Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

Derpatz – I don't support censorship for any reason. Making us a better internut? And trivialising Mark's name because of things posted on a Fido BBS 17 years ago is hardly adding to the discussion?

richary, EVERYONE supports censorship, it's just that people rarely ever agree on what should be censored.

I've amended my post which included Ye Olde LTUAE endearment I mostly used to let him know who I was (and you know full well what I was called in return :)) ... I didn't realise such things were that precious around here but will keep it in mind for the future.

As for the filtering issue, the sad state of affairs is that because of declining values and apathy far too many people ARE leaving it up to the Goverment to do everything for their children short of giving actual birth to them.

You should be blaming those lazy (etc, etc) poor examples for parents (etc) along with the seriously depraved out there for creating the situation whereby the slightly less lazy but certainly well meaning folk want something done about this nasty internut thing wot they barely know the first thing about anyway.

You and I and probably most of the more 'puter savy folk around here know full well that what ever the ignorant government folk try to inflict upon us, a way around it will soon be found and in all probability an improvement that favours the common user will be achieved.

I see this all as a win-win as well as also quite a bit of a much ado about nothing.

Certainly nothing for any of us to get that much in a froth about.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

there's no possibility that the blacklist won't leak. It might take a month, a year, five years, ten years, or 2 hours. But it will leak. Pressing it into service will be like setting a ticking time bomb, and when it happens there'll be a thronging multitude of bastards just like me pointing at Conroy and saying, "I told you so, you delusional pillock!"

Agree wholeheartedly with that, Mark. (oh, and hi to you, too. :)) We are talking about the public service after all, and not mere unbribable incorruptable automations.

Even more likely if out-sourced to bottom line motivated private companies.

Still no reason not to think of the POSITIVES of the Government trying to impliment such a doomed to failure system.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

The question is not what *should* be banned, but do we want the government to have this control? They are scared because they can't control the net, unlike the subtle controls they can place on the existing media.

Indeedy richary, and But Of Course We don't want an idealistic govenment (served by so many folk who would never cut it in the Real World) busy leaving briefcased encased DVD backups of blacklists on the bus/train seat on the way home, or looking up the browsing habits of their hated next door neighbore.

I choose to deem this threat/promise/whatever of a national filtering scheme as a suitable carrot (or stick) to The Clever to come up with something that will forever take the internut beyond the control of ANY government short of destruction/jamming of the global communications systems.

Considering Mark's roots towards the end of the FIDO heyday, and FIDOnet's roots full-stop, I'm kinda disappointed at his current windmill tilt considering where this ill-advised government threat can really take us in terms of birthing something new and better.

If a NNN (national net nanny) makes us wanna make and make a better internut, then count me in !

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

As a systems/network administrator, let me briefly describe why this will not work. Firstly, you fail to account for the following:

- Roaming customers

- NAT

- Visitors

- Armies of worm riddled Windows boxen

Can't really argue with the bit about Windows (parably broken or not), but I'm talking about a progressive futuristic system wot relates to back in every case/moment to unique individuals (whether human or not) and where "anon" and "fake" (etc) is not a permitted part of the system.

Sure, not workable ATM, and prolly never due to more standard human nature.

What amuses me the most about all this "waa, waa, waa"ing (deem suitable snippet of Dr Cox from TV series "scrubs" for a visual, included) about "oh nos, my internut is going slowz and the govenment is out to get me" going on , is that it shows how unimaginative and useless most of its users are.

The reality is that should our big bad government (don't blame me, I didn't vote for them) slap an (predictably ineffective) filter (et al) upon Oz, then before you know it, a whole bunch of folk will get off their butt and make a better way of avoiding that mouse-trap.

And not before time, too.

Unfortunately, this means that the evil bad elements will also enjoy the improvements ... but they always have, yes ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

Just think how much better for the economy it would be if the money is spent on items that actually improve rather than hinder the productive capability of the nation.

Not all spending is good for the economy. Please read this:

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

Sure, TANSTAAFL ... but what's in it for me ?!

... and think of the kiddies !

Come on folks, we've already shown we are prepared to sacrifice a little because of the big bad terrorists, so how much more should we be prepared to sacrifice for our children, hmmm ?

Where HAS the spirit of the ANZACs gotten to these days ?

Besides, there is plenty a dollar to be made out of this while the clever ones get busy creating a Internut system beyond all Government controls anywhere.

Yup, in the context of the broken window parable the shop-keeper doesn't get to spend his guilders the way he wants to – but nearly everyone else involved does, and in the case to hand, the "nearly everyone else" are those of us who don't really care who knows what they use the Internut for and actually do rather it was better governed in relation to whole bunch of stuff.

Ask yourself. WWJB ? ... and now you "B" accordingly :)

As for the poor shopkeeper in your parable ? Oh boohoo that he couldn't spend his guilders on pron and prostitution and the glazier got to send his own kid to a private school instead ...

Seems to me that mainly Good would come out of the right kind of filtering system.

Tell you what, why don't we allocate a fixed/permanent IP number to every soul, server, system, company, and business in Oz (much like a tax file number et al) for the life of the same, and log everything associated with the same for the life of the same whilst also giving FREE (well, free as anything tax-payer funded can be) Internut access to everyone in Oz.

No need for anyone to whine about having to pay to be monitored, and well logged patterns can be referred back to in the case of attention drawn to oneself rather than relying upon on-the-fly monitoring/filtering.

Thats kind of system can provide alibi for the innocent and/or hijacked, help kill spam dead once and for all, and provide whole new levels of protection and convenience as yet only dreamed about by Trekkie fans.

We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Current petulant "waa, waa, waa"ing is doing it the hard way IMBO.

Kinda the boring way of progressing, too.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

"they're a strong group
Those people know more about how to lobby than most of you.
They don't care about your internet freedom.
They will be sending a delegation to see their local MP."

... and the only other addition to your excellent post [deleted] would be:

They are right (in every sense of the word ?)

:)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

Who decides what is decent and appropriate? "derspatz writes...Actually, what Oz needs is everyone to behave decently and appropriately and none of this would be required in the first place."

Who decides what is decent and appropriate?

To begin with, I'm more than happy to offer my services in that regard for a suitable hourly rate. :)

How about you ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

Australia needs people like you Mark to watch our backs

LOL.

Actually, what Oz needs is everyone to behave decently and appropriately and none of this would be required in the first place.

Since it obviously is, I reckon there should be less pointless "waa, waa, waa"ing and chest beating from what are probably the Usual Suspects, and instead a pooling of resources to make a better system for us all that doesn't actually require Government involvement or intervention.

Yeah, dream on, eh ?

Oh well, at least I've figured out quoting now. Oh++ Hi Richary. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

Great, so not only are we going to pay to establish a massive departmental apparatus, but the sheer volume of data would make any real child pornography statistically insignificant.

We could call this huge archive of data "The Internet".

(: will figure out this quoting thing shortly :)
Think of the public service employment opportunities along with the following redundancy payouts when the knee-jerk Krudd type of Government discovers how unworkable it is and changes its mind, Alex12 !

Sure, ISP level logging/filtering IS somewhat redundant when it really should be done at the Telco level of things – along with massive fines to the same when they don't do it properly.

Obviously everything needs to be suitably privatised and out-sourced before the fining starts mind you.

Quit worrying about content and start thinking economy ! :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt2

"Murk Nowt-on/Newtorn", huh ? There's a name I've not seen since the heady LTUAE daze of FIDOnet. Will have to peruse my archives later on and see what banalities he had to share from back in the early '90s. Heh.

Bah, who really cares about all this ISP filtering stuff just as long as Speed isn't unduly hampered ... unless we are talking about a certain R.Speed that is.

I for one am actually all for every ISP by law being required to continually submit logs of their user's registrations, IP addresses per session and URLs visited rather than embarking on wasteful content filtering.

On one side of the coin, The Fear that the Powers That Be would know that (for purposes of example) Murk might like to visit sites relating to topless gerbil racing might in turn help him to self moderate browsing habits in that regard, and on the other side of the coin, the reality of some Government department having to merely accept the level of data (before even beginning to process it in a meaningful way) would actually create the situation whereby the vast majority of us would have absolutely no cause for concern let alone any kind of reduction in service.

The reality is that ISPs already have IP/URL relationship data happily scrolling/logging by, so how hard would it be to forward it up the line to a department designated to care but won't anyway ?

Drown such a department with data and all of Murk's petty concerns and obvious years of "waa, waa, waa"ing sink with it. :)

regarDS

[NOTE: light grey areas had to be removed from original message before it was accepted]