Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Actually the filter is doing none of these things. It doesn't stop child pornography being made

The filter will generally do what it is designed to do. Filter.

No less, no more ... okay, maybe a little bit more – it will obviously annoy the heck out of bunch of you, but hey, ya can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs. :)

To suggest that the filter is useless because it doesn't stop illegal material from being made is like suggesting that the AFP are useless because they don't stop illegal substances from being manufactured in foreign countries.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Alright then. You can start on identity theft, then once that's eradicated move on to piracy.

I've had a solution ready regarding identity theft for many a year, but I don't think you are going to like it. :) See: http://derspatz.webng.com/ for a pictorial representation before the more local filters get me. :)

But seriously, yes, our elected government (who I did not vote for ... other than FF, that is :)) has a duty to us in relation to preventing and protecting us from identity theft, and a duty to business and commerce in the country and with our trading partners in relation to preventing piracy.

And both of those issues you just mentioned (plus the reason why most of Oz won't say no to internut filtering) are issues because of who and what ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

I don't. If you're that concerned install your own filtering system on your own computer.

Don't wrap the nation in cotton wool because there might be something evil on the internet and everyone needs to be protected from it.

... and here we are participating in forums that utilise appointed censors acting under generally loose and arbitary/subjective guidelines to do on a smaller/more local scale the very things you're complaining about the government planning to do on behalf of a probable majority who will never object to it !

Ironic much ?

Yet I don't see much jumping up and down about that ... could it be that we both recognise the need and appreciate such filtering and the application of such subjective measures ?

I don't see this proposed (and obviously flawed) filtering system as some sort of attempt to "wrap the nation in cotton wool" – I see it as a justifiable and lawful attempt to limit and control certain material online, just as the upholders of the law are already obliged to limit and control it offline in its more traditional environments.

The Government is kinda legally obliged to try and create such a system of management and I doubt if anyone is expecting them to get it right on first attempt.

Ah, but in the technological age, I'm sure a solution will eventually be found if not just settled on.

Let's look at this another way for a moment. When something is deemed "illegal" (take controlled narcotic substances for example), it is the job of the relevant authorities to ensure that the supply of the same is discovered and intercepted before it can make it out into the midst of the general public yes ?

Isn't internut "filtering" attempting to do that very same thing in relation to certain kinds forms of illegal information ?

Surely we wouldn't want the AFP to stop making drug busts and to stop trying to preventing illegal materials, substances, and items to be shipped into and around our country, so similiarly, why wouldn't we want the designated authorities to being doing the same sort thing in relation to things deemed illegal when it comes to the internut ?

"because my internut will go slower" is a kinda lame response, but what I find disturbing is to read comments from folk who seem to be declaring that our elected government has no right to try and stop the flow of stuff online that has already been deemed illegal without any significant fuss in the offline world.

Sure, we all want a "free internut" (in every sense of the word "free"), but surely that shouldn't mean that we want an internut free of the laws we live our offline lives by ... or free from community and family oriented responsibility ?

Okay, so most around here don't like the filter idea (no surprises why) but why not try being constructive for a moment and suggest what methods COULD be employed in relation to the internut in relation to bringing it into line with the laws governing our offline time ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

It is NOT the Government's responsibility to "clean up" the internet to make it a safer place for kids.

Actually it is, along with doing everything else that the majority expect/elect of them to do on the country's behalf.

And even though I didn't vote for them to be our babysitters for the next few years, I agree in principal in relation to what is being attempted even though the method chosen upon isn't going to prove all that effective.

Oh well, gotta crawl before you can walk (or which ever way around you want it). :)

Oh, and I want the government to "clean up" the internet to make it a safer place for adults too ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

I don't need to defend ISP filtering – it's just bringing the Internet in line with the laws of the land and unless you're prepared to change the law, you can't win this one fellas.

Well said, DR.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

Right to Liberty, Right To Privacy, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly.

Right to behave responsibly in one's community, Freedom to be a beneficial contributor to society ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

The fact of the matter is we have no Bill of Rights.

That's because we first have to come up with a "Bill of Responsibilities".

Deem "ask not what your country can do for you ..." ala JFK, included.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

I find your views deeply offensive to personal freedom

I don't. One might argue back that your repetative usage of the word "offensive" is not only offensive in itself, but somewhat arrogant too as it conveys a presumption that you are somehow right right right, and she (and any who agree with her, such as myself in a number of areas) are wrong wrong wrong.

The inclusion/usage of the word "offensive" in these kinds of discussions and debates is tantamount to a fallacious form of argument, and that is not what we are supposed be about here, yes ?

So, in the interests of a free and unfettered civil internut, how about you drop the use of the word "offensive" in the context you have been currently using it, [deleted], or at very least realise that any number of readers and participants in this discussion are viewing your views to be similarly "deeply offensive" etc.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

increases the OZ carbon footprint.

(sigh) And this is bad because ? No, on second thoughts, don't go there ...

It seems that most of what I'm reading around here is tenuously linked layers of scare-mongering about things that are not/cannot really be known until tested/implemented then tweaked or are just plain wrong !

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

Don't ruin the internet for everyone

Dunno why you think this is going to "ruin the internet for everyone". Sure, it may ruin it for certain troublesome minority for a moment or two, and a few others for a bit longer, but overall I see a whole new form of internut going to be born, leaving this one behind just like we left 300baud and 1200/75 baud modems and Viatel behind back in the 1980s.

Leaving the internut just the way it is, is already ruining it for many folk, so how about being a little more positive and looking/moving forward to something that invariably will prove to be better, hmmm ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

I cant possibly leave out Marks contribution to this whole issue =D. Could be our saviour!

oh puhleez (rolls eyes) Mark, are you embarrased yet ? Drop in on ozltuae in yahoo groups sometime and say hello to the old crew :)

We don't need another hero – all we want is life beyond the thunderdome.

In this case, "life beyond the thunderdome" is more about creating and bringing about the next level to global communications than anything to do with seeking to preserve all that much of what we already have.

To me, your current hero of the day bares more resemblance to a priest of an old and dying religion unwilling to let go in the face of the New Improved that is going to do him out of a job unless he learns to change his thinking and embrace it.

Seriously, when considering how obviously doomed to mostly failure this filtering is going to be, all this upset really is so much ado about nothing ... so why are so many of you climbing on board this ship to nowhere ?

Mark himself has clearly indicated he is of the view that the proposed system cannot work and will fail, and I do know him to NOT be a totally unknowledgable fellow but rather someone who can regularly throw a good and informative read together ... which leaves me wondering why even he is choosing to walk this particular path when surely even he realises the Potential For Good out of it all.

Which brings me back to my "old priest" analogy. (shrug)

Perhaps it is a case of some folk just not wanting change. (shrug++)

While I'm waxing lyrical, I reckon a few more of us learn to "turn and face the strange ch-ch-ch-changes", stop fearing and worrying and instead start thinking of opportunity and improvement.

I suspect that you'll find the latter far more satisfying.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

Anything I should add? Fix?

As someone who has had nearly every one of my letters to the editor of The West Australian published (only too happy to provide copies of, but they are not on topic in this thread) my first suggestion would be to reduce the length.

The Ed will anyway ... expect whatever you do submit to end up with a different heading than you expected/provided (or maybe even wanted) and the odd paragraph hacked out here and there. Also, don't expect them to correct any of your spelling or grammar.

Should by some miracle your letter as it currently stands actually be given newsprint, most readers eyes would have glazed over and moved on to the next letter long before the name "Senator Conroy" comes up.

The next load of readers will quit as soon as they DO read "Senator Conroy" ... mostly because they would never have heard of him anyway.

The next load will quit as soon as the read what the filter will do because they (like me) in fact agree with it and don't care about trying to understand it or what it might cost them ... it's "technical stuff, and I'm no good with technical". :)

The rest (doing their morning business in the small room) will read it to the end and roll their eyes while muttering "pro pron fanatical religious zealot, will this country ever run out of them ?", especially when they get to the mentions of Hitler et al.

In short, if I was The Ed, I'd at most print the first four paragraphs under the heading of "suspicions over motivation for internet filtering" or something like that.

Tis probably too soon for many editors to be considering such stuff at the moment ... and remember, their main care is about what sells newspapers, not saving your world.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

You're either misinformed about the net filter or really do think it's a good idea.

Come back when you're part of the trial and tell us about how you couldn't reach Whirlpool because it was inappropriately blocked when someone opened a thread "deemed illegal" under the filtering guidelines.

I think it is a good idea partly because it is so obviously doomed to mostly fail.

Most of my internutting is done on a P3-700mhz notebook wirelessly linked at 54g to router kept busy serving up my household with all my ebay wins (usually every time), online banking, holiday bookings, forum and blog participation, patch updating, and general googling (etc) at the heady speeds generally provided by a cheapy 256/64 connection when not doing the same on $1ish a week dial-up connection as circumstances dictate.

If in the future I find that I can't access a link for info I was seeking for one reason or another, I'll do exactly what I already do. I'll go to another link, and another, and another, until I'm satisfied in terms of what I wanted to find or know.

Who knows, it may well be that the nnn (National Net Nanny, acronym © derspatz 2008 :)) might even make my online involvements FASTER than before.

Either way, the sooner the better ... even IF only "for the children". :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt3

See:

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

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we did that one a couple of dozen pages back ...

You are also forgetting that I'm seeing this latest cause for breast beating (hi Filter-Overlord) and "waa, waa, waa"ing as an opportunity and cause for our current form of 'puter based communications to be forged into something new that will take it beyond the control of not only the Government, but also ISPs and even PAID for internut in the way it is so over-charged for ATM.

I see a future where every abode, transport unit from scooter to ship, odd item of clothing, bridge, lightpole, etc, etc, etc, is equipped with short range radio devices performing constant packet transport.

Sure, not too many of us will want to gather in the same place carrying un-popped pop-corn, mind you. Heh++ :)

But serious, I am sure we can quickly come up with something that will see the timely end of the internut as it currently is ... along with ISPs and reliance on even telcos for all that much.

Or do you think that the internut as it currently is, is virtually as good as it was ever going to get ?

I see it as just another stage to be discarded once it has served its purpose and been replaced with something better.

Show some imagination folks ! How many of you here remember what we had/used BEFORE the internut became the Brave New Way ? Now, what do you think we might have in another mere decade or so ?

Is what we already have so good that we shouldn't seek out anything better ?

Seriously, go back and re-read some of your messages, folks and note how caught up you are getting in what basically is peripheral and somewhat ridiculous and barely worth the time worrying about in terms of what WILL be achieved in the long run.

regarDS