Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Tis over 66,000 now, and I can't say I've ever noticed an impact in performance because of it.

That's because it's only filtering your quarter-megabit, derspatz.

Now take the same system and plug it into a 10Gbit or 40Gbit firehose.

Not a chance in hell.

Yeah, I can appreciate that, Mark. I can also appreciate how well the likes of BlueCoat did the filtering thing based on access levels for the state wide client I was with up to a few months ago before moving over to a mob considerably international and even more generous with filtered internut access.

I've never noticed any speed impacts, only page denials for tubes etc ... but hey, I'm a 256/64 kinda guy, so anything more than that is a treat. :)

For those who want to know what I mean by Bluecoat, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems

Hard to imagine that there are all that many large businesses out there any more who allow unfettered/unfiltered internut access to their employees. To begin with, I suspect it just wouldn't fly with internal Duty Of Care requirements ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - Conroy

If they can filter out web sites, this also means they can log web sites visits.

Your ISP, by way of providing you with what you request, already affectively logs your web site visits. On more than one occasion I've sat chatting with an ISP admin while on a nearby bench a screen was constantly scrolling every page request served to clients and obviously linked to their static or dynamic IP for there session, along with time/date information.

This sort of thing is part and parcel of providing the service, and it would provide very little overhead for ISPs to legally be required to provide a central agency of logs of the same along with the account holders of the IPs associated with the web page requests.

It could never prove on its own who was actually sitting behind the keyboard making the requests at the time, but could certainly be used to establish patterns.

I wonder which would be more effective in terms of controlling the flow of illegal material on the internet.

An ISP-level filter as currently is to be tried, or the universal knowledge that every web request made anywhere is being logged and then forwarded to The Government to be archived near forever (tis such compressable data after all) and to be processed in all sorts of ways ?

Once again (as per in the ISP-filter thread) it wouldn't change my internut life one iota.

Perhaps Senator Conroy would be better to consider the ISP logging and reporting approach rather than reactive filtering ?

It would certainly be a lot cheaper for the tax payers.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

derspatz writes...You might want more opportunity to make a choice in relation to acting illegally or not, but shouldn't I have "the right" to have me and mine pro-actively protected from anything to do with illegal choices you might make ?

Aha, there is the problem David. You already have that right. Download net-nanny or whatever it is from the ACMA website. Your PC is now protected from all the nasties out there (that the government know about anyway). And so is whatever family you may have. Though by the same token you are restricting your significant other from her freedom of choice being of legal age.

And that is where an opt-in filter would be more acceptable to everyone.

Which is fine when me and mine are using our own machines in the comfort of our own living room, but doesn't help beyond that.

On the subject of local filters, I just had a look at the number of "blocked sites" Spybot Search and Destroy "immunises" via my hosts file these days. Tis over 66,000 now, and I can't say I've ever noticed an impact in performance because of it.

Nor any kind of "ooops, I can't get that page for you" message because of it either, come to think of it.

I guess I just don't try to browse places where it is ever likely to be triggered ...

So, if ISP-Level filtering would be used to do the same sort of thing that many of us are already doing via Hosts files, then truly many of us are never even going to realise a filter is even in place, let alone miss anything it may be filtering ... and nor need there be much in the way of a response time hit when it comes to legit sites being served up.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Do these people (ACMA and government) have any idea?

Presumably not, richary, but just as long as the average constituent in the government's preferred voting demographic is appeased to a reasonable degree it prolly doesn't seriously matter to them all that much when it comes to gaining a real clue ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

derspatz writes..."young" "love" "joyful"

Well, there goes half of the online lyrics put out by Hillsong ...

and thats ok ?

Well, so much for THAT attempt at humour. :)

I guess that would all depend on who you ask, [deleted].

In a functioning filtered world that blocks pr0n, anorexia, and hillsong, I suspect that there will be those who miss the first, couldn't give a rats about the second, and are amused at the irony of the last, and that there would also be those who see it the other way around and all sorts of other permutations in between.

If you want to know my personal take as derspatz the pragmatic, I would say that a reduction of hillsong online lyrics would be acceptable collateral damage/opportunity cost if it meant huge amounts of pr0n and stuff deemed illegal was no longer so easily flowing about the place.

No surprises there, eh ?

Surely the anorexia thing is a red herring ? What was the reasoning behind suggestions it would be deliberately filtered ? Anyone got a link or quote of the context ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

prolly get blacklisted as it has the words

"young" "love" "joyful"

Well, there goes half of the online lyrics put out by Hillsong ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Why do some people want "Offshore gaming sites banned" What are they/what is wrong with it?

Once again, merely part of our elected Government's job to try and best protect some of the disadvantaged among us such as those with gambling problems. Pretty hard to get cash back once it has left the country ... oh, and the obvious – harder to tax the gaming sites in the way all the "onshore" ones are. :)

The pollies would say it is about Duty of Care, but all know it is really is about The Tax.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Any ideas of how we can better design it so it need not fall prey in such a way, [deleted] ?

Scare the hell out of the politicians by threatening their lively good.

That might work for a year or two here in Oz, but how is that going to help get the unfettered truth into China ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

derspatz writes...Of course it does, [deleted], when it inspires the creation of something that is not so simple to censor.Honest to god, I'm staggered by your nonsense. Communication is completely unrestricted right now, how does it get better than that?

It may be somewhat unrestricted ATM, but it certainly is not unrestrictable. This is the next challenge in the evolution of "The Net" into something more fit than it currently is.

At the moment it can be made victim by whim of a Government.

Any ideas of how we can better design it so it need not fall prey in such a way, [deleted] ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Please provide examples.

viatel to bbs, bbs + fido, fido + usenet, fido to www, with the transition away from bbs/fido to www awash with grumblings and resentments etc.

Now I'm looking forward to www to ???

Oh, you were after examples of how unwelcome Government attentions/pressures on it's people has brought about sudden and radical change ?

"Google Is Your Friend", friend ... well, at least for the moment. :)

Deem "Vivi la Revolucion" included.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

I find it offensive you calling the worlds last uncontrolled medium "nutty" because there is information you dont like out there

I've been calling it the "internut" (for quite some time I might add, and long before coming here) more because of the how people more often tend to be when using it ... and I don't mind including myself in that because I'm only using the term good naturedly anyway, [deleted].

What I find offensive is the pervading and ignorant attitude that the internut as it currently is, is all it can and ever will be, and is somehow forever going to be at the mercy of the whims of this Senator or that Senator as per the wishes of their constituents.

I remember when we had Pretty Good networking without the WWW, and how the web was in the early days and how far and clever it has all become now.

Now it needs to go further ... and it will, but spare me this "oh woe, it's the end of the last uncontrolled medium" kinda stuff, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Just like with the climate, it is going through changes – but unlike the climate, the changes in this case will be man made. :)

... oh, and couldn't come soon enough.

Please, start thinking beyond this ISP-filtering thing.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

It's an idealist concept mate, and I'm sure you are very aware of that. You strike me as an especially informed and intelligent person here and I'm quite convinced that you do not genuinely believe that this will be the case.

Cheers [deleted], that makes a pleasant change. :)

Moderation by Majority. It's a very daunting concept, and dare I say, quite an utopia.

And on a smaller scale, Mark can share testimony with me that long long ago in an international amateur network far too forgotten, we had a form of that which worked pretty well ... although I must admit that there were always unseen overlords constantly itching to having that tiny utopia shut down.

Which is another reason why I reckon it would be fantastic to take current communication methods to where not only Oz Governments wouldn't even begin to bother to try and control, but also would render current methods utilised by the Chinese government (et al) similarly pointless.

I'm sorry, but I think you totally misunderstood me here. I think the suffering in short term here is NOTHING compared to what this will lead to in the long run. EVERY STEP towards a police state, EVERY STEP towards information control counts.

I agree to a point, but then I must look beyond.

Perhaps it is time to bring this famous quote from John Gilmore into the equation. See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

I reckon that if we have got to the stage that "The Net" is unable to route around the damage, then "The Net" is due a serious overhaul to make it more untouchable/immune to such damage.
What would be sad is if we couldn't or worse still, wouldn't work out a way for it to naturally overcome/resist such "damage".

But I have every confidence we can if enough reason for it can be brought to bear ... and perhaps these "steps towards a police state" are just the motivation needed.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Censorship does not lead to "better global communications for everyone".

Of course it does, [deleted], when it inspires the creation of something that is not so simple to censor.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

The last time I checked the government wasn't my parents though.

LOL. Is that KRudd I hear saying "no [deleted], *I* am your father ..." ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

this proposals is talking about blocking 'unsavoury' sites that discuss issues like anorexia.

That certainly is a strange one, [deleted]. I wonder what the motivation was for tossing that one into the pot !

I am in total agreement with you that "the few" shouldn't be put in the position for "the many" ... well, not unless "the few" are actually only acting as per the wishes of "the most", that is.

So who has the final say in all of this ... the Queen ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Complete arrogance.

Yes, but look at the tone of what I was replying to, [deleted].

You do realise how badly this will effect the majority of Australians

I don't think any of us do and nor can we until it is done.

My view is that any alleged negative majority effect will soon be overcome.
What is it the Darwinists say ? "Adapt or perish" etc ?

Rest assured that any negative effects that this deemed necessary change brings, will quickly inspire new ways of doing things that in the end will make folk wonder why we ever did it the old way in the first place.

Such is the nature of this beast we ride upon, I reckon.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

[deleted] writes...(also stop using 'internut', its pathetic to say the least)

i agree also it is very annoying indeed

So apply a filter.

Get the point, hmmm ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

I'm convinced Derpatz is Rod Speed or at least channelling his energy.

LOL, aww come on [deleted]. that is a bit of a low blow ! :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

stop using 'internut', its pathetic to say the least

Hi [deleted].

You are entitled to your opinion re: my using the word "internut", but I'll not be stopping using it any time soon regardless of how pathetic you think it is, for it is a term I have been using for a long time which I also think is a helpful reminder of how nutty the WWW can be.

You are just as free to accept my chosen tag for this online world we inhabit as I am to use it but rest assured I am not using it to cause any offence either here or anywhere else ... and in the spirit of free and unfettered internut, nor should I be required to stop using it, yes ?

Have you tried streaming videos on a 256/64k connection?

I download the odd youtube now and then, and my method is to click on the link, turn off the volume, go do something else in another window (such a participate here) and get back to it later.

It is what I am used to, but I accept that it would be frustrating for someone used to instant/real time streaming to be reduced to my system of doing things.

Thus, it certainly sounds like in the short term I have far less to lose than many other around here.

Sympathies if what folk are facing losing is in relation to wholesome legal activities ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

but equally he has failed to acknowledge our points which is sad

Ah, good point [deleted]. Ooops.

I admit that I've been somewhat busy being on the defensive and in hindsight have arrogantly ignored certain common concerns that the opposing view to mine do see as being legitimate even if I might not totally share with their view.

I'm sure as the discussion continues to move along, all sorts of common ground will reveal itself, but in the spirit of free and unfettered communications I shall endevour to be more mindful and less dismissive from hereon.

I just might need a little reminding on that from time to time though. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Wow, thank god we arent as easily trodden on ders. I want my 8-24 Mbit and unrestricted access to the Internet. Luckily, we will get it.

Heh. Can't miss what I've never had, [deleted]. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

This is essentially another step away from personal liberties with the blatantly false claim to 'Protect the young'.

Do you really believe that this is where it originates from ? You really think this is about child pornography? Really? I mean it's such a blatant and obvious excuse, I can't for my life see how people even regard that aspect of it. It has nothing to do with child pornography or protecting the children. It boils down to one aspect and one aspect alone.

Information control.

I believe you to be correct in this [deleted], and as much as I believe a degree of information control is necessary in varied circumstances, I also believe that information control should NOT be in the hands of "the few", but rather in the hands of "the many".

Moderation by Majority.

I also believe that the current majority (to this thread) approach to this latest attempt at necessary information control is the wrong one, for even if this does get shouted down through sheer volume of "waa, waa, waa" missives to pollies and media, it is only going to pop up again in a different form a little further down the track.

These sorts of things always do. I reckon that because the internut in its current form is so open to this kind of necessary attention from our elected government, it is high time it was taken up a notch and turned into something harder to touch in a meaningful way by "the few".

You're either for it, or against it. Simple as that. No. Really. It's as simple as that.

True to a point, but it is also possible (and dare I say, even useful) to be sincerely for it whilst also using the current pressure being brought to bear as merely a means to an ends for achieving better global communications for everyone.

Sure, compromise always accompanies pragmatism, but that is typical of opportunity cost situations, yes ?

What are we prepared to suffer in the short term in order to benefit far more in the long run when it comes to the future of the internut ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

You acknowledge the problems and issues and in the same breath summarily dismiss them as being benefits.

So I'm a pragmatist. Filter me if you don't like it, [deleted] :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

our elected Government also has a Responsibility to categorize activities as "illegal" based on the standards of the community who elected it.

Absolutely Mark (oh, and apologies for my initial clumsy arrival to this thread, whether you saw it or not) ... and the majority this time around would be ?

Now, cast your eyes around the wider community. Do you see much evidence that mandatory online censorship for adults is consistent with that community's standards?

The wider community in which constituent ? ;) I see the same evidence as you do – it's just that our own filters differ somewhat.

My filter presents the evidence (especially that gathered from this very thread) as lotsa folk generally wanting or willing to get away with and obtain for themselves anything that takes their fancy when given the chance and damn the torpedoes, so at first glance, it would appear that a general community sentiment is "bugger off and leave me alone".

But that is the problem with merely glancing. Depth and detail gets missed. I reckon a closer look reveals not too much in the way of community nor standards, and the problem is spreading to the detriment of all.

With that in mind, isn't it more the Government's Responsibility to preserve and/or restore society as best it can as opposed to foolishly recatagorising "illegal" based on what current community standard have unfortunately become ?

Giving the obese kid more donuts because that's what he wants doth not a good parent make. Apply accordingly up the line. :)

You bang on and on and on about responsibilities whenever anyone starts talking about rights; You always have

Absolutely. The latter aren't deserved nor will ever function properly or successfully without the former.

But the missing part of your world view is that you think Governments are completely free from both rights and responsibilities, dealing instead in raw authority.

Dunno where you get that from Mark – I've always thought things like accountability and duty, along with an obvious limit of time available to enjoy such stuff, is a given when saying "our elected government". Ah well, I'll try and be a tad more concise in the future ;)

Keep it up, you're doing fine.

I know. It is going to be interesting to see what is finally achieved out of all of this ... but hey, WE WERE THERE. Viva la revolucion !

do you have any more copies of Mystery 666, by the way? I lost the one you sent me in a house move about 15 years ago. Which was a shame, because it was always a great show-and-tell object to make people laugh about the state of the human condition.

ghods, next we'll be talking about how Obama is the antichrist !

Get back on topic, you ... but as we do, here is a link for you re: Stanton's book: http://www.antiqbook.nl/boox/bij/21192.shtml

Order before Fielding's Fundamentalist Filters get it :)

(Sorry Mods ... please spare us that last momentary indulgence ... back on track now)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

-prove that this filter will work 100% without slowing anything down

Already stated that I'm of the view that it is doomed to mostly fail in the short term. Things "slowing down" are irrelevant to me. Of course they will ... but on the other hand, maybe if more folk give up p2p streaming etc of time wasting garbage due to onerous filtering, status quo re: speed will be maintained. I couldn't give two hoots either way and quite happy to suck it and see, even if "just for the children" while I wait for the necessary Next Best Thing for necessity to produce.

-prove that it won't cost more

Don't care and not interested... it already costs too much and I am already not playing that game. Quite happy with my cheapy 256/64 and way cheapy dialup cheers, and I get everything done with it that I need and want to do. Yes, I'm all right, Jack ...

-prove that even if it doesn't fit the first two points, that it will be worth it ie. give me a guestimate of how many child molesters will choose not to molest because this was put in place...

I reckon it will be worth it because of pragmatic reasons already well repeated, as well as the obvious albeit inaccurate filtering it WILL achieve. The collatoral damage that false positives cause along with potential response time impacts is all mere conjecture at this stage but I'm happy to shrug it off as acceptable losses, even if "just for the children" in the short term.

-prove that this won't scope creep

I hope it does, for it should. The online world has got a long way to go before it can be thought of being in line with the laws of the land for the offline world. I reckon that while we can bring it into line we should, but if it makes you feel any better, I reckon we should also be trying to take global communications beyond the control of any government or special interest group, as well as doing away with the need for telcos and ISPs ... but you've already read that of me numerous times, yes ?

-prove that this isn't a cynical attempt to influence the senate vote of Fielding, a man who gained his office from Labor preferences and has been holding them over a barrel ever since.

I couldn't care less. Politicians do politician things and none of it surprises me nor should be that much of a surprise to anyone else.

The fact of the matter is that the internut in Oz is currently being used in ways contrary to the laws of the land and it is our elected Government's duty to at least rattle their rusty weapons and give lip service to the idea of reducing the disparity regarding dealing with illegal stuff online and dealing with illegal stuff offline. KRudd's "working families" expect it of him to look after their kiddies while they are busy out as wage slaves earning double incomes in order to pay off their negative equity, and all that. Dare I say "think of the children" again ?

-prove that Conroy didn't lie (promised opt out option at the last election)

We are talking about a politician here ? What am I supposed to be here ... surprised, offended, or outraged ? Sorry, but I can't raise enough interest in this one to be any just mentioned.

-prove that Conroy didn't try to bully a taxpaying voter in to silence (Mark Newton)

Same again. BTW, Mark and I used to exchange many a public missive back in the heady daze of FIDOnet and 2400baud modems in the early 1990s, and it is obvious to this day he is able to stand up for himself ... and has probably been exposed to (edit: and participated in) more rigorous debate than all of Conroy's department put together including Conroy. So, once again am I suppose to be surprised, offended, or outraged by this alleged attempt at bullying ?

-prove that Conroy hasn't accused anyone protesting this and Mark Ludlum of being "pro child porn"

I thought he had, so obviously there isn't much point in trying to prove he had not, but I'm happy to be corrected in that regard.
Anyway, you have to admit that there is a clear chain of logic to that kind of fallacious argument, but please spare me the outrage when you well know that near all of us rely upon such methods from time to time.

I suspect if Senator Conroy was arguing in such a way for something you wanted or agreed with, you would choose to barely even notice the method employed just a long as the result you wanted was delivered.

You know [deleted], we aren't THAT different ... :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Senator Fielding has signalled he wants a range of material blocked, including hard-core pornography and fetish material. Senator Xenophon has indicated he wants access to offshore gaming sites restricted

While I also agree with this in principal (and mourn the fact that it exists at all), what sort of people are going to have roll their sleeves up and expose themselves (pardon the pun) to the presumably mountains of groaning moaning quivering and heaving material needing classification in order to protect the rest of us from accidentally encountering it ?!

Will "Work for the dole" recipients be press-ganged into doing the dirty work under threat of losing benefits, or will it be farmed out to various churches for the little old ladies to organise over tea and cucumber sandwiches ? :)

Yes, I admit that mine was one of the votes that put Senator Fielding where he is, but I'm beginning to wonder if this man knows what he is asking when he suggests this kind of stuff.

I'm curious how he can expect others to sort and rifle through material that he doesn't want to be available to the general public and presumably doesn't want to see and hear himself !

Also, presumably after prolonged exposure to aforementioned mountains of censorables, one may well become somewhat desensitised to it all.

This presents even more problems such as how to maintain constant objectivity towards material submitted for classification, and just how is a work place related injury compensation determined regarding long term psychological damage, etc, as a result of continued exposure to illegal and distateful material.

Just how is the master filter list going to be arrived at ?

Tis one thing to install a list of urls (although looking at the first page of Spybot Search and Destory's blocked host list is disturbing enough thank you very much), but surely quite another to have to browse submitted url data in the first place to ensure it is what it is claimed to be.

I wouldn't want that kind of job for any money in the world ... and nor would I be all that happy at having to hire someone else to do it, as it would be quite hypocritical if not immoral to hire someone to the kind of job being talked about here when not willing to do it oneself.

What a can of worms, eh ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

I would be very curious to see the reactions of the ISPs if this filter does go ahead.

For common popular stuff more likely to be kept in ISP proxies caches (as well as local cache), one would expect there wouldn't be that much of an extra time penalty to pay, but I'm happy to be corrected on that, [deleted].

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

You know, you can oppose this filtering scheme and be for such a new internet as you seem to have proposed...

Sure, but it is never likely to happen while so many folk seem happy enough to pay what they do for what they get, and other folk/companies are happy making the money off that process.

At the moment, I reckon it is complacency and greed which is the greater enemy of the internut than this ISP-level filtering scheme.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

The laws of the land should change, not internet neutrality.

Errr, I'm not so sure I want to explore THAT one. :)

Or it should remain seperated as it has for the last 20 years, which has worked fine and been extremely successful and wondrous to human knowledge (this will not remain the case with the filter in place).

There are a number of us here who were involved with amateur international computer based communications long before the popularity of what we have today. Look up "FIDOnet" sometime. Some of us were even involved in the creation of software and utilities to make its daily operations simpler.

Come to think of it, guess what kind of software I wrote in that regard ?

Yup, you guess it ... filtering software. Heh. More irony. :)

Anyway, the WWW came along and FIDOnet was rendered redundant virtually overnight. Sure, it still has its fans to this day ... and so does CB and packet radio for that matter.

My point is that the great thing we had and built and tweaked and twisted to serve our purposes (and it served them quite well for many a year) was replaced by something far better when circumstance, situation, and technology made it both desirable and feasible.

Sure, some amazing developments have been happening with this replacement system over the years, but it has been quite a while seen I've seen anything all that wonderful about it in development terms, and certainly nothing like the progress in change it used be in comparison to what we had before.

I for one am ready to see a brand new approach to global communications, and one that although might shield/protect those who want to use global comms to do wrong, will also bring an end to the kinds of censorship systems mis-used by the likes of China et al. I have my own reasons for wanting this and it has nothing to do with enabling/protecting the unfettered flow of pron or p2p and other such annoyances.

Yes, I am aware that some might be tempted to wail back "but that's what OZ government is trying to do with this filtering, they are trying to do what China does", but let's save on the bandwidth, and not bother going around and around on that obvious nonsense, eh ?

I am also ready to see a world that gets busy bringing the cost of free and unfettered communications down to next to no public cost at all. I reckon comms should be virtually free in every sense of the word – but that is probably a subject for a different thread.

However, until this utopian idea of global communications is born from the ashes of the superceded super highway (rolls eyes), I am all for what we currently have being brought into line with our offline laws of the land while it remains feasible to do so.

On one hand I'm saying that instigating a form of filtering is the Right Thing to do while it still can be done even if it brings a degree of inconvenience to us in the short term and while a better way of doing what unfortunately needs to be done, is determined and implimented.

On the other hand I'm saying that I reckon now might be a Really Good time for keen, clever, and knowledeable folk to designing the next level in terms of a global comms system that no Government will so easily be able to fiddle with in such a way again.

This is not a doublethink. This is "small picture, big picture" stuff and even then, only part of the tapestry I'm really imagining.

Yes, it also means that I'm taking a pragmatic approach to ISP-level filtering while also sincerely agreeing with it in principal.

Does that clear up your confusion about my position, [deleted] ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

i believe even you would agree education and being proactive in changing public attitudes is far more beneficial to forcing a gag on people anytime..

Absolutely ... ah, but there is education and there is Education, hmmm ? ;)

Also, considering effort required, it is prolly just easier and cheaper to filter. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

I for one do not wish to have a filter that should be my right not to have one..

derspatz writes...Yet in the offline world you already do ... so isn't it somewhat incongruous that the same should not apply in the online world ?

i do ? explain ?

The filters that our society already embraces in everyday offline life in order to function in a relatively civilised, organised, and appropriate way. Typically it begins when you get out bed to bathe, brush your teeth, and put clothes on before walking out the door to go down to the local newsagency and DVD shop to buy or hire your chosen reading or viewing material of that day.

Typically, due to agreed upon filters instigated at the people's wishes via the government, certain types of reading material will not (or should not) be in the ready view of the under-age and certain types of DVD covers will be similarly "filtered" to a particular section. A whole bunch of stuff thankfully will not be available at all, and at very least, what IS available will be "filtered" away behind the covers that are sealed to protect against accidental persual by those deemed too young to be reading those kinds of articles. :)

Do we really have to explore your whole day to realise just how many self determined and Government determined filters you already submit yourself to in the offline world ?

I see no reason for things to be any different with our internut and its use and think that if we as individuals are unable or unwilling to bring similar levels/layers of responsibility (etc) to it in order to for it to match the laws of our offline world, then our elected Government must.

I do admit that it is a great shame that it has come to this, though.

As a nation, we generally agree upon offline laws of the land regarding a whole bunch of stuff, so I don't think it is unreasonable that we should also agree upon bringing our online world into similar line, especially seeing how incorporated it already is in our day to day life.

Finally, I find it bewildering and incongruous that some appear to want the safety of legislated law and order in the offline world, and yet virtual anarchy when it comes to modern communications that are so deeply woven into that world of desired order.

I'm not actually all that interested in comparing whose morals are better than whose. What I am interested in (aside from what I've already said about positive progress) is seeing some consistency between how the offline and online is viewed.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

when you join Whirlpool, you agree to the rules...

When you come to a workplace, you agree with the policies of the organisation.

I agree wholeheartedly

These are very different to what you choose to do over your private bb connection that you pay for.

I disagree because when your argument is rightfully and contextually expanded out to include:

"when you choose to remain part of a community/society/country, you agree to abide by the laws created and enforced by the majority elected government for the benefit of the whole country"

... it is revealed that there is no fundamental difference between the filtering that our elected government needs to put in place to be in keeping with laws in relation to things illegal in the offline world, and agreeing to submit to arbitary moderator filtering in the WP forums, and agreeing to submit to the filtering policies of your workplace.

BTW, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from calling me or anyone else a "troll" just because they obviously hold a contrary view to you in relation to the ISP level filtering proposed. Cheers.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

calling the internut a series of tubes XD
....................^^^^^
Heh. I knew you could see it my way in the end, [deleted]. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

Shesh you fail to understand things lol

This does nothing positive, nor block anything its supposed to

I reckon a lot of folk around here quietly know that I "understand things" all too well and wish I would just shut up and go away and stop bringing such calm rationality in response to the hysterics being so frequently example in this thread.

I've already stated that I am of the view that the filter being proposed is doomed to quite a degree of failure, but that is no reason why it shouldn't be attempted.

As for achieving something positive, well as I've already shared, I'm seeing this filter issue so many of you are getting hot under the collar about as actually a cause and opportunity for our current form of 'puter based communications to be forged into something new that will take it beyond the control of not only the Government, but also ISPs and even PAID for internut in the way it is so over-charged for ATM.

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

Yes, I realise that there could be some RF issues ... and an increase in cancerous tumours, but seriously, I am sure we can quickly come up with something that will see the timely end of the internut as it currently is ... along with ISPs and reliance on even telcos for all that much.

Ah, but I doubt if the ISPs or telcos would like that, eh ? We're just not allowed to have free communications, hmmm ? And especially not communications beyond Government control !

I for one don't think that the internut (a self-explanitory term I've preferred to use for a long, long, time) as it currently is, is virtually as good as it was ever going to get. I see it as just another stage to be discarded once it has served its purpose and been replaced with something better.

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

Are you angry enough about the promised Government intentions and interventions that instead of trying to "fight city hall" over the troublesome system we already have, you work towards creating a system that will render EVERY government impotent as to its control ?

I'd rather be reading positive visionary stuff about how we can take our internut into a bright new future, than all this negative "the govenment is going to break my toy" type stuff that mostly shall amount to nothing more than a mere taking up of bandwidth.

its very disappointing that your blind to the facts.

It's very disappointing that hardly anyone has chosen as yet to explore in here the positives that this filtering furor can birth in relation to a new improved internut.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

I for one do not wish to have a filter that should be my right not to have one..

Yet in the offline world you already do ... so isn't it somewhat incongruous that the same should not apply in the online world ?

and your more then happy to see your internet speeds suffer, you place a filter on your own pc

I already do in the sense that I'm happy to run a mere P3-700mhz laptop wirelessly connected at mere 54g speeds to a measily 256/64 connection when not using common dial-up.

It does everything I generally want to do and is a huge improvement on the 1200/75 BAUD connection I used to have on my XT back in 1985 when we were all chatting in the online environment called "Viatel" and wondering when AUSTEL was going to come knocking on our doors for hooking up illegal hardware to the telecom lines. :)

[deleted], you are already free to either keep or break the law, but surely you must understand that at very least our elected govenment has a duty to the people it governs to spend tax payer money on the control and prevention of things and activities that are illegal both online and offline ?

You might want more opportunity to make a choice in relation to acting illegally or not, but shouldn't I have "the right" to have me and mine pro-actively protected from anything to do with illegal choices you might make ?

Should your "right" to be given free opportunity to behave illegally be given greater worth than my "right" to live in an environment where illegal actions with all their repercussions, are less likely to occur in the first place ?

Yes, I know this distills down to the "think of the children" argument, but when it comes to the welfare of the future and the preservation of what is generally deemed to be good and innocent and yet so easily corrupted when natural duty of care is neglected, what really is wrong with "thinking of the children" ?

Don't we already have offline filtering and censorship in place because of them ?

Shouldn't the same apply for the online world ?

regarDS