The Australian government's intention to introduce a mandatory Internet filtering regime has precipitated a little bit of a gold-rush, amongst Internet filtering companies there.
I wouldn't expect anything less when there is allegedly $44m of tax-payers loot up for grabs.
No doubt even [insert favorite ISP name here] are busy having all manner of meetings about this and wondering what slice of the pie they can get and what they can write off against the same.
ISPs aren't in it for the hobby or pr0n, after all ...
regarDS
Monday, November 03, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
I wish 'Spart' would change his name. I tend to ignore it at first thinking its someone else;)
It triggers a false positive with your filters ? :)
regarDS
It triggers a false positive with your filters ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
Given that it was on Sunrise and a phone poll (55c cost to call) you can take away a few things:
(takes away a few things)
That's just 4 off the top of my head.
... and 80% of maybe 4 pollers is ? :) :) :)
regarDS
(takes away a few things)
That's just 4 off the top of my head.
... and 80% of maybe 4 pollers is ? :) :) :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
Sunrise Poll on Monday 27th October, ~80% opposition to the plan.
Darren Hinch's audience also had approximately 90% opposition to the plan during his show where he was discussing the filtering plan.
80% etc of what ... and how many of those were from unique pollers anyway, Carl ?
regarDS
Darren Hinch's audience also had approximately 90% opposition to the plan during his show where he was discussing the filtering plan.
80% etc of what ... and how many of those were from unique pollers anyway, Carl ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
derspatz writes...
In short, the prime motivation for all the noise is basic selfishness and self-interest.
and what did you have for dinner tonight derspartz ?
Ah, we're just gluttons for mod applied filters, eh [deleted]. :) Nope, no more tuna and salmon (woolies have a special on at the moment – 5 x 95g "Greenseas" Tuna for $5) today ... had a curry cooked up by my beloved and a beer to wash it down.
Now, back on the subject of ISP Level Content Filtering, "since when did being safe become illegal ?"
regarDS
In short, the prime motivation for all the noise is basic selfishness and self-interest.
and what did you have for dinner tonight derspartz ?
Ah, we're just gluttons for mod applied filters, eh [deleted]. :) Nope, no more tuna and salmon (woolies have a special on at the moment – 5 x 95g "Greenseas" Tuna for $5) today ... had a curry cooked up by my beloved and a beer to wash it down.
Now, back on the subject of ISP Level Content Filtering, "since when did being safe become illegal ?"
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
I pointed out that I'd never seen a single issue at any time in Australian politics which had so polarized the Australian electorate against their Government.
LOL. Subjectivity, lying, or mere polly speak (ooops, I said lying twice) ?
gowane Mark, quote the numbers of these polarized/divided electorate against their Govenment. Are you going to include 10,000 facebook members who joined in to see WTH is going on, in the "polarized" count ?
Actually, I've read some of the facebook comments and it doesn't look like unity to me !
You can count me polarized for the Government if you like – and I didn't directly vote for it, either.
regarDS
LOL. Subjectivity, lying, or mere polly speak (ooops, I said lying twice) ?
gowane Mark, quote the numbers of these polarized/divided electorate against their Govenment. Are you going to include 10,000 facebook members who joined in to see WTH is going on, in the "polarized" count ?
Actually, I've read some of the facebook comments and it doesn't look like unity to me !
You can count me polarized for the Government if you like – and I didn't directly vote for it, either.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
Because it isn't hearsay?
Because it is ... and how much of my archives from that era do you want me to dump into the yahoo groups in order to take the hearsay out of it and prove the dishonesty of it instead ? :)
Actually, I need only do one message (check ozltuae soonish) which will show that it was me who introduced the term "twist and turn" (ala Black Adder's "Twist and Turn like a twisty turny thing") into my replies to various folk in LTUAE before Mark ever arrived there, and he is quite mistaken if he is of the view it was introduced for me or ever a name/tag adopted for me.
I think your term of the "internut" is pissing everybody else.
So I should stop using a term I've been using for a long time and from long before I posted to this forum thread ? Pass. When I first started using that spelling way back when, it was more as a joke as well as an expression of self-deprecation than anything else, but now I see that with every passing day it is becoming quite the apt descriptor ... though still not so bad that I'm willing to count myself out of as yet. :)
The obvious truth is that most of us ARE quite "nutty" when it comes to The Net ... and none moreso than those who take it all far too seriously and become quite the FRZs in relation to it. (FRZ = Fanatical Religous Zealots ... you know, the same kind of folk that with a different cause and means behind them, would fly planes into buildings and think they are doing a Good Thing.)
I'd have thought most would be able to appreciate the quaint efficiency of the term "internut" by now, as well as have adequate reason to refer to The Web as "McWeb" or "McNet" now and then, too.
Your choice whether to use it, fight for it, or lose it.
That's bordering on hysterical nonsense richary, and it is very surprising to see it from you. We're not about to "lose" the "internet" and nor is it something that requires "fighting for". It isn't even under any kind of threat other than the standard noise to signal ratio that all public networks have been lumbered with since rs232 was designed.
You have your beliefs and I respect your right to those beliefs, As long as you don't try to impose them on others.
So by supporting the government's attempts to bring the same law and order you live by/under offline, online, *I* should be deemed to be imposing my beliefs upon you ? Non Sequitur alert ! ;)
I personally agree the "internet" as it is will develop to something outside government or corporate control – eventually.
We're somewhat in tune on that one (btw, I thought that was a good/succint reply you returned to me back in part 5 or 4 of this thread ... went to reply to say so but we had already moved on and replies were not possible) EDIT: Here tis: /forum-replies.cfm?t=1079347&r=17074544#r17074544
But I don't agree that censoring what we can and can't see now will hasten that day.
I really don't get this. There is no clamour going on in the offline world to throw away laws and controls in relation to the many levels of censorship we already have going/generally abide by there, so why this (almost psychotic) resistance to have our online world be brought into line with the same ? Can you see/understand why I deem such a stance to be gross hypocrisy ?
The problem is not what the main government media push is – getting rid of child porn. We all know it won't do that anyway. It is about being able to control what we can and can't see. Sure, I am prepared to give Conroy the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes he is doing the right thing
Sometimes you are far more generous than I, richary. :) On ya.
But once the filter is in place, it is open to abuse by his or a future government.
Absolutely. No disagreement here. And this ISP-Level content filtering that we KNOW is going to fail, won't remain the only attempt of a government to do such a thing either, I reckon.
Yet even if the internut became a total tool of The Government Machine (most unlikely) it still wouldn't mean diddly in terms of censor because quite simply, it just isn't the be all and end all of communications and knowledge/information transfer. Sure, it may currently be one of the fastest versions ... though, having lived in a country town, I reckon gossip travels much faster :)
That is the real argument against this and I wish people would shut up about child porn etc.
Yet it isn't, for the purpose of the proposed filters is to block illegal material, which merely includes what you just mentioned.
Folk are merely trying to make it about something else because they are basically worrying that their free ride to certain things may be coming to an end.
In short, the prime motivation for all the noise is basic selfishness and self-interest.
regarDS
Because it is ... and how much of my archives from that era do you want me to dump into the yahoo groups in order to take the hearsay out of it and prove the dishonesty of it instead ? :)
Actually, I need only do one message (check ozltuae soonish) which will show that it was me who introduced the term "twist and turn" (ala Black Adder's "Twist and Turn like a twisty turny thing") into my replies to various folk in LTUAE before Mark ever arrived there, and he is quite mistaken if he is of the view it was introduced for me or ever a name/tag adopted for me.
I think your term of the "internut" is pissing everybody else.
So I should stop using a term I've been using for a long time and from long before I posted to this forum thread ? Pass. When I first started using that spelling way back when, it was more as a joke as well as an expression of self-deprecation than anything else, but now I see that with every passing day it is becoming quite the apt descriptor ... though still not so bad that I'm willing to count myself out of as yet. :)
The obvious truth is that most of us ARE quite "nutty" when it comes to The Net ... and none moreso than those who take it all far too seriously and become quite the FRZs in relation to it. (FRZ = Fanatical Religous Zealots ... you know, the same kind of folk that with a different cause and means behind them, would fly planes into buildings and think they are doing a Good Thing.)
I'd have thought most would be able to appreciate the quaint efficiency of the term "internut" by now, as well as have adequate reason to refer to The Web as "McWeb" or "McNet" now and then, too.
Your choice whether to use it, fight for it, or lose it.
That's bordering on hysterical nonsense richary, and it is very surprising to see it from you. We're not about to "lose" the "internet" and nor is it something that requires "fighting for". It isn't even under any kind of threat other than the standard noise to signal ratio that all public networks have been lumbered with since rs232 was designed.
You have your beliefs and I respect your right to those beliefs, As long as you don't try to impose them on others.
So by supporting the government's attempts to bring the same law and order you live by/under offline, online, *I* should be deemed to be imposing my beliefs upon you ? Non Sequitur alert ! ;)
I personally agree the "internet" as it is will develop to something outside government or corporate control – eventually.
We're somewhat in tune on that one (btw, I thought that was a good/succint reply you returned to me back in part 5 or 4 of this thread ... went to reply to say so but we had already moved on and replies were not possible) EDIT: Here tis: /forum-replies.cfm?t=1079347&r=17074544#r17074544
But I don't agree that censoring what we can and can't see now will hasten that day.
I really don't get this. There is no clamour going on in the offline world to throw away laws and controls in relation to the many levels of censorship we already have going/generally abide by there, so why this (almost psychotic) resistance to have our online world be brought into line with the same ? Can you see/understand why I deem such a stance to be gross hypocrisy ?
The problem is not what the main government media push is – getting rid of child porn. We all know it won't do that anyway. It is about being able to control what we can and can't see. Sure, I am prepared to give Conroy the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes he is doing the right thing
Sometimes you are far more generous than I, richary. :) On ya.
But once the filter is in place, it is open to abuse by his or a future government.
Absolutely. No disagreement here. And this ISP-Level content filtering that we KNOW is going to fail, won't remain the only attempt of a government to do such a thing either, I reckon.
Yet even if the internut became a total tool of The Government Machine (most unlikely) it still wouldn't mean diddly in terms of censor because quite simply, it just isn't the be all and end all of communications and knowledge/information transfer. Sure, it may currently be one of the fastest versions ... though, having lived in a country town, I reckon gossip travels much faster :)
That is the real argument against this and I wish people would shut up about child porn etc.
Yet it isn't, for the purpose of the proposed filters is to block illegal material, which merely includes what you just mentioned.
Folk are merely trying to make it about something else because they are basically worrying that their free ride to certain things may be coming to an end.
In short, the prime motivation for all the noise is basic selfishness and self-interest.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
hi derspatz :) what did you have for lunch today?
Pretend cat food. It's rich in Omega3 ... good for the brain. :)
A tuna day keeps the mind at play ...
regarDS
Pretend cat food. It's rich in Omega3 ... good for the brain. :)
A tuna day keeps the mind at play ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out.
... and it didn't matter anyway because there was no one left but They Who Came – and who wants to be one of them anyway ? :)
regarDS
and there was no one left to speak out.
... and it didn't matter anyway because there was no one left but They Who Came – and who wants to be one of them anyway ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
[deleted], would you care to explain how this filter will stop a father from raping his daughter? Or an uncle molesting his nephew? How it's going to stop IM/chat room "hook ups" between predators and children?
Strawman. I don't think anyone (including Conroy and FF) is expecting ISP-Level Content filtering to have much to do at all with the things you've just suggested here [deleted] ... and nor should it rationally be expected to.
Ah, perhaps you are "trolling" for a reaction, hmmm ? Well, you got it.
regarDS
Strawman. I don't think anyone (including Conroy and FF) is expecting ISP-Level Content filtering to have much to do at all with the things you've just suggested here [deleted] ... and nor should it rationally be expected to.
Ah, perhaps you are "trolling" for a reaction, hmmm ? Well, you got it.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
Big Business (the Telcos/ISPs) want uncensored Internet to maximize their profits.
Yup. Telcos have never wanted to be deemed responsible for illegal information muled over their equipment, so it only stands to reason that ISPs are of similar stinky "not my problem or responsibility" attitude ...
regarDS
Yup. Telcos have never wanted to be deemed responsible for illegal information muled over their equipment, so it only stands to reason that ISPs are of similar stinky "not my problem or responsibility" attitude ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
The problems I have with this bill (which have probably been covered ad infinitum) is that :
- "legality" seems to be subjective.
Surely no more or less than with every other law of the land, Koshatul ? The opposite of "subjective morality" is ? Now consider every other law and bill we have through the same sort of comparitive filter. Not at odds with the norm at all, is it.
- the list isn't available through FOI (we can't find out what is on the list)
If that is the case, it would make sense wouldn't it. Yes, we all realise that such a list will never remain much of a secret for too long considering the medium, but making it too easy for anybody and everybody to know the contents would be somewhat counter productive, yes ? We are talking about that which is illegal after all.
This isn't a solution, it is a pacification.
I couldn't have put it any better ... and wish I had. I've already repeately indicated my cynicism re: government motivation despite certain failure to the method chosen, but never have managed to express the truth you just shared as clearly and succinctly as you have just done. On ya.
- Conroy simply throws the "child porn fanatic" label at everyone who had disagreed with him.
Yes, he is being a politician and saying what a politician needs to say in order to obtain the most support from the most number of people who matter to him. Ooops, there goes my cynicism again. :)
As I've repeated when we just shoot down opposing opinions without fact or reason, we've become the what we are fighting, just in different clothing.
Well said, [deleted]. Also another reason to keep personalities out of things and just stick to the fundamentals.
regarDS
- "legality" seems to be subjective.
Surely no more or less than with every other law of the land, Koshatul ? The opposite of "subjective morality" is ? Now consider every other law and bill we have through the same sort of comparitive filter. Not at odds with the norm at all, is it.
- the list isn't available through FOI (we can't find out what is on the list)
If that is the case, it would make sense wouldn't it. Yes, we all realise that such a list will never remain much of a secret for too long considering the medium, but making it too easy for anybody and everybody to know the contents would be somewhat counter productive, yes ? We are talking about that which is illegal after all.
This isn't a solution, it is a pacification.
I couldn't have put it any better ... and wish I had. I've already repeately indicated my cynicism re: government motivation despite certain failure to the method chosen, but never have managed to express the truth you just shared as clearly and succinctly as you have just done. On ya.
- Conroy simply throws the "child porn fanatic" label at everyone who had disagreed with him.
Yes, he is being a politician and saying what a politician needs to say in order to obtain the most support from the most number of people who matter to him. Ooops, there goes my cynicism again. :)
As I've repeated when we just shoot down opposing opinions without fact or reason, we've become the what we are fighting, just in different clothing.
Well said, [deleted]. Also another reason to keep personalities out of things and just stick to the fundamentals.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
[deleted] writes...derspatz, why would you call the internet anarchy?
Derspatz doesn't actually care, because he thinks the world is going to end soon anyway, with judgement day and rapture 'n' all that stuff.
The chaos we're talking about here is fully consistent with his end-of-days prophecy philosophy
Dunno why WP mods let that through as it basically is a case of Mark Newton obviously not being able to handle a contrary opinion so resorting to attacking the person with heresay, no doubt in an attempt to poison the well.
For shame.
My views have been consistent throught out this thread and similarly reflected in my blog entry and yahoo group responses away from WP.
Far from advocating chaos about this topic, I have continually and consistently pointed out and promoted the need for law and order for on the internut just as for off it.
Who is it that doesn't want law and order here but rather a chaotic division between online governance and offline ?
regarDS
Derspatz doesn't actually care, because he thinks the world is going to end soon anyway, with judgement day and rapture 'n' all that stuff.
The chaos we're talking about here is fully consistent with his end-of-days prophecy philosophy
Dunno why WP mods let that through as it basically is a case of Mark Newton obviously not being able to handle a contrary opinion so resorting to attacking the person with heresay, no doubt in an attempt to poison the well.
For shame.
My views have been consistent throught out this thread and similarly reflected in my blog entry and yahoo group responses away from WP.
Far from advocating chaos about this topic, I have continually and consistently pointed out and promoted the need for law and order for on the internut just as for off it.
Who is it that doesn't want law and order here but rather a chaotic division between online governance and offline ?
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
