Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

If and when I break the law, I expect my case to be handled with due process and be punished accordingly.

Ah, so you would prefer a reporting system rather than a filtering system, Alex12 ?

The filter:

(a) assumes that I am a criminal by default,

I don't see the filter as assuming anything ... it is just a filter busy doing what filters do – keeping the pond clean. :)

The not unreasonable assumption and cause for the filter is that there are things out there that should be filtered, so that is what it is for. No assumption is made that you are a criminal, and nor would you even begin to be unless you attempted to access things deemed illegal, and the fact that the filter would filter you means that a greater crime has been prevented from happening.

Just think of the savings on the legal system. :)

(b) ignores due process,

So Oz should cease and desist in all attempts at crime prevention and instead only worry about dealing with crime after it is committed ? Not very comforting ! Time you took down your security door on your house and firewall on your computers, hmmm ?

( c) doesn't punish me other than by (not really) limiting my ability to engage in further allegedly illegal activities.

Let me get this right. You want to be able to freely commit a crime so you can waste Oz resources by tying up court time so that a punishment can be inflicted upon you ?

That doesn't sound very healthy to me – but cheers for being an obvious example of why the internut in Oz is way over-due for a greater degree of filtering than it already has ... and also putting the "U" into that word I like to use. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

derspatz writes...So why bring it up, [derspatz] ?

Because you bring it up.

And trying to blame it on us.

Oh ? Feel free to provide quotes to back that up. Perhaps you were thinking of a message from someone else ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

It's not going to stop stalkers, murders rapists, thefts, break ins etc.... "Because you don't need the Internet for that..............

So why bring it up, [deleted] ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

What you are assuming is that:

I'm not actually bothering to assume much if anything at all.

a) the internet filter is 100% effective

Irrelevant. Rarely is anything 100% effective or without some wriggle room for improvement. Unreasonable to expect a url filter to get it immediately right when we still can't even do that with spam filters.

Yet I'm quite happy with the level of effectiveness my email provider achieves in relation to filtering spam ... how about you ?

b) there will be no false positives

See above. I'm willing to suffer the odd/rare brief inconvenience in the form of collateral damage/friendly fire when it comes to "false positives" in comparison to predicted far greater ratio of "true positives".

"Near enough is good enough" is a well founded Oz attitude after all, and one that I am more than willing to continue to uphold.

c) it will not slow anything down

Another irrelevance, especially considering standard advancements and how quick they come. Any slow down would barely even register as a speed-bump in the overall scheme and progression of things.

d) it will only block what is _strictly_ illegal.

I am quite confident that it will be used to try and block as best it can that which is deemed "strictly illegal" now, and also what else is later deemed to be illegal as established by common concent of Oz society by way of usual process in terms of governance etc.

In short, I would expect it to remain flexible enough to not only deal with things judged illegal in the here and now, but also in the future.

Things that none of us have The Right to promote or partake in as judged by the majority for the benefit of the entire nation.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

derspatz writes...Rights without Responsibilities are seldom deserved nor should ever be easily granted.

Mate, this is the government pre-emptively deciding that I deserve no rights and will fail in my responsibilities to society unless they step in and take care of it all for me.

No they are not. Our elected Government are merely attempting to bring illegal online activities and information into line with the same sorts of things done to control/prevent them offline.

Besides, you don't have The Right to break the law but rather merely the choice and ability to. If anything, all of us have The Right to share an environment where law breaking is rendered harder to achieve and law breakers are less likely to prosper.

The majority of people in Oz (particularly Krudd's "working families" et al) want law and order in this country and society, so it only stands to reason that methods used to achieve this should extend to every level and aspect of common life.

Which obviously must therefore include the internut.

Only those wanting to continue to selfishly flout the law without attracting deserved consequence would argue otherwise. :) :) :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

selfish ? what are you talking about ?

Pertaining to self and self interest.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

http://www.equalopportunitycommission.vic.gov.au/human%20rights/the%20victorian%20charter%20of%20human%20rights%20and%20responsibilities/default.asp

[QUOTE]
Respect

Protection of families and children
Families are entitled to be protected by society and the State. Public authorities should keep this in mind when carrying out their duties. Children have the right to protection according to their best interests, without discrimination.

Limiting human rights
The Charter recognises that human rights are not absolute but may be limited in certain circumstances. Under the Charter rights may be limited but only when justified in a free and democratic society, taking into account relevant factors. These factors involve the following types of questions:

Which right is to be limited? Is the right very important in international law, for example, freedom from torture?

Is the purpose for wanting to limit the human right very pressing and important to society?

What sort of limitation is being imposed? How could it infringe human rights?

Is the limitation likely to achieve its purpose? Is the limitation excessive or out of proportion to its purpose?

Are there any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve?

For example, the right to freedom of expression may be restricted in order to respect the rights and reputation of other people or for the protection of national security, public order, health or morality.

This allows a balance to be struck between people's rights and a need for Government departments and other public organisations to protect the broader public interest.
[/QUOTE]

A particular irony of the whole document is that although it claims to be a charter of/for Human Rights and Responsibilities (as you can imagine, that last word got me excited), the actual responsibilities detailed are more to do with administrative departments as they relate to "Rights" than with individuals who may or may not be clamouring for Rights which may or may not be actually deserved.

Typical.

Rights without Responsibilities are seldom deserved nor should ever be easily granted.

A bit like this crazy lawless and selfish notion of some sort of deserved god given right to unfettered uncontrolled/unmoderated/ungoverned internut access just because one has access to a feed and a device to connect with, really ...

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6

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

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

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