internut be taken to Gibson cyberspace and Peter F.Hamilton and Ian M. Banks types of levels ... and beyond. Don't you ?
8) The necessary and right to attempt control that I want and support our elected government to bring to bear on our McWeb as it currently is, may well be just the kick up the arse the more clever of us (and less corporately bound) to help take this puppy to beyond the control of governments, but also AT LONG LAST less a slave to telcos and ISPs. I have a dream and I'm calling for change.
My pragmatism is consistent and I'm merely holding to more than one reason why ISP-level content filtering should be implemented.
While the nasties can be stopped, they should be ... and not only for the children – and it is ok to include "teh govamin" as one of those potential nasties. :)
Actually, I imagine there would be far more protection "for the children" in the sci-fi versions of our future net, than there is now, anyway – and I do expect it to happen sooner rather than later.
Anyway, perhaps a visit to my latest blog entry might help clarify my consistent persistent position in all of this, richary. ;)
regarDS
Then in other messages you are advocating filtering to force the creation of an uncontrollable version of the net such as William Gibson's cyberspace.
And in some messages, both, whilst also maintaining a view that while our elective government can try and control that which is illegal both online and offline, it should, for it is obliged to. Where is the "I" in any of that richary ?
Also, there is no inconsistency for my views are not mutually exclusive in terms of the overall picture and progression I am viewing this all from.
Once again, here is my personal take on this.
1) Our elected government is obliged to administer law and protection and all that when it comes to things deemed illegal.
2) This is done reasonably well (but obviously not perfectly) in our offline world, and I for one as a citizen of Oz am glad of it and support it regardless that our elected government is not the one I voted for.
3) The internut is used extensively within Oz for all sorts of legal and illegal activity.
4) Just as it is our elected governments duty as per points 1 and 2, it similarly should apply to point 3. In other words, the same sort of regulation and application of law should apply, and as a citizen of Oz I support our elected government in their attempts.
5) I also recognise that governments are generally not to be trusted (only a fool would not think that) and as far as possible within the support of reasonable and just laws, one should never place anything too much in their control that they aren't justified in having or are likely to misuse.
6) Computer based communications are a hobby and interest of mine that goes back a long long time (was once even quite involved in radio, just like you are now) and I am in somewhat awe of what has been managed thus far in that regard in such a short period of time. I remember the days of FIDOnet when our main feeds between Oz and the USofA relied upon the donated time, effort, money, and good will of just two people; a Born Again Christian, and a (self professed) "Rampant Homosexual" as he called himself. We've certainly come a long way since so few were doing something great for so many, and I for one don't want it to stop with just what we have now regardless of what it is used for.
7) Yes, I share the dream of many that our internut be taken to Gibson cyberspace and Peter F.Hamilton and Ian M. Banks types of levels ... and beyond. Don't you ?
8) The necessary and right to attempt control that I want and support our elected government to bring to bear on our McWeb as it currently is, may well be just the kick up the arse the more clever of us (and less corporately bound) to help take this puppy to beyond the control of governments, but also AT LONG LAST less a slave to telcos and ISPs. I have a dream and I'm calling for change.
My pragmatism is consistent and I'm merely holding to more than one reason why ISP-level content filtering should be implemented.
While the nasties can be stopped, they should be ... and not only for the children – and it is ok to include "teh govamin" as one of those potential nasties. :)
Actually, I imagine there would be far more protection "for the children" in the sci-fi versions of our future net, than there is now, anyway – and I do expect it to happen sooner rather than later.
Anyway, perhaps a visit to my latest blog entry might help clarify my consistent persistent position in all of this, richary. ;)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Hitler video's out.
http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=s4tsi5tzlgtt&noplay=1
Is there anything in it about sparrows/spatzen ? I'd like to commence my download of it, but you know how things are at 256/64 ... it really has to be worth the wait. :)
regarDS
http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=s4tsi5tzlgtt&noplay=1
Is there anything in it about sparrows/spatzen ? I'd like to commence my download of it, but you know how things are at 256/64 ... it really has to be worth the wait. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
This cause is useless.
Could this be another who has/is seen/seeing the light on the matter ?
regarDS
Could this be another who has/is seen/seeing the light on the matter ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
They want to control US not just child pornography or terrorist activities. They want to control the information we receive through the media and Internet.
You've got a resounding YES from me on that observation [deleted], which brings me back to my next "bigger picture" aspect of the tapestry that relates to global communications.
"The Web", which John Gilmore said "treats censorship as damage and routes around it", is becoming increasingly vulnerable to potentially crippling attacks by special interest groups (such as the Chinese Government) that in the end, won't present a pretty picture when it comes to the "route around" to "damage" ratio.
Complaining to the special interest groups to stop trying to do what they are doing isn't going to present a lasting solution.
Only changing/evolving what we have by way of global communications into something new and better will.
[deleted] reckons that I should "keep on waiting for "the next evolution of digital communication" but it won't happen in your lifetime.", but I beg to differ and with good reason.
I have already seen (and been but one tiny drop in the ocean in helping) computer based global communications become what it already has in such a relatively short period of time.
I do not for one moment think that what we have is the be all and end all. We WILL achieve so much more with it, and probably sooner rather than later if suitably motivated.
I reckon the Real Fear of those who crave and weild power is to be rendered irrelevant and without what they are so addicted to.
BTW, At the moment, I reckon it isn't just our elected government that is threatening The Net. It is also our dependance on telcos and ISPs.
regarDS
You've got a resounding YES from me on that observation [deleted], which brings me back to my next "bigger picture" aspect of the tapestry that relates to global communications.
"The Web", which John Gilmore said "treats censorship as damage and routes around it", is becoming increasingly vulnerable to potentially crippling attacks by special interest groups (such as the Chinese Government) that in the end, won't present a pretty picture when it comes to the "route around" to "damage" ratio.
Complaining to the special interest groups to stop trying to do what they are doing isn't going to present a lasting solution.
Only changing/evolving what we have by way of global communications into something new and better will.
[deleted] reckons that I should "keep on waiting for "the next evolution of digital communication" but it won't happen in your lifetime.", but I beg to differ and with good reason.
I have already seen (and been but one tiny drop in the ocean in helping) computer based global communications become what it already has in such a relatively short period of time.
I do not for one moment think that what we have is the be all and end all. We WILL achieve so much more with it, and probably sooner rather than later if suitably motivated.
I reckon the Real Fear of those who crave and weild power is to be rendered irrelevant and without what they are so addicted to.
BTW, At the moment, I reckon it isn't just our elected government that is threatening The Net. It is also our dependance on telcos and ISPs.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
[deleted] writes...What do internode, iinet and telstra have in common?
do tell please
The letters "e" and "t" ... which means they can all phone home.
regarDS
do tell please
The letters "e" and "t" ... which means they can all phone home.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
It only stands to reason that just as we seek to limit the import/export/spread of that deemed illegal in our offline world, the same should apply in our online world.
derspatz, I think you're missing the point: It's not the end we're in dissagreement with, it's the means.
That is good to know, [deleted]. I too have expressed my doubt as to the likelyhood of resounding success in relation to the ISP-Level content filtering, but it is nice to know that I'm not alone in the view that internut content in Oz should be brought into line with offline line content when it comes to illegal material and activities.
It's the means, not the end we're concerned with.
So, since we are in somewhat agreement re: ISP-Level "a bad way of doing it", what ideas do you have in how to achieve the required/desired end result ?
regarDS
derspatz, I think you're missing the point: It's not the end we're in dissagreement with, it's the means.
That is good to know, [deleted]. I too have expressed my doubt as to the likelyhood of resounding success in relation to the ISP-Level content filtering, but it is nice to know that I'm not alone in the view that internut content in Oz should be brought into line with offline line content when it comes to illegal material and activities.
It's the means, not the end we're concerned with.
So, since we are in somewhat agreement re: ISP-Level "a bad way of doing it", what ideas do you have in how to achieve the required/desired end result ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
What you do behind closed doors is nobody else's damn business.
So fire up those meth labs, cook up those explosives, pirate those DVDs, cyber-stalk Britney from school and spam bully that smart-arse kid with glasses who always does better than you in science, and browse/save for distribution on thumbdrive to your mates the latest degrading images from Europe of sex-slaved mafia kidnap victims. It's all ok, because you are doing it from behind closed doors and it is nobody else's damn business.
regarDS
So fire up those meth labs, cook up those explosives, pirate those DVDs, cyber-stalk Britney from school and spam bully that smart-arse kid with glasses who always does better than you in science, and browse/save for distribution on thumbdrive to your mates the latest degrading images from Europe of sex-slaved mafia kidnap victims. It's all ok, because you are doing it from behind closed doors and it is nobody else's damn business.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2001192.htm
KEVIN RUDD: From a Christian perspective we are custodians of the planet. We have a responsibility too ensure that those who come after us have a planet which is habitable.
Which gets back to what I was saying about our Duty of Care in relation to not only ourselves and family, but also our neighbore, communities, town, society, and nation.
"Golden Rule" kinda stuff, [deleted].
regarDS
KEVIN RUDD: From a Christian perspective we are custodians of the planet. We have a responsibility too ensure that those who come after us have a planet which is habitable.
Which gets back to what I was saying about our Duty of Care in relation to not only ourselves and family, but also our neighbore, communities, town, society, and nation.
"Golden Rule" kinda stuff, [deleted].
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Jurisdiction is never a problem
Respectfully, utter garbage, [deleted] ... and I suspect you know it.
regarDS
Respectfully, utter garbage, [deleted] ... and I suspect you know it.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
derspatz writes...No [deleted], I attend no church or stadium, warm no pew or grandstand seat (not even at xmas or grand final day), repeat no ritual/ceremony or intone some anthem/chant. About the only thing Holy to me is The Truth, and even then I jugde myself to be not worthy ...
Hang on, derspatz, now you're really going out there.
When you say, "No," you mean that your personal definition of "religious" isn't the same one that most people would understand.
I'm reply to this fully expecting moderation to make both this and your message to rightfully disappear Mark, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
That being said, my "No" is exactly as I said it. I am not religious "as most people would understand" and in fact you your self well know that I am quite anti-religion in its many forms, whether it be to do with any of the worlds major or minor Religions, or sporting activities, or Environtologists and their Church of Environtology, or the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins, or the disturbing new cult of "Obama is the Messiah" or anything else that folk to choose to blindly waste their lives and common sense being devoted to in a religious manner.
My sacred cow is to have no sacred cow, and I am a Fanatical Religious Zealot when it comes to exposing and attacking Fanatical Religious Zealotry when it darkens my path.
No point typing any more on this ... it's only going to be filtered.
regarDS
Hang on, derspatz, now you're really going out there.
When you say, "No," you mean that your personal definition of "religious" isn't the same one that most people would understand.
I'm reply to this fully expecting moderation to make both this and your message to rightfully disappear Mark, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
That being said, my "No" is exactly as I said it. I am not religious "as most people would understand" and in fact you your self well know that I am quite anti-religion in its many forms, whether it be to do with any of the worlds major or minor Religions, or sporting activities, or Environtologists and their Church of Environtology, or the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins, or the disturbing new cult of "Obama is the Messiah" or anything else that folk to choose to blindly waste their lives and common sense being devoted to in a religious manner.
My sacred cow is to have no sacred cow, and I am a Fanatical Religious Zealot when it comes to exposing and attacking Fanatical Religious Zealotry when it darkens my path.
No point typing any more on this ... it's only going to be filtered.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
He has a right to *air* those opinions, yes, but those opinions do not give him the right to determine how others live their lives.
Words fail me. Now there is a first.
regarDS
Words fail me. Now there is a first.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
derspatz writes...The McNet/internut
do you make up new words just to be annoying, or is that some sad attempt at humour?
You're not trying to stifle my imaginative/creative output there are you [deleted] ?
But since you ask, I make up new words to make the point that suits me and to help convey more succinctly in my mountains of waffle some of the more basic observations I have made and would like to convey. Cheers for only offering me two possible responses to your question, and pardon me for suggesting that there might be more than two answers possible.
Yes, I do it to convey humour and yes, I realise that some might find the words annoying ... or annoyed that they've not been so imaginative or creative. Yes, there might even be those who find humour annoying too when it comes to the apparent sacred cow that is The Web.
Oz has developed commonly agreed upon (obviously not unanimous) notions of what should be deemed illegal for the sake of the society and culture we want.
show me where there is "common" agreement on the type of things they're talking about filtering THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE FILTERED.
Surely if the idea is to make online filters match what we use as figurative offline filters in relation to material deemed illegal in both places, agreement is already a given ? As for a 100% success rate, show me where that is already being achieved in the offline world.
In short, it isn't. Mistakes are made. Similarly, mistakes will be made with the attempts to bring about law and order to the internut.
Obviously you are not suggesting that we scrap all laws and disband the police force and fire all judges because the legal system doesn't get it right every time ... so why appear to be suggesting that law and order should not be brought to your particular order of McNet just because it isn't going to get it totally right every time ?
regarDS
do you make up new words just to be annoying, or is that some sad attempt at humour?
You're not trying to stifle my imaginative/creative output there are you [deleted] ?
But since you ask, I make up new words to make the point that suits me and to help convey more succinctly in my mountains of waffle some of the more basic observations I have made and would like to convey. Cheers for only offering me two possible responses to your question, and pardon me for suggesting that there might be more than two answers possible.
Yes, I do it to convey humour and yes, I realise that some might find the words annoying ... or annoyed that they've not been so imaginative or creative. Yes, there might even be those who find humour annoying too when it comes to the apparent sacred cow that is The Web.
Oz has developed commonly agreed upon (obviously not unanimous) notions of what should be deemed illegal for the sake of the society and culture we want.
show me where there is "common" agreement on the type of things they're talking about filtering THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE FILTERED.
Surely if the idea is to make online filters match what we use as figurative offline filters in relation to material deemed illegal in both places, agreement is already a given ? As for a 100% success rate, show me where that is already being achieved in the offline world.
In short, it isn't. Mistakes are made. Similarly, mistakes will be made with the attempts to bring about law and order to the internut.
Obviously you are not suggesting that we scrap all laws and disband the police force and fire all judges because the legal system doesn't get it right every time ... so why appear to be suggesting that law and order should not be brought to your particular order of McNet just because it isn't going to get it totally right every time ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
stop accusing those who decide not to reply to you, or not to read your posts, of censorship
What the ? Examples ? I think you may have me confused with someone else, because I really don't know what you are referring to here, tardis42.
regarDS
What the ? Examples ? I think you may have me confused with someone else, because I really don't know what you are referring to here, tardis42.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Actually I believe it was developed to be impervious to nuclear attack – a decentralised system where any cause of obstruction would be skirted around.
A bottleneck like, hmm.. an ISP filter is an obstruction to be skirted around. Nothing more.
Hi D. The quote (as I provided the other day) to go with what you are referring to is:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." – John Gilmore.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
regarDS
A bottleneck like, hmm.. an ISP filter is an obstruction to be skirted around. Nothing more.
Hi D. The quote (as I provided the other day) to go with what you are referring to is:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." – John Gilmore.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
If they know what sites to block/place on these "blacklists", then why not hand that over to the police to investigate?
Jurisdiction ?
regarDS
Jurisdiction ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Are you honestly that stupid? From your posts I do not believe so, ergo I must assume that, again, you are trolling for a response.
Not trying to shout down/shut down an opinion and view you can neither agree with nor support there are you Org'asmo ?
I can assure you that there are particpants in this forum who if pressed to be really honest about it, can vouch that the basic views/position I'm sharing/taking now are totally consistent with views/positions I was sharing/taking 17 years ago.
Oh, and one of those particpants would be Mark Newton for that matter.
So yes, according to you, unless you are willing to see more than one side to all of this along with more different levels of "right", I must honestly either be "that stupid" or a whole bunch of things that are not necessarily trolling.
I for one prefer as far as possible to neither live, think, nor judge by such dualistic/limited "if it ain't xmas, it must be easter" type filters.
I reckon that the essential truth of this filtering thing is that "censorship is bad some but not all of the time", and that "the internut should be free and unfettered some but not all of the time".
Governments get it right some but not all of the time. You and I are obviously going to have different ideas re: the current topic at hand and how right or wrong our elected government have got it, but who knows what we might agree upon on some other topic ?
Oh, and one should only think/deal in absolutes some but not all of the time ... :)
regarDS
Not trying to shout down/shut down an opinion and view you can neither agree with nor support there are you Org'asmo ?
I can assure you that there are particpants in this forum who if pressed to be really honest about it, can vouch that the basic views/position I'm sharing/taking now are totally consistent with views/positions I was sharing/taking 17 years ago.
Oh, and one of those particpants would be Mark Newton for that matter.
So yes, according to you, unless you are willing to see more than one side to all of this along with more different levels of "right", I must honestly either be "that stupid" or a whole bunch of things that are not necessarily trolling.
I for one prefer as far as possible to neither live, think, nor judge by such dualistic/limited "if it ain't xmas, it must be easter" type filters.
I reckon that the essential truth of this filtering thing is that "censorship is bad some but not all of the time", and that "the internut should be free and unfettered some but not all of the time".
Governments get it right some but not all of the time. You and I are obviously going to have different ideas re: the current topic at hand and how right or wrong our elected government have got it, but who knows what we might agree upon on some other topic ?
Oh, and one should only think/deal in absolutes some but not all of the time ... :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
despatz, without meaning to offend, are you a religious person?
No [deleted], I attend no church or stadium, warm no pew or grandstand seat (not even at xmas or grand final day), repeat no ritual/ceremony or intone some anthem/chant. About the only thing Holy to me is The Truth, and even then I judge myself to be not worthy ...
Yes, a long time ago the acronym FRZ (Fanatical Religious Zealot) was coined for/because of me ... but that was long, long ago and a lot has happened since then. :)
But getting back on topic, I am all for our elected government's attempt at controlling illegal material on the internet not because any kind of sense of "I know what's good for you, so you should do what I say" (where "I" = "derspatz"), but rather because it is the Right Thing for our elected to be attempting in relation to bringing the landscape of the internut into line with the law of the land.
In short, regardless of how successful it is, to not attempt this would be wrong, or at very least at odds with what happens offline.
The McNet/internut isn't some sacred cow to be worshipped and be untouchable ... it is merely just yet another tool designed to serve us and be moulded and continually rebuilt and modified as is best to serve us in the same way any other tool or system is used in our societies.
Oz has developed commonly agreed upon (obviously not unanimous) notions of what should be deemed illegal for the sake of the society and culture we want. It only stands to reason that just as we seek to limit the import/export/spread of that deemed illegal in our offline world, the same should apply in our online world.
Thus, our elected government whom we are obliged to support once elected, are only trying to do what they were elected to do by attempting to bring Oz internut content into line with what is legal in our offline world.
Back to your first question [deleted], how about we agree that you don't ask me anymore about what sporting teams I support, and I don't ask you about yours, as it usually only decends into pointless and boring "my team is better than your team" type stuff, and that ain't what this thread is about. :)
regarDS
No [deleted], I attend no church or stadium, warm no pew or grandstand seat (not even at xmas or grand final day), repeat no ritual/ceremony or intone some anthem/chant. About the only thing Holy to me is The Truth, and even then I judge myself to be not worthy ...
Yes, a long time ago the acronym FRZ (Fanatical Religious Zealot) was coined for/because of me ... but that was long, long ago and a lot has happened since then. :)
But getting back on topic, I am all for our elected government's attempt at controlling illegal material on the internet not because any kind of sense of "I know what's good for you, so you should do what I say" (where "I" = "derspatz"), but rather because it is the Right Thing for our elected to be attempting in relation to bringing the landscape of the internut into line with the law of the land.
In short, regardless of how successful it is, to not attempt this would be wrong, or at very least at odds with what happens offline.
The McNet/internut isn't some sacred cow to be worshipped and be untouchable ... it is merely just yet another tool designed to serve us and be moulded and continually rebuilt and modified as is best to serve us in the same way any other tool or system is used in our societies.
Oz has developed commonly agreed upon (obviously not unanimous) notions of what should be deemed illegal for the sake of the society and culture we want. It only stands to reason that just as we seek to limit the import/export/spread of that deemed illegal in our offline world, the same should apply in our online world.
Thus, our elected government whom we are obliged to support once elected, are only trying to do what they were elected to do by attempting to bring Oz internut content into line with what is legal in our offline world.
Back to your first question [deleted], how about we agree that you don't ask me anymore about what sporting teams I support, and I don't ask you about yours, as it usually only decends into pointless and boring "my team is better than your team" type stuff, and that ain't what this thread is about. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
ok that's enough from me.. for now
I object to your self-censorship, [deleted] ! Desist desisting immediately, or else ! :)
regarDS
I object to your self-censorship, [deleted] ! Desist desisting immediately, or else ! :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
3 For (you should have your computers taken away from you permanently)
You're advocating filtering ?
regarDS
You're advocating
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Australia needs a bill of rights. It's as simple as that.
Only if prefixed with a "Bill of Responsibilities."
On responsibilities and rights, I offer: "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country" – JFK
On getting ISP-Level content Filtering to work reasonably well, I offer: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" – JFK
regarDS
Only if prefixed with a "Bill of Responsibilities."
On responsibilities and rights, I offer: "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country" – JFK
On getting ISP-Level content Filtering to work reasonably well, I offer: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" – JFK
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
To do this, some determination of legal or illegal/appropriate or innapropriate needs to be made.
derspatz writes
Agree, although hasn't that already been done ?
Yes we have laws that state what is legal. To my knowledge, no censorship board has classified the entire internet based on Australian law, no.
Ah, communication clash/packet crash. I was indicating that I was under the impression that "some determination of legal or illegal/appropriate or innapropriate" has already been done in relation to the OFFLINE world. One would think that the same would apply to the online world, hence my question "hasn't that already been done".
If you are happy to have a machine try to determine what is legal before you get to see it, that's fine if you keep in on your PC thanks.
I am already more than happy to have a machine try and determine whether email etc should come to me or not, and I would like it extended to easily blat/twit a whole bunch of other stuff for not only myself but also those whom I have a duty of care in relation to even when I'm not necessarily in the immediate vicinity of.
That would include my family, my neighbore, my communities, my town, my society, and my nation.
Anyway, isn't that part of the reason human kind is so busy making machines ? To do the work for us that we don't want to have to do or is too distasteful to do ?
Sure, we all have the God Given Right to choose to drink poison if that is what we want to do, but I for one am also of the view that we have the responsibility to try and ensure poison isn't accidentally quaffed by those yet to know what is or isn't good for them, as well as try and prevent those who do know better from choosing to similarly harm themselves.
Which is why our society has developed and implemented laws and punishments and preventitive measures in relation to things deemed illegal. We've got that kind of system working as well as can be expected in the offline world, but now it is long overdue that similar attention is brought to the online world – which in turn, I might add, will obviously contribute towards improving things in that regarding in the offline world.
So, bring on the machines and let them rule, for I doubt if I'll see anything other than improvement for my preferred use of teh McWeb.
regarDS
derspatz writes
Agree, although hasn't that already been done ?
Yes we have laws that state what is legal. To my knowledge, no censorship board has classified the entire internet based on Australian law, no.
Ah, communication clash/packet crash. I was indicating that I was under the impression that "some determination of legal or illegal/appropriate or innapropriate" has already been done in relation to the OFFLINE world. One would think that the same would apply to the online world, hence my question "hasn't that already been done".
If you are happy to have a machine try to determine what is legal before you get to see it, that's fine if you keep in on your PC thanks.
I am already more than happy to have a machine try and determine whether email etc should come to me or not, and I would like it extended to easily blat/twit a whole bunch of other stuff for not only myself but also those whom I have a duty of care in relation to even when I'm not necessarily in the immediate vicinity of.
That would include my family, my neighbore, my communities, my town, my society, and my nation.
Anyway, isn't that part of the reason human kind is so busy making machines ? To do the work for us that we don't want to have to do or is too distasteful to do ?
Sure, we all have the God Given Right to choose to drink poison if that is what we want to do, but I for one am also of the view that we have the responsibility to try and ensure poison isn't accidentally quaffed by those yet to know what is or isn't good for them, as well as try and prevent those who do know better from choosing to similarly harm themselves.
Which is why our society has developed and implemented laws and punishments and preventitive measures in relation to things deemed illegal. We've got that kind of system working as well as can be expected in the offline world, but now it is long overdue that similar attention is brought to the online world – which in turn, I might add, will obviously contribute towards improving things in that regarding in the offline world.
So, bring on the machines and let them rule, for I doubt if I'll see anything other than improvement for my preferred use of teh McWeb.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
I think the protests (and I'll be there) are happening a little early. We need another week or two to get this message out to the people.
Well, I've done my bit for putting the message "out to the people" by getting off, uh, on my butt and updating my own blog on the subject.
It prolly doesn't read quite the way various folk in here would like it to, but any raising of awareness is a Good Thing for The Cause, yes ?
As you can imagine, I won't be attending any protests. Me and my placard/sandwich board would probably end up being physically filtered in ways too extreme to be shown on public media where The Children might happen to be watching. :)
regarDS
Well, I've done my bit for putting the message "out to the people" by getting off, uh, on my butt and updating my own blog on the subject.
It prolly doesn't read quite the way various folk in here would like it to, but any raising of awareness is a Good Thing for The Cause, yes ?
As you can imagine, I won't be attending any protests. Me and my placard/sandwich board would probably end up being physically filtered in ways too extreme to be shown on public media where The Children might happen to be watching. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
To do this, some determination of legal or illegal/appropriate or innapropriate needs to be made.
Agree, although hasn't that already been done ?
The volume of information and the changing nature of it is such that people can't do the determination. That leaves only automated systems.
Agree with that too ... who would want the literal job even if they were able to do it ?
One of the systems I evaluated 8 years ago sifted through employee email (was never deployed) and built up a weekly automated report ranking the naughtiest of employees to go to management (btw management said that they must be excluded from such a system).
Can anyone see the dodge/excuse "Parliamentary privilege" coming up once the filters are going ? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
Yet another weak and corruptible link in the chain ... that will need to be reinforced against.
regarDS
Agree, although hasn't that already been done ?
The volume of information and the changing nature of it is such that people can't do the determination. That leaves only automated systems.
Agree with that too ... who would want the literal job even if they were able to do it ?
One of the systems I evaluated 8 years ago sifted through employee email (was never deployed) and built up a weekly automated report ranking the naughtiest of employees to go to management (btw management said that they must be excluded from such a system).
Can anyone see the dodge/excuse "Parliamentary privilege" coming up once the filters are going ? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
Yet another weak and corruptible link in the chain ... that will need to be reinforced against.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Trying to solve a social problem with a technical solution usually never ends well.
Depends on the social problem one would think, but in the context of the topic at hand, IMBO, thems wise words, [deleted].
regarDS
Depends on the social problem one would think, but in the context of the topic at hand, IMBO, thems wise words, [deleted].
regarDS
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Tis over 66,000 now, and I can't say I've ever noticed an impact in performance because of it.
That's because it's only filtering your quarter-megabit, derspatz.
Now take the same system and plug it into a 10Gbit or 40Gbit firehose.
Not a chance in hell.
Yeah, I can appreciate that, Mark. I can also appreciate how well the likes of BlueCoat did the filtering thing based on access levels for the state wide client I was with up to a few months ago before moving over to a mob considerably international and even more generous with filtered internut access.
I've never noticed any speed impacts, only page denials for tubes etc ... but hey, I'm a 256/64 kinda guy, so anything more than that is a treat. :)
For those who want to know what I mean by Bluecoat, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems
Hard to imagine that there are all that many large businesses out there any more who allow unfettered/unfiltered internut access to their employees. To begin with, I suspect it just wouldn't fly with internal Duty Of Care requirements ...
regarDS
That's because it's only filtering your quarter-megabit, derspatz.
Now take the same system and plug it into a 10Gbit or 40Gbit firehose.
Not a chance in hell.
Yeah, I can appreciate that, Mark. I can also appreciate how well the likes of BlueCoat did the filtering thing based on access levels for the state wide client I was with up to a few months ago before moving over to a mob considerably international and even more generous with filtered internut access.
I've never noticed any speed impacts, only page denials for tubes etc ... but hey, I'm a 256/64 kinda guy, so anything more than that is a treat. :)
For those who want to know what I mean by Bluecoat, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems
Hard to imagine that there are all that many large businesses out there any more who allow unfettered/unfiltered internut access to their employees. To begin with, I suspect it just wouldn't fly with internal Duty Of Care requirements ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - Conroy
If they can filter out web sites, this also means they can log web sites visits.
Your ISP, by way of providing you with what you request, already affectively logs your web site visits. On more than one occasion I've sat chatting with an ISP admin while on a nearby bench a screen was constantly scrolling every page request served to clients and obviously linked to their static or dynamic IP for there session, along with time/date information.
This sort of thing is part and parcel of providing the service, and it would provide very little overhead for ISPs to legally be required to provide a central agency of logs of the same along with the account holders of the IPs associated with the web page requests.
It could never prove on its own who was actually sitting behind the keyboard making the requests at the time, but could certainly be used to establish patterns.
I wonder which would be more effective in terms of controlling the flow of illegal material on the internet.
An ISP-level filter as currently is to be tried, or the universal knowledge that every web request made anywhere is being logged and then forwarded to The Government to be archived near forever (tis such compressable data after all) and to be processed in all sorts of ways ?
Once again (as per in the ISP-filter thread) it wouldn't change my internut life one iota.
Perhaps Senator Conroy would be better to consider the ISP logging and reporting approach rather than reactive filtering ?
It would certainly be a lot cheaper for the tax payers.
regarDS
Your ISP, by way of providing you with what you request, already affectively logs your web site visits. On more than one occasion I've sat chatting with an ISP admin while on a nearby bench a screen was constantly scrolling every page request served to clients and obviously linked to their static or dynamic IP for there session, along with time/date information.
This sort of thing is part and parcel of providing the service, and it would provide very little overhead for ISPs to legally be required to provide a central agency of logs of the same along with the account holders of the IPs associated with the web page requests.
It could never prove on its own who was actually sitting behind the keyboard making the requests at the time, but could certainly be used to establish patterns.
I wonder which would be more effective in terms of controlling the flow of illegal material on the internet.
An ISP-level filter as currently is to be tried, or the universal knowledge that every web request made anywhere is being logged and then forwarded to The Government to be archived near forever (tis such compressable data after all) and to be processed in all sorts of ways ?
Once again (as per in the ISP-filter thread) it wouldn't change my internut life one iota.
Perhaps Senator Conroy would be better to consider the ISP logging and reporting approach rather than reactive filtering ?
It would certainly be a lot cheaper for the tax payers.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
derspatz writes...You might want more opportunity to make a choice in relation to acting illegally or not, but shouldn't I have "the right" to have me and mine pro-actively protected from anything to do with illegal choices you might make ?
Aha, there is the problem David. You already have that right. Download net-nanny or whatever it is from the ACMA website. Your PC is now protected from all the nasties out there (that the government know about anyway). And so is whatever family you may have. Though by the same token you are restricting your significant other from her freedom of choice being of legal age.
And that is where an opt-in filter would be more acceptable to everyone.
Which is fine when me and mine are using our own machines in the comfort of our own living room, but doesn't help beyond that.
On the subject of local filters, I just had a look at the number of "blocked sites" Spybot Search and Destroy "immunises" via my hosts file these days. Tis over 66,000 now, and I can't say I've ever noticed an impact in performance because of it.
Nor any kind of "ooops, I can't get that page for you" message because of it either, come to think of it.
I guess I just don't try to browse places where it is ever likely to be triggered ...
So, if ISP-Level filtering would be used to do the same sort of thing that many of us are already doing via Hosts files, then truly many of us are never even going to realise a filter is even in place, let alone miss anything it may be filtering ... and nor need there be much in the way of a response time hit when it comes to legit sites being served up.
regarDS
Aha, there is the problem David. You already have that right. Download net-nanny or whatever it is from the ACMA website. Your PC is now protected from all the nasties out there (that the government know about anyway). And so is whatever family you may have. Though by the same token you are restricting your significant other from her freedom of choice being of legal age.
And that is where an opt-in filter would be more acceptable to everyone.
Which is fine when me and mine are using our own machines in the comfort of our own living room, but doesn't help beyond that.
On the subject of local filters, I just had a look at the number of "blocked sites" Spybot Search and Destroy "immunises" via my hosts file these days. Tis over 66,000 now, and I can't say I've ever noticed an impact in performance because of it.
Nor any kind of "ooops, I can't get that page for you" message because of it either, come to think of it.
I guess I just don't try to browse places where it is ever likely to be triggered ...
So, if ISP-Level filtering would be used to do the same sort of thing that many of us are already doing via Hosts files, then truly many of us are never even going to realise a filter is even in place, let alone miss anything it may be filtering ... and nor need there be much in the way of a response time hit when it comes to legit sites being served up.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Do these people (ACMA and government) have any idea?
Presumably not, richary, but just as long as the average constituent in the government's preferred voting demographic is appeased to a reasonable degree it prolly doesn't seriously matter to them all that much when it comes to gaining a real clue ...
regarDS
Presumably not, richary, but just as long as the average constituent in the government's preferred voting demographic is appeased to a reasonable degree it prolly doesn't seriously matter to them all that much when it comes to gaining a real clue ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
derspatz writes..."young" "love" "joyful"
Well, there goes half of the online lyrics put out by Hillsong ...
and thats ok ?
Well, so much for THAT attempt at humour. :)
I guess that would all depend on who you ask, [deleted].
In a functioning filtered world that blocks pr0n, anorexia, and hillsong, I suspect that there will be those who miss the first, couldn't give a rats about the second, and are amused at the irony of the last, and that there would also be those who see it the other way around and all sorts of other permutations in between.
If you want to know my personal take as derspatz the pragmatic, I would say that a reduction of hillsong online lyrics would be acceptable collateral damage/opportunity cost if it meant huge amounts of pr0n and stuff deemed illegal was no longer so easily flowing about the place.
No surprises there, eh ?
Surely the anorexia thing is a red herring ? What was the reasoning behind suggestions it would be deliberately filtered ? Anyone got a link or quote of the context ?
regarDS
Well, there goes half of the online lyrics put out by Hillsong ...
and thats ok ?
Well, so much for THAT attempt at humour. :)
I guess that would all depend on who you ask, [deleted].
In a functioning filtered world that blocks pr0n, anorexia, and hillsong, I suspect that there will be those who miss the first, couldn't give a rats about the second, and are amused at the irony of the last, and that there would also be those who see it the other way around and all sorts of other permutations in between.
If you want to know my personal take as derspatz the pragmatic, I would say that a reduction of hillsong online lyrics would be acceptable collateral damage/opportunity cost if it meant huge amounts of pr0n and stuff deemed illegal was no longer so easily flowing about the place.
No surprises there, eh ?
Surely the anorexia thing is a red herring ? What was the reasoning behind suggestions it would be deliberately filtered ? Anyone got a link or quote of the context ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
prolly get blacklisted as it has the words
"young" "love" "joyful"
Well, there goes half of the online lyrics put out by Hillsong ...
regarDS
"young" "love" "joyful"
Well, there goes half of the online lyrics put out by Hillsong ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Why do some people want "Offshore gaming sites banned" What are they/what is wrong with it?
Once again, merely part of our elected Government's job to try and best protect some of the disadvantaged among us such as those with gambling problems. Pretty hard to get cash back once it has left the country ... oh, and the obvious – harder to tax the gaming sites in the way all the "onshore" ones are. :)
The pollies would say it is about Duty of Care, but all know it is really is about The Tax.
regarDS
Once again, merely part of our elected Government's job to try and best protect some of the disadvantaged among us such as those with gambling problems. Pretty hard to get cash back once it has left the country ... oh, and the obvious – harder to tax the gaming sites in the way all the "onshore" ones are. :)
The pollies would say it is about Duty of Care, but all know it is really is about The Tax.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Any ideas of how we can better design it so it need not fall prey in such a way, [deleted] ?
Scare the hell out of the politicians by threatening their lively good.
That might work for a year or two here in Oz, but how is that going to help get the unfettered truth into China ?
regarDS
Scare the hell out of the politicians by threatening their lively good.
That might work for a year or two here in Oz, but how is that going to help get the unfettered truth into China ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
derspatz writes...Of course it does, [deleted], when it inspires the creation of something that is not so simple to censor.Honest to god, I'm staggered by your nonsense. Communication is completely unrestricted right now, how does it get better than that?
It may be somewhat unrestricted ATM, but it certainly is not unrestrictable. This is the next challenge in the evolution of "The Net" into something more fit than it currently is.
At the moment it can be made victim by whim of a Government.
Any ideas of how we can better design it so it need not fall prey in such a way, [deleted] ?
regarDS
It may be somewhat unrestricted ATM, but it certainly is not unrestrictable. This is the next challenge in the evolution of "The Net" into something more fit than it currently is.
At the moment it can be made victim by whim of a Government.
Any ideas of how we can better design it so it need not fall prey in such a way, [deleted] ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Please provide examples.
viatel to bbs, bbs + fido, fido + usenet, fido to www, with the transition away from bbs/fido to www awash with grumblings and resentments etc.
Now I'm looking forward to www to ???
Oh, you were after examples of how unwelcome Government attentions/pressures on it's people has brought about sudden and radical change ?
"Google Is Your Friend", friend ... well, at least for the moment. :)
Deem "Vivi la Revolucion" included.
regarDS
viatel to bbs, bbs + fido, fido + usenet, fido to www, with the transition away from bbs/fido to www awash with grumblings and resentments etc.
Now I'm looking forward to www to ???
Oh, you were after examples of how unwelcome Government attentions/pressures on it's people has brought about sudden and radical change ?
"Google Is Your Friend", friend ... well, at least for the moment. :)
Deem "Vivi la Revolucion" included.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
I find it offensive you calling the worlds last uncontrolled medium "nutty" because there is information you dont like out there
I've been calling it the "internut" (for quite some time I might add, and long before coming here) more because of the how people more often tend to be when using it ... and I don't mind including myself in that because I'm only using the term good naturedly anyway, [deleted].
What I find offensive is the pervading and ignorant attitude that the internut as it currently is, is all it can and ever will be, and is somehow forever going to be at the mercy of the whims of this Senator or that Senator as per the wishes of their constituents.
I remember when we had Pretty Good networking without the WWW, and how the web was in the early days and how far and clever it has all become now.
Now it needs to go further ... and it will, but spare me this "oh woe, it's the end of the last uncontrolled medium" kinda stuff, because nothing could be further from the truth.
Just like with the climate, it is going through changes – but unlike the climate, the changes in this case will be man made. :)
... oh, and couldn't come soon enough.
Please, start thinking beyond this ISP-filtering thing.
regarDS
I've been calling it the "internut" (for quite some time I might add, and long before coming here) more because of the how people more often tend to be when using it ... and I don't mind including myself in that because I'm only using the term good naturedly anyway, [deleted].
What I find offensive is the pervading and ignorant attitude that the internut as it currently is, is all it can and ever will be, and is somehow forever going to be at the mercy of the whims of this Senator or that Senator as per the wishes of their constituents.
I remember when we had Pretty Good networking without the WWW, and how the web was in the early days and how far and clever it has all become now.
Now it needs to go further ... and it will, but spare me this "oh woe, it's the end of the last uncontrolled medium" kinda stuff, because nothing could be further from the truth.
Just like with the climate, it is going through changes – but unlike the climate, the changes in this case will be man made. :)
... oh, and couldn't come soon enough.
Please, start thinking beyond this ISP-filtering thing.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
It's an idealist concept mate, and I'm sure you are very aware of that. You strike me as an especially informed and intelligent person here and I'm quite convinced that you do not genuinely believe that this will be the case.
Cheers [deleted], that makes a pleasant change. :)
Moderation by Majority. It's a very daunting concept, and dare I say, quite an utopia.
And on a smaller scale, Mark can share testimony with me that long long ago in an international amateur network far too forgotten, we had a form of that which worked pretty well ... although I must admit that there were always unseen overlords constantly itching to having that tiny utopia shut down.
Which is another reason why I reckon it would be fantastic to take current communication methods to where not only Oz Governments wouldn't even begin to bother to try and control, but also would render current methods utilised by the Chinese government (et al) similarly pointless.
I'm sorry, but I think you totally misunderstood me here. I think the suffering in short term here is NOTHING compared to what this will lead to in the long run. EVERY STEP towards a police state, EVERY STEP towards information control counts.
I agree to a point, but then I must look beyond.
Perhaps it is time to bring this famous quote from John Gilmore into the equation. See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
I reckon that if we have got to the stage that "The Net" is unable to route around the damage, then "The Net" is due a serious overhaul to make it more untouchable/immune to such damage.
What would be sad is if we couldn't or worse still, wouldn't work out a way for it to naturally overcome/resist such "damage".
But I have every confidence we can if enough reason for it can be brought to bear ... and perhaps these "steps towards a police state" are just the motivation needed.
regarDS
Cheers [deleted], that makes a pleasant change. :)
Moderation by Majority. It's a very daunting concept, and dare I say, quite an utopia.
And on a smaller scale, Mark can share testimony with me that long long ago in an international amateur network far too forgotten, we had a form of that which worked pretty well ... although I must admit that there were always unseen overlords constantly itching to having that tiny utopia shut down.
Which is another reason why I reckon it would be fantastic to take current communication methods to where not only Oz Governments wouldn't even begin to bother to try and control, but also would render current methods utilised by the Chinese government (et al) similarly pointless.
I'm sorry, but I think you totally misunderstood me here. I think the suffering in short term here is NOTHING compared to what this will lead to in the long run. EVERY STEP towards a police state, EVERY STEP towards information control counts.
I agree to a point, but then I must look beyond.
Perhaps it is time to bring this famous quote from John Gilmore into the equation. See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
I reckon that if we have got to the stage that "The Net" is unable to route around the damage, then "The Net" is due a serious overhaul to make it more untouchable/immune to such damage.
What would be sad is if we couldn't or worse still, wouldn't work out a way for it to naturally overcome/resist such "damage".
But I have every confidence we can if enough reason for it can be brought to bear ... and perhaps these "steps towards a police state" are just the motivation needed.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Censorship does not lead to "better global communications for everyone".
Of course it does, [deleted], when it inspires the creation of something that is not so simple to censor.
regarDS
Of course it does, [deleted], when it inspires the creation of something that is not so simple to censor.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
The last time I checked the government wasn't my parents though.
LOL. Is that KRudd I hear saying "no [deleted], *I* am your father ..." ? :)
regarDS
LOL. Is that KRudd I hear saying "no [deleted], *I* am your father ..." ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
this proposals is talking about blocking 'unsavoury' sites that discuss issues like anorexia.
That certainly is a strange one, [deleted]. I wonder what the motivation was for tossing that one into the pot !
I am in total agreement with you that "the few" shouldn't be put in the position for "the many" ... well, not unless "the few" are actually only acting as per the wishes of "the most", that is.
So who has the final say in all of this ... the Queen ? :)
regarDS
That certainly is a strange one, [deleted]. I wonder what the motivation was for tossing that one into the pot !
I am in total agreement with you that "the few" shouldn't be put in the position for "the many" ... well, not unless "the few" are actually only acting as per the wishes of "the most", that is.
So who has the final say in all of this ... the Queen ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Complete arrogance.
Yes, but look at the tone of what I was replying to, [deleted].
You do realise how badly this will effect the majority of Australians
I don't think any of us do and nor can we until it is done.
My view is that any alleged negative majority effect will soon be overcome.
What is it the Darwinists say ? "Adapt or perish" etc ?
Rest assured that any negative effects that this deemed necessary change brings, will quickly inspire new ways of doing things that in the end will make folk wonder why we ever did it the old way in the first place.
Such is the nature of this beast we ride upon, I reckon.
regarDS
Yes, but look at the tone of what I was replying to, [deleted].
You do realise how badly this will effect the majority of Australians
I don't think any of us do and nor can we until it is done.
My view is that any alleged negative majority effect will soon be overcome.
What is it the Darwinists say ? "Adapt or perish" etc ?
Rest assured that any negative effects that this deemed necessary change brings, will quickly inspire new ways of doing things that in the end will make folk wonder why we ever did it the old way in the first place.
Such is the nature of this beast we ride upon, I reckon.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
[deleted] writes...(also stop using 'internut', its pathetic to say the least)
i agree also it is very annoying indeed
So apply a filter.
Get the point, hmmm ?
regarDS
i agree also it is very annoying indeed
So apply a filter.
Get the point, hmmm ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
I'm convinced Derpatz is Rod Speed or at least channelling his energy.
LOL, aww come on [deleted]. that is a bit of a low blow ! :)
regarDS
LOL, aww come on [deleted]. that is a bit of a low blow ! :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
stop using 'internut', its pathetic to say the least
Hi [deleted].
You are entitled to your opinion re: my using the word "internut", but I'll not be stopping using it any time soon regardless of how pathetic you think it is, for it is a term I have been using for a long time which I also think is a helpful reminder of how nutty the WWW can be.
You are just as free to accept my chosen tag for this online world we inhabit as I am to use it but rest assured I am not using it to cause any offence either here or anywhere else ... and in the spirit of free and unfettered internut, nor should I be required to stop using it, yes ?
Have you tried streaming videos on a 256/64k connection?
I download the odd youtube now and then, and my method is to click on the link, turn off the volume, go do something else in another window (such a participate here) and get back to it later.
It is what I am used to, but I accept that it would be frustrating for someone used to instant/real time streaming to be reduced to my system of doing things.
Thus, it certainly sounds like in the short term I have far less to lose than many other around here.
Sympathies if what folk are facing losing is in relation to wholesome legal activities ...
regarDS
Hi [deleted].
You are entitled to your opinion re: my using the word "internut", but I'll not be stopping using it any time soon regardless of how pathetic you think it is, for it is a term I have been using for a long time which I also think is a helpful reminder of how nutty the WWW can be.
You are just as free to accept my chosen tag for this online world we inhabit as I am to use it but rest assured I am not using it to cause any offence either here or anywhere else ... and in the spirit of free and unfettered internut, nor should I be required to stop using it, yes ?
Have you tried streaming videos on a 256/64k connection?
I download the odd youtube now and then, and my method is to click on the link, turn off the volume, go do something else in another window (such a participate here) and get back to it later.
It is what I am used to, but I accept that it would be frustrating for someone used to instant/real time streaming to be reduced to my system of doing things.
Thus, it certainly sounds like in the short term I have far less to lose than many other around here.
Sympathies if what folk are facing losing is in relation to wholesome legal activities ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
but equally he has failed to acknowledge our points which is sad
Ah, good point [deleted]. Ooops.
I admit that I've been somewhat busy being on the defensive and in hindsight have arrogantly ignored certain common concerns that the opposing view to mine do see as being legitimate even if I might not totally share with their view.
I'm sure as the discussion continues to move along, all sorts of common ground will reveal itself, but in the spirit of free and unfettered communications I shall endevour to be more mindful and less dismissive from hereon.
I just might need a little reminding on that from time to time though. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Wow, thank god we arent as easily trodden on ders. I want my 8-24 Mbit and unrestricted access to the Internet. Luckily, we will get it.
Heh. Can't miss what I've never had, [deleted]. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
This is essentially another step away from personal liberties with the blatantly false claim to 'Protect the young'.
Do you really believe that this is where it originates from ? You really think this is about child pornography? Really? I mean it's such a blatant and obvious excuse, I can't for my life see how people even regard that aspect of it. It has nothing to do with child pornography or protecting the children. It boils down to one aspect and one aspect alone.
Information control.
I believe you to be correct in this [deleted], and as much as I believe a degree of information control is necessary in varied circumstances, I also believe that information control should NOT be in the hands of "the few", but rather in the hands of "the many".
Moderation by Majority.
I also believe that the current majority (to this thread) approach to this latest attempt at necessary information control is the wrong one, for even if this does get shouted down through sheer volume of "waa, waa, waa" missives to pollies and media, it is only going to pop up again in a different form a little further down the track.
These sorts of things always do. I reckon that because the internut in its current form is so open to this kind of necessary attention from our elected government, it is high time it was taken up a notch and turned into something harder to touch in a meaningful way by "the few".
You're either for it, or against it. Simple as that. No. Really. It's as simple as that.
True to a point, but it is also possible (and dare I say, even useful) to be sincerely for it whilst also using the current pressure being brought to bear as merely a means to an ends for achieving better global communications for everyone.
Sure, compromise always accompanies pragmatism, but that is typical of opportunity cost situations, yes ?
What are we prepared to suffer in the short term in order to benefit far more in the long run when it comes to the future of the internut ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
You acknowledge the problems and issues and in the same breath summarily dismiss them as being benefits.
So I'm a pragmatist. Filter me if you don't like it, [deleted] :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
our elected Government also has a Responsibility to categorize activities as "illegal" based on the standards of the community who elected it.
Absolutely Mark (oh, and apologies for my initial clumsy arrival to this thread, whether you saw it or not) ... and the majority this time around would be ?
Now, cast your eyes around the wider community. Do you see much evidence that mandatory online censorship for adults is consistent with that community's standards?
The wider community in which constituent ? ;) I see the same evidence as you do – it's just that our own filters differ somewhat.
My filter presents the evidence (especially that gathered from this very thread) as lotsa folk generally wanting or willing to get away with and obtain for themselves anything that takes their fancy when given the chance and damn the torpedoes, so at first glance, it would appear that a general community sentiment is "bugger off and leave me alone".
But that is the problem with merely glancing. Depth and detail gets missed. I reckon a closer look reveals not too much in the way of community nor standards, and the problem is spreading to the detriment of all.
With that in mind, isn't it more the Government's Responsibility to preserve and/or restore society as best it can as opposed to foolishly recatagorising "illegal" based on what current community standard have unfortunately become ?
Giving the obese kid more donuts because that's what he wants doth not a good parent make. Apply accordingly up the line. :)
You bang on and on and on about responsibilities whenever anyone starts talking about rights; You always have
Absolutely. The latter aren't deserved nor will ever function properly or successfully without the former.
But the missing part of your world view is that you think Governments are completely free from both rights and responsibilities, dealing instead in raw authority.
Dunno where you get that from Mark – I've always thought things like accountability and duty, along with an obvious limit of time available to enjoy such stuff, is a given when saying "our elected government". Ah well, I'll try and be a tad more concise in the future ;)
Keep it up, you're doing fine.
I know. It is going to be interesting to see what is finally achieved out of all of this ... but hey, WE WERE THERE. Viva la revolucion !
do you have any more copies of Mystery 666, by the way? I lost the one you sent me in a house move about 15 years ago. Which was a shame, because it was always a great show-and-tell object to make people laugh about the state of the human condition.
ghods, next we'll be talking about how Obama is the antichrist !
Get back on topic, you ... but as we do, here is a link for you re: Stanton's book: http://www.antiqbook.nl/boox/bij/21192.shtml
Order before Fielding's Fundamentalist Filters get it :)
(Sorry Mods ... please spare us that last momentary indulgence ... back on track now)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
-prove that this filter will work 100% without slowing anything down
Already stated that I'm of the view that it is doomed to mostly fail in the short term. Things "slowing down" are irrelevant to me. Of course they will ... but on the other hand, maybe if more folk give up p2p streaming etc of time wasting garbage due to onerous filtering, status quo re: speed will be maintained. I couldn't give two hoots either way and quite happy to suck it and see, even if "just for the children" while I wait for the necessary Next Best Thing for necessity to produce.
-prove that it won't cost more
Don't care and not interested... it already costs too much and I am already not playing that game. Quite happy with my cheapy 256/64 and way cheapy dialup cheers, and I get everything done with it that I need and want to do. Yes, I'm all right, Jack ...
-prove that even if it doesn't fit the first two points, that it will be worth it ie. give me a guestimate of how many child molesters will choose not to molest because this was put in place...
I reckon it will be worth it because of pragmatic reasons already well repeated, as well as the obvious albeit inaccurate filtering it WILL achieve. The collatoral damage that false positives cause along with potential response time impacts is all mere conjecture at this stage but I'm happy to shrug it off as acceptable losses, even if "just for the children" in the short term.
-prove that this won't scope creep
I hope it does, for it should. The online world has got a long way to go before it can be thought of being in line with the laws of the land for the offline world. I reckon that while we can bring it into line we should, but if it makes you feel any better, I reckon we should also be trying to take global communications beyond the control of any government or special interest group, as well as doing away with the need for telcos and ISPs ... but you've already read that of me numerous times, yes ?
-prove that this isn't a cynical attempt to influence the senate vote of Fielding, a man who gained his office from Labor preferences and has been holding them over a barrel ever since.
I couldn't care less. Politicians do politician things and none of it surprises me nor should be that much of a surprise to anyone else.
The fact of the matter is that the internut in Oz is currently being used in ways contrary to the laws of the land and it is our elected Government's duty to at least rattle their rusty weapons and give lip service to the idea of reducing the disparity regarding dealing with illegal stuff online and dealing with illegal stuff offline. KRudd's "working families" expect it of him to look after their kiddies while they are busy out as wage slaves earning double incomes in order to pay off their negative equity, and all that. Dare I say "think of the children" again ?
-prove that Conroy didn't lie (promised opt out option at the last election)
We are talking about a politician here ? What am I supposed to be here ... surprised, offended, or outraged ? Sorry, but I can't raise enough interest in this one to be any just mentioned.
-prove that Conroy didn't try to bully a taxpaying voter in to silence (Mark Newton)
Same again. BTW, Mark and I used to exchange many a public missive back in the heady daze of FIDOnet and 2400baud modems in the early 1990s, and it is obvious to this day he is able to stand up for himself ... and has probably been exposed to (edit: and participated in) more rigorous debate than all of Conroy's department put together including Conroy. So, once again am I suppose to be surprised, offended, or outraged by this alleged attempt at bullying ?
-prove that Conroy hasn't accused anyone protesting this and Mark Ludlum of being "pro child porn"
I thought he had, so obviously there isn't much point in trying to prove he had not, but I'm happy to be corrected in that regard.
Anyway, you have to admit that there is a clear chain of logic to that kind of fallacious argument, but please spare me the outrage when you well know that near all of us rely upon such methods from time to time.
I suspect if Senator Conroy was arguing in such a way for something you wanted or agreed with, you would choose to barely even notice the method employed just a long as the result you wanted was delivered.
You know [deleted], we aren't THAT different ... :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Senator Fielding has signalled he wants a range of material blocked, including hard-core pornography and fetish material. Senator Xenophon has indicated he wants access to offshore gaming sites restricted
While I also agree with this in principal (and mourn the fact that it exists at all), what sort of people are going to have roll their sleeves up and expose themselves (pardon the pun) to the presumably mountains of groaning moaning quivering and heaving material needing classification in order to protect the rest of us from accidentally encountering it ?!
Will "Work for the dole" recipients be press-ganged into doing the dirty work under threat of losing benefits, or will it be farmed out to various churches for the little old ladies to organise over tea and cucumber sandwiches ? :)
Yes, I admit that mine was one of the votes that put Senator Fielding where he is, but I'm beginning to wonder if this man knows what he is asking when he suggests this kind of stuff.
I'm curious how he can expect others to sort and rifle through material that he doesn't want to be available to the general public and presumably doesn't want to see and hear himself !
Also, presumably after prolonged exposure to aforementioned mountains of censorables, one may well become somewhat desensitised to it all.
This presents even more problems such as how to maintain constant objectivity towards material submitted for classification, and just how is a work place related injury compensation determined regarding long term psychological damage, etc, as a result of continued exposure to illegal and distateful material.
Just how is the master filter list going to be arrived at ?
Tis one thing to install a list of urls (although looking at the first page of Spybot Search and Destory's blocked host list is disturbing enough thank you very much), but surely quite another to have to browse submitted url data in the first place to ensure it is what it is claimed to be.
I wouldn't want that kind of job for any money in the world ... and nor would I be all that happy at having to hire someone else to do it, as it would be quite hypocritical if not immoral to hire someone to the kind of job being talked about here when not willing to do it oneself.
What a can of worms, eh ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
I would be very curious to see the reactions of the ISPs if this filter does go ahead.
For common popular stuff more likely to be kept in ISP proxies caches (as well as local cache), one would expect there wouldn't be that much of an extra time penalty to pay, but I'm happy to be corrected on that, [deleted].
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
You know, you can oppose this filtering scheme and be for such a new internet as you seem to have proposed...
Sure, but it is never likely to happen while so many folk seem happy enough to pay what they do for what they get, and other folk/companies are happy making the money off that process.
At the moment, I reckon it is complacency and greed which is the greater enemy of the internut than this ISP-level filtering scheme.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
The laws of the land should change, not internet neutrality.
Errr, I'm not so sure I want to explore THAT one. :)
Or it should remain seperated as it has for the last 20 years, which has worked fine and been extremely successful and wondrous to human knowledge (this will not remain the case with the filter in place).
There are a number of us here who were involved with amateur international computer based communications long before the popularity of what we have today. Look up "FIDOnet" sometime. Some of us were even involved in the creation of software and utilities to make its daily operations simpler.
Come to think of it, guess what kind of software I wrote in that regard ?
Yup, you guess it ... filtering software. Heh. More irony. :)
Anyway, the WWW came along and FIDOnet was rendered redundant virtually overnight. Sure, it still has its fans to this day ... and so does CB and packet radio for that matter.
My point is that the great thing we had and built and tweaked and twisted to serve our purposes (and it served them quite well for many a year) was replaced by something far better when circumstance, situation, and technology made it both desirable and feasible.
Sure, some amazing developments have been happening with this replacement system over the years, but it has been quite a while seen I've seen anything all that wonderful about it in development terms, and certainly nothing like the progress in change it used be in comparison to what we had before.
I for one am ready to see a brand new approach to global communications, and one that although might shield/protect those who want to use global comms to do wrong, will also bring an end to the kinds of censorship systems mis-used by the likes of China et al. I have my own reasons for wanting this and it has nothing to do with enabling/protecting the unfettered flow of pron or p2p and other such annoyances.
Yes, I am aware that some might be tempted to wail back "but that's what OZ government is trying to do with this filtering, they are trying to do what China does", but let's save on the bandwidth, and not bother going around and around on that obvious nonsense, eh ?
I am also ready to see a world that gets busy bringing the cost of free and unfettered communications down to next to no public cost at all. I reckon comms should be virtually free in every sense of the word – but that is probably a subject for a different thread.
However, until this utopian idea of global communications is born from the ashes of the superceded super highway (rolls eyes), I am all for what we currently have being brought into line with our offline laws of the land while it remains feasible to do so.
On one hand I'm saying that instigating a form of filtering is the Right Thing to do while it still can be done even if it brings a degree of inconvenience to us in the short term and while a better way of doing what unfortunately needs to be done, is determined and implimented.
On the other hand I'm saying that I reckon now might be a Really Good time for keen, clever, and knowledeable folk to designing the next level in terms of a global comms system that no Government will so easily be able to fiddle with in such a way again.
This is not a doublethink. This is "small picture, big picture" stuff and even then, only part of the tapestry I'm really imagining.
Yes, it also means that I'm taking a pragmatic approach to ISP-level filtering while also sincerely agreeing with it in principal.
Does that clear up your confusion about my position, [deleted] ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
i believe even you would agree education and being proactive in changing public attitudes is far more beneficial to forcing a gag on people anytime..
Absolutely ... ah, but there is education and there is Education, hmmm ? ;)
Also, considering effort required, it is prolly just easier and cheaper to filter. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
I for one do not wish to have a filter that should be my right not to have one..
derspatz writes...Yet in the offline world you already do ... so isn't it somewhat incongruous that the same should not apply in the online world ?
i do ? explain ?
The filters that our society already embraces in everyday offline life in order to function in a relatively civilised, organised, and appropriate way. Typically it begins when you get out bed to bathe, brush your teeth, and put clothes on before walking out the door to go down to the local newsagency and DVD shop to buy or hire your chosen reading or viewing material of that day.
Typically, due to agreed upon filters instigated at the people's wishes via the government, certain types of reading material will not (or should not) be in the ready view of the under-age and certain types of DVD covers will be similarly "filtered" to a particular section. A whole bunch of stuff thankfully will not be available at all, and at very least, what IS available will be "filtered" away behind the covers that are sealed to protect against accidental persual by those deemed too young to be reading those kinds of articles. :)
Do we really have to explore your whole day to realise just how many self determined and Government determined filters you already submit yourself to in the offline world ?
I see no reason for things to be any different with our internut and its use and think that if we as individuals are unable or unwilling to bring similar levels/layers of responsibility (etc) to it in order to for it to match the laws of our offline world, then our elected Government must.
I do admit that it is a great shame that it has come to this, though.
As a nation, we generally agree upon offline laws of the land regarding a whole bunch of stuff, so I don't think it is unreasonable that we should also agree upon bringing our online world into similar line, especially seeing how incorporated it already is in our day to day life.
Finally, I find it bewildering and incongruous that some appear to want the safety of legislated law and order in the offline world, and yet virtual anarchy when it comes to modern communications that are so deeply woven into that world of desired order.
I'm not actually all that interested in comparing whose morals are better than whose. What I am interested in (aside from what I've already said about positive progress) is seeing some consistency between how the offline and online is viewed.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
when you join Whirlpool, you agree to the rules...
When you come to a workplace, you agree with the policies of the organisation.
I agree wholeheartedly
These are very different to what you choose to do over your private bb connection that you pay for.
I disagree because when your argument is rightfully and contextually expanded out to include:
"when you choose to remain part of a community/society/country, you agree to abide by the laws created and enforced by the majority elected government for the benefit of the whole country"
... it is revealed that there is no fundamental difference between the filtering that our elected government needs to put in place to be in keeping with laws in relation to things illegal in the offline world, and agreeing to submit to arbitary moderator filtering in the WP forums, and agreeing to submit to the filtering policies of your workplace.
BTW, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from calling me or anyone else a "troll" just because they obviously hold a contrary view to you in relation to the ISP level filtering proposed. Cheers.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
calling the internut a series of tubes XD
....................^^^^^
Heh. I knew you could see it my way in the end, [deleted]. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Shesh you fail to understand things lol
This does nothing positive, nor block anything its supposed to
I reckon a lot of folk around here quietly know that I "understand things" all too well and wish I would just shut up and go away and stop bringing such calm rationality in response to the hysterics being so frequently example in this thread.
I've already stated that I am of the view that the filter being proposed is doomed to quite a degree of failure, but that is no reason why it shouldn't be attempted.
As for achieving something positive, well as I've already shared, I'm seeing this filter issue so many of you are getting hot under the collar about as actually a cause and opportunity for our current form of 'puter based communications to be forged into something new that will take it beyond the control of not only the Government, but also ISPs and even PAID for internut in the way it is so over-charged for ATM.
I've already shared that I see a future where every abode, transport unit from scooter to ship, odd item of clothing, bridge, lightpole, etc, is equipped with short range radio devices performing constant packet transport.
Yes, I realise that there could be some RF issues ... and an increase in cancerous tumours, but seriously, I am sure we can quickly come up with something that will see the timely end of the internut as it currently is ... along with ISPs and reliance on even telcos for all that much.
Ah, but I doubt if the ISPs or telcos would like that, eh ? We're just not allowed to have free communications, hmmm ? And especially not communications beyond Government control !
I for one don't think that the internut (a self-explanitory term I've preferred to use for a long, long, time) as it currently is, is virtually as good as it was ever going to get. I see it as just another stage to be discarded once it has served its purpose and been replaced with something better.
Is what we already have so good that we shouldn't seek out anything better ?
Are you angry enough about the promised Government intentions and interventions that instead of trying to "fight city hall" over the troublesome system we already have, you work towards creating a system that will render EVERY government impotent as to its control ?
I'd rather be reading positive visionary stuff about how we can take our internut into a bright new future, than all this negative "the govenment is going to break my toy" type stuff that mostly shall amount to nothing more than a mere taking up of bandwidth.
its very disappointing that your blind to the facts.
It's very disappointing that hardly anyone has chosen as yet to explore in here the positives that this filtering furor can birth in relation to a new improved internut.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
I for one do not wish to have a filter that should be my right not to have one..
Yet in the offline world you already do ... so isn't it somewhat incongruous that the same should not apply in the online world ?
and your more then happy to see your internet speeds suffer, you place a filter on your own pc
I already do in the sense that I'm happy to run a mere P3-700mhz laptop wirelessly connected at mere 54g speeds to a measily 256/64 connection when not using common dial-up.
It does everything I generally want to do and is a huge improvement on the 1200/75 BAUD connection I used to have on my XT back in 1985 when we were all chatting in the online environment called "Viatel" and wondering when AUSTEL was going to come knocking on our doors for hooking up illegal hardware to the telecom lines. :)
[deleted], you are already free to either keep or break the law, but surely you must understand that at very least our elected govenment has a duty to the people it governs to spend tax payer money on the control and prevention of things and activities that are illegal both online and offline ?
You might want more opportunity to make a choice in relation to acting illegally or not, but shouldn't I have "the right" to have me and mine pro-actively protected from anything to do with illegal choices you might make ?
Should your "right" to be given free opportunity to behave illegally be given greater worth than my "right" to live in an environment where illegal actions with all their repercussions, are less likely to occur in the first place ?
Yes, I know this distills down to the "think of the children" argument, but when it comes to the welfare of the future and the preservation of what is generally deemed to be good and innocent and yet so easily corrupted when natural duty of care is neglected, what really is wrong with "thinking of the children" ?
Don't we already have offline filtering and censorship in place because of them ?
Shouldn't the same apply for the online world ?
regarDS
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Actually the filter is doing none of these things. It doesn't stop child pornography being made
The filter will generally do what it is designed to do. Filter.
No less, no more ... okay, maybe a little bit more – it will obviously annoy the heck out of bunch of you, but hey, ya can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs. :)
To suggest that the filter is useless because it doesn't stop illegal material from being made is like suggesting that the AFP are useless because they don't stop illegal substances from being manufactured in foreign countries.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Alright then. You can start on identity theft, then once that's eradicated move on to piracy.
I've had a solution ready regarding identity theft for many a year, but I don't think you are going to like it. :) See: http://derspatz.webng.com/ for a pictorial representation before the more local filters get me. :)
But seriously, yes, our elected government (who I did not vote for ... other than FF, that is :)) has a duty to us in relation to preventing and protecting us from identity theft, and a duty to business and commerce in the country and with our trading partners in relation to preventing piracy.
And both of those issues you just mentioned (plus the reason why most of Oz won't say no to internut filtering) are issues because of who and what ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
I don't. If you're that concerned install your own filtering system on your own computer.
Don't wrap the nation in cotton wool because there might be something evil on the internet and everyone needs to be protected from it.
... and here we are participating in forums that utilise appointed censors acting under generally loose and arbitary/subjective guidelines to do on a smaller/more local scale the very things you're complaining about the government planning to do on behalf of a probable majority who will never object to it !
Ironic much ?
Yet I don't see much jumping up and down about that ... could it be that we both recognise the need and appreciate such filtering and the application of such subjective measures ?
I don't see this proposed (and obviously flawed) filtering system as some sort of attempt to "wrap the nation in cotton wool" – I see it as a justifiable and lawful attempt to limit and control certain material online, just as the upholders of the law are already obliged to limit and control it offline in its more traditional environments.
The Government is kinda legally obliged to try and create such a system of management and I doubt if anyone is expecting them to get it right on first attempt.
Ah, but in the technological age, I'm sure a solution will eventually be found if not just settled on.
Let's look at this another way for a moment. When something is deemed "illegal" (take controlled narcotic substances for example), it is the job of the relevant authorities to ensure that the supply of the same is discovered and intercepted before it can make it out into the midst of the general public yes ?
Isn't internut "filtering" attempting to do that very same thing in relation to certain kinds forms of illegal information ?
Surely we wouldn't want the AFP to stop making drug busts and to stop trying to preventing illegal materials, substances, and items to be shipped into and around our country, so similiarly, why wouldn't we want the designated authorities to being doing the same sort thing in relation to things deemed illegal when it comes to the internut ?
"because my internut will go slower" is a kinda lame response, but what I find disturbing is to read comments from folk who seem to be declaring that our elected government has no right to try and stop the flow of stuff online that has already been deemed illegal without any significant fuss in the offline world.
Sure, we all want a "free internut" (in every sense of the word "free"), but surely that shouldn't mean that we want an internut free of the laws we live our offline lives by ... or free from community and family oriented responsibility ?
Okay, so most around here don't like the filter idea (no surprises why) but why not try being constructive for a moment and suggest what methods COULD be employed in relation to the internut in relation to bringing it into line with the laws governing our offline time ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
It is NOT the Government's responsibility to "clean up" the internet to make it a safer place for kids.
Actually it is, along with doing everything else that the majority expect/elect of them to do on the country's behalf.
And even though I didn't vote for them to be our babysitters for the next few years, I agree in principal in relation to what is being attempted even though the method chosen upon isn't going to prove all that effective.
Oh well, gotta crawl before you can walk (or which ever way around you want it). :)
Oh, and I want the government to "clean up" the internet to make it a safer place for adults too ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
I don't need to defend ISP filtering – it's just bringing the Internet in line with the laws of the land and unless you're prepared to change the law, you can't win this one fellas.
Well said, DR.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
Right to Liberty, Right To Privacy, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly.
Right to behave responsibly in one's community, Freedom to be a beneficial contributor to society ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
The fact of the matter is we have no Bill of Rights.
That's because we first have to come up with a "Bill of Responsibilities".
Deem "ask not what your country can do for you ..." ala JFK, included.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
I find your views deeply offensive to personal freedom
I don't. One might argue back that your repetative usage of the word "offensive" is not only offensive in itself, but somewhat arrogant too as it conveys a presumption that you are somehow right right right, and she (and any who agree with her, such as myself in a number of areas) are wrong wrong wrong.
The inclusion/usage of the word "offensive" in these kinds of discussions and debates is tantamount to a fallacious form of argument, and that is not what we are supposed be about here, yes ?
So, in the interests of a free and unfettered civil internut, how about you drop the use of the word "offensive" in the context you have been currently using it, [deleted], or at very least realise that any number of readers and participants in this discussion are viewing your views to be similarly "deeply offensive" etc.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
increases the OZ carbon footprint.
(sigh) And this is bad because ? No, on second thoughts, don't go there ...
It seems that most of what I'm reading around here is tenuously linked layers of scare-mongering about things that are not/cannot really be known until tested/implemented then tweaked or are just plain wrong !
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
Don't ruin the internet for everyone
Dunno why you think this is going to "ruin the internet for everyone". Sure, it may ruin it for certain troublesome minority for a moment or two, and a few others for a bit longer, but overall I see a whole new form of internut going to be born, leaving this one behind just like we left 300baud and 1200/75 baud modems and Viatel behind back in the 1980s.
Leaving the internut just the way it is, is already ruining it for many folk, so how about being a little more positive and looking/moving forward to something that invariably will prove to be better, hmmm ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
I cant possibly leave out Marks contribution to this whole issue =D. Could be our saviour!
oh puhleez (rolls eyes) Mark, are you embarrased yet ? Drop in on ozltuae in yahoo groups sometime and say hello to the old crew :)
We don't need another hero – all we want is life beyond the thunderdome.
In this case, "life beyond the thunderdome" is more about creating and bringing about the next level to global communications than anything to do with seeking to preserve all that much of what we already have.
To me, your current hero of the day bares more resemblance to a priest of an old and dying religion unwilling to let go in the face of the New Improved that is going to do him out of a job unless he learns to change his thinking and embrace it.
Seriously, when considering how obviously doomed to mostly failure this filtering is going to be, all this upset really is so much ado about nothing ... so why are so many of you climbing on board this ship to nowhere ?
Mark himself has clearly indicated he is of the view that the proposed system cannot work and will fail, and I do know him to NOT be a totally unknowledgable fellow but rather someone who can regularly throw a good and informative read together ... which leaves me wondering why even he is choosing to walk this particular path when surely even he realises the Potential For Good out of it all.
Which brings me back to my "old priest" analogy. (shrug)
Perhaps it is a case of some folk just not wanting change. (shrug++)
While I'm waxing lyrical, I reckon a few more of us learn to "turn and face the strange ch-ch-ch-changes", stop fearing and worrying and instead start thinking of opportunity and improvement.
I suspect that you'll find the latter far more satisfying.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
Anything I should add? Fix?
As someone who has had nearly every one of my letters to the editor of The West Australian published (only too happy to provide copies of, but they are not on topic in this thread) my first suggestion would be to reduce the length.
The Ed will anyway ... expect whatever you do submit to end up with a different heading than you expected/provided (or maybe even wanted) and the odd paragraph hacked out here and there. Also, don't expect them to correct any of your spelling or grammar.
Should by some miracle your letter as it currently stands actually be given newsprint, most readers eyes would have glazed over and moved on to the next letter long before the name "Senator Conroy" comes up.
The next load of readers will quit as soon as they DO read "Senator Conroy" ... mostly because they would never have heard of him anyway.
The next load will quit as soon as the read what the filter will do because they (like me) in fact agree with it and don't care about trying to understand it or what it might cost them ... it's "technical stuff, and I'm no good with technical". :)
The rest (doing their morning business in the small room) will read it to the end and roll their eyes while muttering "pro pron fanatical religious zealot, will this country ever run out of them ?", especially when they get to the mentions of Hitler et al.
In short, if I was The Ed, I'd at most print the first four paragraphs under the heading of "suspicions over motivation for internet filtering" or something like that.
Tis probably too soon for many editors to be considering such stuff at the moment ... and remember, their main care is about what sells newspapers, not saving your world.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
You're either misinformed about the net filter or really do think it's a good idea.
Come back when you're part of the trial and tell us about how you couldn't reach Whirlpool because it was inappropriately blocked when someone opened a thread "deemed illegal" under the filtering guidelines.
I think it is a good idea partly because it is so obviously doomed to mostly fail.
Most of my internutting is done on a P3-700mhz notebook wirelessly linked at 54g to router kept busy serving up my household with all my ebay wins (usually every time), online banking, holiday bookings, forum and blog participation, patch updating, and general googling (etc) at the heady speeds generally provided by a cheapy 256/64 connection when not doing the same on $1ish a week dial-up connection as circumstances dictate.
If in the future I find that I can't access a link for info I was seeking for one reason or another, I'll do exactly what I already do. I'll go to another link, and another, and another, until I'm satisfied in terms of what I wanted to find or know.
Who knows, it may well be that the nnn (National Net Nanny, acronym © derspatz 2008 :)) might even make my online involvements FASTER than before.
Either way, the sooner the better ... even IF only "for the children". :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
See:
http://en.wikipedia
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we did that one a couple of dozen pages back ...
You are also forgetting that I'm seeing this latest cause for breast beating (hi Filter-Overlord) and "waa, waa, waa"ing as an opportunity and cause for our current form of 'puter based communications to be forged into something new that will take it beyond the control of not only the Government, but also ISPs and even PAID for internut in the way it is so over-charged for ATM.
I see a future where every abode, transport unit from scooter to ship, odd item of clothing, bridge, lightpole, etc, etc, etc, is equipped with short range radio devices performing constant packet transport.
Sure, not too many of us will want to gather in the same place carrying un-popped pop-corn, mind you. Heh++ :)
But serious, I am sure we can quickly come up with something that will see the timely end of the internut as it currently is ... along with ISPs and reliance on even telcos for all that much.
Or do you think that the internut as it currently is, is virtually as good as it was ever going to get ?
I see it as just another stage to be discarded once it has served its purpose and been replaced with something better.
Show some imagination folks ! How many of you here remember what we had/used BEFORE the internut became the Brave New Way ? Now, what do you think we might have in another mere decade or so ?
Is what we already have so good that we shouldn't seek out anything better ?
Seriously, go back and re-read some of your messages, folks and note how caught up you are getting in what basically is peripheral and somewhat ridiculous and barely worth the time worrying about in terms of what WILL be achieved in the long run.
regarDS
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
Well at least we can still chat with prostitutes then
LOL. Nice one, centurion.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
The day this becomes fact I leave Australia
I'm puzzled by this oft repeated sentiment (and not just by you). Do you actually think the majority of Oz will care should you choose to not be a part of the society they want for the nation, and leave ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
to me, all that says is that the most effective filters also have the highest incorrect block rate
which in response, the non naughty web page will have to be fixed up by presumably non naughty web designers who will earn a dollar or two korrecting the incorrect web pages, the government will collect its GST and income tax off that, the economy will be minutely stimulated in a different kind of way, and the internut will be made a little bit better.
It's called "change" and "progress", and life is full of it ... and would we really want it any other way ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
They don't. They do their best to control what they can't. They are scared of what they can't control.
"They" (our elected babysitters) do their best to control (a) what the majority of us want them to do their best to control, and (b) what is in the general best interests of the country to control (and usually tax :)) and © what is the best interests of the time they spend in those lofty places of such control and what financial reward and recognition it can bring to them in both the short and long term.
Obviously "c" comes first in all of this ... :)
We (the majority) want "them" to generally keep us healthy, reasonably educated, with jobs and income, safe from evil foreigners who wanna come here and take our jobs, spread their disease, and seduce our daughters, as well as ensuring that the booze and smokes keep flowing along with uninterrupted sport all year round on our free to air digitial tv piped down to our massive plasma screens.
"They" know that as long as they at very least appear to manage a reasonable percentage of all of that, no one will really care much what else "they" might like to do in terms of fulfilling option "c".
So, fool the mums and dads into thinking that they need not worry what little Johnny is up to on "teh web" coz darling Krudd has it all under control for them (and pass another stubbie luv, the cricket is about to start !), and the majority of Oz population is quite happy, and the pollies pat themselves on the back and think about the next bonus and percentage of guarenteed super they can award themselves with.
Generally, this kinda thing works pretty well because the truth is, most of us ARE happy enough with the percentage we get out of the basic "quid pro quo" system.
BTW, I voted FF and Nationals and Libs, with ALP way down the line and the evil (now extinct) Democrats and Greens right to the bottom ... tis all on my blog. :)
This debate needs to be about stopping censorship. Of any sort. In any form, whether media or internet.
Well you know I'm going to have to disagree with you on that and that I don't actually think you mean it at all. Are you suggesting that child pron and neo-nazi hate speak (etc, etc, etc) SHOULDN'T be censored ? Are you trying to tell me that if someone placed such evil pron before your eyes you would look because to not do so would be a form of censorship, albeit self-censorship ? Wouldn't you want the authorities to come along and arrest the person who dared to expose you to such stuff ? Wouldn't you want it destroyed so it could never be placed before the eyes of anyone else either ?
I *DO* want continued censorship (and we already have plenty of it, just not enough.) I *DO* want newspapers and tv to continue to NOT show a whole bunch of stuff, and I wish they would get rid of a whole bunch of stuff already being shown (especially all those "call me" "flirt" type adverts on middle of the night TV that show a total lack of respect for shift-workers), and now that the internut is fast becoming the modern media of choice for the 21st century, I want similar and greater censorship to be brought to bear on that too.
So I assume you are happy for your tax dollars to pay for censorship.
ButOFCourse. Just like it already is, and as per the duty of those whom we have elected to Govern our country and direct our society.
What do you want ... anarchy ? Might work for you, but it ain't going to work for the majority of families out there ... nor a worthwhile future.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3
The question is should the government be able to control what we can and can't view.
Uh, they ("they" being those we continue to elect to babysit us) already do, richary, and this is merely necessarily extending what they already do in that regard into the (relatively) new areas/forms of information sale and transfer etc.
ie, the internut in its current (and hopefully soon to be radically changed to take it beyond any control of anyone) form.
"They" are doing exactly what we (the majority) elect and pay them to do as part of Governing this country – and this latest necessity is but a small part of that overall governance, with most of it you are already showing your support of in some way or another every day you choose to stay here and with every tax dollar you hand over.
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
