Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14

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

An accurate observation and good point well made, AFAIC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

How about a config file layout ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

(etc, etc, etc)

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

Why should Joe Shmo be privy to such controlled material ?

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

amazed this concept does not horrify you.

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

Converts electricity into heat, mostly :-)

Heh. Nice one centurion.

They also serve to feed the paranoid their daily conspiracy.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

But you would say that, wouldn't you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

Yes its Bloody Scary isnt it??

What ? You're both kidding, right ?

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

What about your self-interest?

That a reference to my blog ?

Keep your beliefs and values private!

You first.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

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

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

ie, as the need arises according to personal tolerances.

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

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

Especially when it comes to pr0n.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

Why iiNet will probably lose the piracy lawsuit

Dan Warne22 November 2008, 12:41 AM

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE]
Censorship & Freedom of Speech

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

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

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

My idea for better ILCF based on the above ?

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

better education to bring people up better

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

A fair suggestion, yes ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

See anything you like ? :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you are arguing FOR Government Intervention now ?

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

The "good men"? Where are they?

[edit] removed veiled ad hominem

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

What I found on this site is very disturbing.

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

regarDS

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

What?

All 65536 of them?

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

Not so much coincidence as long over due action.

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

Another "ooops" for The Filterers, eh ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

TANSTAAFL,

i dont speak israeli so i dont know that term

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

and if it did ?

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

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

So my short answer is "fine by me".

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

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

How can you justify and defend such blatent prudishness?

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

there are far too many Good Financial Reasons for ILCF

Such as?

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

[EDIT] Spelling.

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

Mr. Rudd,

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

BTW, voluntary voting typically favours conservative parties, yes ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

Etc, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Anyone anti Filter were very quickly cut off.

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

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

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

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

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

Same again with the film/visual media industries.

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

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

So, what do we have ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

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

Exactly my point from way back in the piece.

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

Ditto.

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

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

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

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

WWJB ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

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

Could be false positive under filters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

I have now reviewed that show in the view of your stance ...

IMHO, WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about the section where the doco maker went up against the A.I. in identifying pictures containg an animal in them. How did the programmer achieve the desired result without actually programming specific animals into some sort of reference database ?

Ask yourself, who would really want to be on a panel with the day after day job was to scan through millions of pr0n images and filmclips in order to catagorise and classify them ? Who would objectivity be maintained ? Actually, how would SANITY be maintained ... and how would the worker compensation be determined for that matter.

The problem is far bigger than any human can manage in terms of fulfilling the laws of the land re: our classifications system. Thus, we need an automated way of doing it, using A.I. type technology.

The "Where's my robot" program just on gave an excellent example of how an A.I. could be programmed to do that kind of job.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Forget about child porn. Or regulations regarding what can and can't be portrayed. That is not what we are arguing about.

The topic is internet censorship. Not what about might fit under the filter or now.
When observing how quickly and often the topic can fall away to individual expressions of subjectivity based selfishness coupled with rebellious attitudes towards higher community standards, it becomes quite easy to see both the need and justification for internet censorship.

When ILCF is brought in, once again it is going to be more to do with a troublesome few ruining it for the majority, just like with the "patriot act" in relation to the so called "war on terror".

Seems to me that the folk getting the most indignant about ILCF are getting upset with the wrong people ... everyone should be working towards removing/preventing the problem happening in the first place than getting upset with what those we have elected to govern us have come up with.

If we all were decent people wanting the very best kind of world for our children and families, there would be no need for either ILCF or the "patroit act", etc, etc, etc, in the first place.

But we aren't, and so ILCF is well justified, along with whatever comes next to help tackle the problems we keep creating with our individualistic selfishness that see us constantly falling foul of "the golden rule".

Okay, back to watching "The Monolith" doing its own kind of filtering/educating on SBS's screening of "A Space Odyssey". :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Anyone currently watching "where's my robot" on SBS ?

If so, you would have just seen something that could be incorporated almost now into creating the kind of Internet Filter that could screen "undesirable" pictorial information via A.I. rather than depending (and inflicting) upon much in the way of human intervention by way of catagorisation once initial parameters were established.

In the investigation on how to "build better sight/recognition" for the future of robotics, the documentary demonstrated a program that pitted human against A.I. in relation to identifying as to whether there was an animal in the picture or not.

The result was a tie in the demo given – which is fine considering that duplication of ability was the aim.

The AI was able to achieve the result not so much by knowing the specific animal but more to do with recognition of basic shapes, colour variations, etc.

Not too much of a stretch to imagine an A.I. doing similar sorts of identifications in relation to pr0n and the like, and the job made even easier when coupled with text information embedded in web-pages and url names, etc.

I think this kind of technology could go beyond mere current "oh, this pic has x amount of flesh tones so might/might not be pr0n so let's blat it anyway" software ... I can imagine the A.I. filter of the future actually able to apply real-time selective sound and visual censoring to live streams without the need for the entire stream to be blocked.

ie, no more Janet Jackson Superbowl moments. :)

ILCF is only going to be the beginning, and regardless of if the trials pass or fail and ILCF becomes mandatory or not, it isn't going to end there.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

I think there has been a little to much spooky mulder going on here recently.

Lets stick to the point:

Agreed and good idea, HM.

1, It will not protect kids from online nasties

Correct, it will not protect all the kids all the time from all online nasties. It will only protect some of the kids some of the time from some of the online nasties – which But Of Course is considerably better than what is currently the case.

2, It will not stop kids from being abused.

Correct ... but what has that to do with ILCF as proposed ? Sounds like an attempt at selling straw ...

3, Clean Feed be will abused by conservite and religious groups

The far more correct thing would be to say that it will be abused by any who are given the opportunity to abuse it. Every Special Interest Group under the sun will attempt to utilise such a facility to their own ends given the opportunity, including those who oppose the conservatism I personally side with and see as more beneficial to the well being and progress of humanity than the opposite. Normal Government Accountability will apply with this as it does with everything else. The Government is by the people for the people after all ...

4, Clean feed will not prevent access to blacklisted site by tech savey internet users

Correct, it will not immediately achieve this. Tweaking will be in order, but for most web users, it will do its required/necessary job.

5, Clean feed will block legitimate sites unfairly

Correct. Healthy flesh also suffers when the knife is applied against harmful cancer. Nothing new there and nothing that tweaking wouldn't improve upon.

6, There will be no transparency on the content of the black lists

I'm not convinced on the accuracy of that one, particularly seeing as any so called "black list" is hardly going to remain secret for very long.

7, Security could be at risk if you use Internet banking, online shopping

I call "incorrect" on that one, and also more a case of "cart before the horse" at this stage of the game. That kind of scare-mongering isn't going to serve the "anti ILCF" proponents as it will be quite easily shot down.

9, Freedom of information and speech which is not protected here to start with will be further at risk

Uh, now I reckon we are getting back to Spooky Mulder Town, HM ... still, plenty of "correct"s from me prior to that.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

derspatz writes...I tend to think you are hanging a disproportionate amount of importance on the internut as The Vehicle for alleged "free speech/expression"

Sparrow, the impact of filters on free speech has been overstated, but the importance of uninhibited communication (with low latency and neglible pricing) has not been stressed enough.

I'm happy to take the middle pedal, uh, ground on this one and quite agree with you Sostenuto. Besides, a long held view of mine is that virtually all electronic forms of communication in Oz (and then the whole world) should be publicly owned and free, rather than be the corrupted money grubbing vehicle holding the masses to ransom that they mostly currently are.

Your age is showing. There is a huge cultural gap between your generation and the children of Web 2.0.

Yup, my generation wrote/created/paved the way for much of what we see now (naughty us), and most of the current generation have turned it into the McWeb/McNet; a bloated, obese, over-commercialised and unpleasant place to visit that also betrays its roots.

ie, the Virtual New Garden has instead become The New Babylon.

Perhaps that might clarify another reason why I'm not too bothered as to what happens to it next. Heck, if ILCF forces a return to innovation and advancement and a moving away from commerce and fleecing the masses, then I say "Senator Conroy, do your worst !"

In the meantime, I believe it is right and correct to attempt to "clean the stream" while it still can be done, but we are now drifting into territory which has very little to do with the medium and everything to do with the message, and thus mostly beyond the scope of this discussion thread.

I don't think you have a clue how being really connected feels. I probably can't explain it.

A number of us here started with CB and Ham radio (and some even continue with that. Hi richary) and have been "connected" for a long, long, time, and it is our interests in these things that see us still involved in the evolution of "being connected" to this day. The internut wasn't with us when we began, and who knows what will take its place next.

Whatever it will be, it will be as either interest or necessity demands – just as it generally has always been.

The way my 16yo is "connected" with friends spread far and wide, isn't all that different, and I doubt that any of them either know nor care about the up and coming ILCF for it won't impact on their online world one iota.

And why should it ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

It is not fear that drives me, but a knowledge of history, and tools of dictators and the history of australian politics.

I realise you may not understand what the government is implementing here, but your lack of understanding does not reduce the inherent dangers in giving a government a centerilised tool of censorship, which history shows as extremely dangerous.

Aside from the alt.conspiracy kinda angle, I tend to think you are hanging a disproportionate amount of importance on the internut as The Vehicle for alleged "free speech/expression", and how little ILCF (or whatever ends up being the most effective way of getting the necessary job done) is going impact on it in general terms for the majority of users anyway.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Too bad about those pesky VPNs and proxies that make this all a big waste of $125.8m that could be put to much better use elsewhere.

I was using 3 of those from 3 different machines to do 3 different vital nationally spread non-graphically oriented tasks over the last couple of days, and even on probably the some of the best network access that could be bought it was still disappointing on the speed side of things.

VPNs really aren't going to suit most people – not that most people are actually going to have much of a need for them anyway.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

What about freindly fire? What unintended things might also go down?

Will the benefit outweigh the collateral damage?

Now we are taking things to a new subjective level, with as many opinions possible as there are people.

Short answer is "it depends", I guess. :)

Will the attempt to create a utopian society and protect people from themselves create a society that no one wants to live in?

Probably wouldn't be the first time, but I do think that we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves in the here and now. The internut isn't either the be and end all or perfect place that various folk want to try and make it, and no amount of ILCF (short of saying "sorry, we can't let you log in") is every going to make it so.

It can only make it a little bit better for somebutnotall and a little bit worse for somebutnotall ... with a degree of cross-over somebutnotall of the time.

No biggie AFAIC.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

derspatz writes...What the majority of Oz citizens, particular families want for our society

Anything that threatens the well-being of the majority

Good effort, but noone can absolutely define those things for everyone in one go. Not me, not you, not the guy sitting behind a desk at the ACMA.

Agreed, which is why I suspect we will end up writing yet more software to do it for us. Think of the various Bots and AIs involved in the myriad of computer games out there, along with spiders and web-crawlers building search engine databases for us and then apply a similar idea re: looking after The Web for us.

The job is far too big and complex to leave to mere inflexible simplistic lookup/hash tables and databases.

I don't think anyone is expecting success in one go. Since when is that the way with things IT anyway ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

derspatz could you please define what minister conroy means in your understanding the definitions of

1 deemed illegal

2 deemed inapropraite

3 deemed unwanted

And please explain how blocking a CP web site is better than the cops closing it down and busting them. You see if the cops close the CP web sites down then why do we need a filter?

Hi [deleted]. sure, I'll give it a go.

1) What the laws n roolz of Oz in the offline world process and prosecute and seek to prohibit and prevent, etc, etc, in our normal everyday offline world and society that we all (hopefully) try to be a positively contributing part of. How many P words was that ?

2) What the majority of Oz citizens, particular families (coz they are providing our future somewhat, yes ?) want for our society in terms of being the best place for their children to have the nicest and happiest and most fulfilling and safest/longest/healthiest life in.

3) Anything that threatens the well-being of the majority. A bit like how cancer ain't usually welcome in healthily replicating body tissue and so is cut out – sometimes taking some healthy flesh with it.

And please explain how blocking a CP web site is better than the cops closing it down and busting them. You see if the cops close the CP web sites down then why do we need a filter?

I don't see why that should be viewed as an "either/or" situation. I reckon DO BOTH. Filter until it can be busted.

There is no "magic bullet" (and certainly ILCF isn't anywhere near being one) so instead LOTS of bullets need to be fired and from more than one location.

Get the monster caught in the Cross-Fire and it is more likely to go down.

That help ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Maybe if you actually answered some of the arguments and replies put to your incredibly repetitive statements you would have a better reception.

Ah, so it is okay for you to stick to your opinions but not me mine ?

Which reply to what do you think I've been lacking in offering a return to, anyway ?

Hmmm, ok, I'm being a bit reactive here so let's wind things back a bit. What do you have in mind that you feel I haven't offered a reasonable response to ?

Maybe if you stopped using those highly annoying cute words you so cleverly made up you be able to get your point across with more success.

How do you like "ILCF" ... or am I taking credit there where it isn't due, in which case I'll not only offer a loud apology but also herald credit where it is due.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Clean your own filthy stream thank you very much.

I'd like to think I'm being much more community minded by wanting a clean stream for everyone – after all, tis surely more healthy for the whole (or at least the most that counts) population and saves on a bit of duplication of effort.

If I break a law, arrest me and put me on trial.

Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper (not to mention better for you and your family, etc, etc) to make it harder for you to break the law and more able to fit in with the general law abiding community ?

Job done. Problem solved.

Yup, that is no doubt one of the goals of bringing (as best can be done) the virtual world into line with how the offline world operates.

What are you REALLY/SPECIFICALLY worried about losing access to, anyway ... and is it really likely you are going to be denied ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

As noted by many, including ISP's, blocking at the ISP level will not work.

I agree. At most it will work "some but not all of the time". Tis all a matter of degrees and percentages. I feel that it is neither wise nor helpful to think in terms of absolutes in this, BTW.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

(quick eduction:

??? Do you mean "education"? :)

Cheers [deleted]. See how we can all help each other out regardless of difference of opinion ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Muslim groups start demanding a block on all historical sites that contain images of Mohammad or sites that put muslims in an unflattering light, does that go under the censorship because its offensive to a section of the community?

Is the internet the only medium for the sharing of such information ?

Heck, a catastrophic power outage would do far more temporary censorship ... and yet the info would still be available by other means.

I really worry about how much reliance is being put on this particular (and relatively somewhat fragile) medium here.

The eggs are NOT all in one basket and nor should they ever be.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

derspatz writes...Incorrect, it was Hewson (Liberal) in his "fightback" campaign in 1991 that sowed those seeds which Keating resisted.

You are incorrect. The idea of a consumption tax (now called the GST) was first proposed as part of the Bob Hawke Labor Government's Tax Summit in 1983. It was proposed by Paul Keating.

I stand corrected if we are to take this back to a name other than GST (which is what originally was being talked about).

Yes, Keating proposed a consumption tax, then many years later Hewson put together a package that involved a GST which Keating appeared to reverse his earlier idea about in order to see the defeat of Hewson in the election.

Everyone happy with that ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Do we want government mandated censorship, including "underirable" but not illegal sites where they can add them as they wish?

Depends on the government and what is being deemed undesirable as per the wishes of the majority that the elected government are mostly representing. Your question reeks of scare-mongering – is that the best path to be taking ?

Do we want a slower internet?

More scare-mongering (and pandering to individual selfishness) and ignores the fact that technological advances are continually making things faster ... not that faster is necessarily better anyway.

Do we want a filter that makes parents feel comfortable but doesn't protect against chatrooms etc where kids are targetted by predators?

No. Gasp, I said no and offered yet more common agreement ! :)

All we have done here though is shown where ADDITIONAL filtering will be required ... which is still not an argument against ILCF.

If the government puts this in it will never be got rid of.

True ... well, ILCF will mostly fail, but face the fact richary, many parents and most governments are NEVER going to stop trying to take control of the internut now that the "genie is out of the bottle".

The war is being fought on the wrong front here – which doesn't mean that your battle is irrelevant or without merit, but rather just doomed to failure ... on this front.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Where is the 'moral' line where you DO feel this might pose a potential problem? An unscrupulous man in power banning certain site encouraging a certain religion? Blocking libertarian or 'alternative' political views? I'm just curious of when in your book the tool goes from useful to questionable.

When I ramp this all up to the kind of level that Mark Newton knows me better for, it all becomes quite irrelevant. If I'm quite prepared to burn books that various folk deem holy (and probably idolize so much that they would viciously kill me for doing so) then I'm hardly going to be all that much bothered (let alone commit the sin of idolatry over) with what I choose to call "the internut".

Folk have been misusing/idolising the contents of so called "holy books" since folk first started scatching on rocks or tieing knots in ropes, so it is no surprise that the relatively latest form of information preservation and transfer should be similarly misused ... or idolised !

I'm more interested in the message than the medium and thus don't really give a crap whether it be via scratched rocks, knotted ropes, printed paper, or packet exchange via optic fibre, etc.

If the foundations are sound, the house will stand ... but still no excuse for idolatry or ascribing more worth to something than it deserves/is due.

Does that satisfy your curiosity [deleted] ?

regarDS

PS: I've read virtually every message in this entire thread and look in on a daily basis but simply have not seen much needing responding to or drawing attention to in the last week other than the mis attributed quotes (with most of those responses blatted by mods) and so didn't.

I'll now ask the question, respect the answer and back it up with deeds. Do people in this forum want to share the forum with those of a contrary opinion to their's or not ? If not and you want a forum full of only agreeably like-minded, I'll leave you to it, but conversly, if you actually want this particular corner/facet of the internut to be free and unfettered, then leave off the "troll" cop-outs and herring punching and start practicing what you preach.

That "unfiltered internet" includeds me. Someone who disagrees with many of you re: ILCF (among probably many other things). I don't take it personally but I'm curious as to why some of you seem to.

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

should not be taken away or blocked, simple as that

... and yet that is exactly how you were brought up and no doubt how you will bring up your own children.

The internut is not and never will be the pure stream of sustaining and beneficial wonderfulness that the supporters of ILCF want, or opponents of ILCF deride for not being able to deliver.

Does this mean that no attempt should be made to clean the stream at all ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Weren't you sin binned for your trolling a couple of threads ago and asked not to participate in these threads?

Yes I was binned for two days but no to everything else.

You want a world consisting only of people who agree with you in everything ?

Count me out of that kind of world.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

derspatz writes...Which is what the ongoing development of IT is all about.

Does this ongoing development also include "circumvention"? :)

Yes. It is called progress.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Currently the 'list' is maintained not by law but by a bureaucrat that sits in ACMA looking into things that people may have reported they were offended by some website regardless of whether the intentions of the complainant are true or not.

(quick eduction: "opposing opinion != troll", ok ? And do you want a world containing only folk who agree with you on everything, hmmm ?)

"Intentions of the complainant" ? I tend to reckon that if someone has gone to the effort of complaining to something other than the thin air around them, then their intentions are at very least noble and justified in their own mind !

After all, how do you explain/justify your own complaints ?

I'd not really want to have the job of being "on the board" or whatever when it come to deciding classifications and what goes into the filter, as I'm not really willing to sacrifice my own mind and memory to the kind of stuff we are talking about as needing classification ... and I mourn the fact that both the data and the need to catagorise it in the first place even exists at all.

Which is why I reckon it will come down to A.I.s in the long, long, run.

The ILCF shall change nothing, the genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago.

No huge argument there (and cheers that we are able to quickly move on to using ILCF ... the longer form of presentation was getting tedious). So the genie has been let out of a bottle, but the bottle was still bounded and thus the genie is still contained and thus controllable.

Tis all just a matter of effort, willingness, and time ... oh, and numbers.

Could you guarantee 100% that the filter could never and would never be used to censor something that might be embarrassing to the government of the time or an ally?

I'm sure that given the opportunity that it WOULD for a time, but it wouldn't be the end of the world, or all that surprising ... or effective for that matter !

I have faith that those desiring power for themselves will nearly always seek to attain it ... and that there will always be resistance to that and ultimately successful resistance at that. Complacency is a far greater evil in my book.

Will this filter magically stop all child sex abuse? Has it shown that it could even cause a reduction in the number of children abused both in Australia and overseas? Will it stop predators from grooming children over chat? No on all counts.

I don't think that any sensible person is thinking that ILCF is going to be the Magic Bullet that kills all the monsters once and for all – or even wings many of them ... but it is a start and the attempt is certainly worth making don't you think ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

[deleted] writes...Paul Keating thought up the GST and John Howard made it a reality

Incorrect, it was Hewson (Liberal) in his "fightback" campaign in 1991 that sowed those seeds which Keating resisted.

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

Happy to correct error in here where I see it (such as that oft mis-attributed quote in here of Rabbi Daniel Lapin's)

Seriously folks, if you want to have your arguments agains ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) taken seriously in the long term, you will need to keep things simple and CORRECT.

BTW Mark, good interview on Sunrise (or whichever one it was). Kudos. The laid back "I'm a cool frood who really knows where his towel is" approach is nearly always going to be the more successful road to take than a "I'm a rabid one cause FRZ who resents this new attempt at Government intrusion into our lives" (not suggesting you are, but it does contrast to what is hurled at the opposition to your opposition).

You came across as not only being knowledgeable, but also relaxed/easy going, confident, reasonable, righteous (in a good way – ie, not self-righteous), mature, and informative.

No tricks. I'm being serious – not that I expect my opinion to amount to much to you mind you but hey, we can't help our histories.

Dunno if the interview will amount to much (other than the odd watcher thinking "hey, that guy seemed genuine, sincere and didn't bore me to death with his point of view which also seemed reasonable"), but you certainly could have done far worse ... and didn't.

So like I said. Kudos. Tips me hat eben.

Hint to the rest. If Senator Conroy et al are coming across a rabid lunatics (not likely despite how you might like to think so if you put your own filters down for the moment and take an honest look) then make sure you are NOT flip side of the same coin.

ie, don't be rabid loonies for your own preferred way.

Have another look at Mark's interview (sorry, I don't have the link handy but I'm sure it will quickly be provided here) and note the pleasant easy-goingness of it all.

Run of the mill Oz doesn't want rabid nutters in their face thrusting leaflets, wild gazes and flecks of spit in the corners of the mouth. It is far more likely to respond to healthy looking reasoned and carefully delivered/non speedy common sense.

You wanna "protect the children" not scare 'em, yes ?

Anyway, as Zannecki (sp? Sorry, I'm in WA and anything longer than "Koshi" is too hard to remember :)) said at the end of the interview; "I don't think it is going to get up"

He could be right, but I suspect SOMETHING new will be put into place like it or not in the end.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

The fact that he calls the internet the "internut" should have tipped people off long ago.

[deleted] writes...
Must be a totally different person on here. On another forum where he and I post he is well known for posting pages and pages

Cheers [deleted] (though I defy you to actually be able to support what you next said with any real data), which means you (and DQ if you care to ask her) can also back me up re: the fact I've been using the word "internut" long before regularly posting at WP.

But back on topic, I can assure all and sundry that I am quite serious (and not "trolling" in even the slightest) that it is right to seek to bring a similar degree of law and order to our online world as we have and support in our offline world.

I don't think that ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) is going to be all that successful in that regard but it is a start that needs to be made that shall lead to a more suitable solution down the track.

I'm currently enjoying watching/taping "Bill Gates: how a geek changed the world" as I type this and I am enjoying some cross-over irony here due to Bill's "from nothing" IT beginning through to creating a virtually all controlling business Empire (heh, Empire is a name of a proggy I wrote to control FIDOnet info coming to/from me and whoever else wanted similar control) that shaped the IT environment more by being more rich in cash and marketing ability (etc) than programming skill.

Ironic to me more from the POV of "trail-blaze, empower the people" mindset through to the current "control the market, blat the resistance" mindset that actually in its attempt to stifle IT development, has instead forced radical new ways of approaching it.

Like OpenSource.

Interestingly enough, the program coming on after is all about "Der Waffen SS"; the gestapo and "no mercy" and control via "Fear and Terror" – which is also somewhat topical yes ?

So, I support the rightful attempts at filtering, accept that the ILCF shall fail but lead to something that might not fail so badly, and believe that we are obliged as Decent Human Beings to at least attempt to bring Law and Order and Protection to The Children to every area of common life that requires it.

Which obviously includes the internut.

I confess that I do not want "status quo"; I want change, and change for the better, and I am pragmatic enough to want ILCF to help bring about those necessary changes.

Bill Gates wanted to "Save the world" with his software (etc). HA. Actually, he has instead decided to merely use the money earned from the software to help "save the world" by giving it away to charity and development of better ways to fight diseases like malaria and TB and improving things in "3rd world countries".

He's dedicated $30 BILLION dollars to charity causes that have very little to do with IT let alone the internut (other than the modern tool that it is).

Kinda puts a different perspective on this whole "waa, teh govamin r breakn teh internut" thing going on here, yes ?

Actually, throughout the whole "Bill Gates" program currently showing on SBS as I type this, I've not once conciously heard the word "internet" mentioned !

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

derspatz writes...Tis the world we live in when not virtually minded, so I see it as somewhat hypocritical to want (and support) Law and Order in our offline world and society and yet want virtual anarchy in the online world.

It's not that we don't *want* law and order in the online world, it's that we know that the censorship rules we use in the offline world cannot be effectively applied to the online world.

Oh ? Firstly, who is "we", secondly, what are the "censorship rules" and thirdly, why don't you think that even the basic principals can be made to effectively apply to the online world ?

Data is data, information is information, and IO is IO. While packages of the stuff can be built and shunted around, the basic principals of control also exist, for after all, you wouldn't be getting the packages or shunting around without it.

This goes all the way back to the first "hello world" program you ever wrote, and I for one have coded a lot more clever things than that and have been paid well for it.

The internet is a completely different animal to books, movies, tv, radio and newspapers and it cannot be controlled in the same way.

Sure, every medium for the preservation and transporation and sharing of information needs different ways to library, disseminate, catagorise, and control it (etc, etc). You wouldn't be reading (or NOT reading this depending on your personal filter settings) this if it wasn't the case.

The internut can be suitably controlled/brought to law and order and it is just the methods that will be settled upon to be discovered, tested, and established.

No argument from me that ISP Level Content Filtering (: ILCF :) is not going to be the best way of achieving suitable control ... but it is a start.

Which is what the ongoing development of IT is all about.

Deem "hello world" included.

Now, "where do you want to go today ?" ... and how are you going to choose to get there ? :)

regarDS