Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt8

hear that filtering in America upset people when it blocked Superbowl coverage.

It seems they number their Superbowl series with Roman numerals and when they got to Superbowl XXX ...

You just watched the early Thursday morning repeat of the Press Club address too, huh ? He had some good stuff to say ... actually didn't come down on ISP level content filtering but did express how it rarely proves to be effective.

Interesting what he said about folk not allowed to enter into contracts until they are 18 and yet are able to say/do/present all sorts of things online in places like Facebook that have the potential to harm them far more than contract deals for phones, etc. Some companies might have some time in courts over this sort of thing not too many years down the track.

I also liked the suggestion that facebook (etc) accounts for kids should be accessible by their parents ... ah, but how to guarentee that one ? Do kids have "a right" to "privacy" when it comes to their parents, or is it merely a conditional privilage ?

Be good to see the suggested end of newspapers and magazines (replaced by constantly updating online versions) and was interesting to learn that America would rather give up mobile phones then internet then TV whereas we would rather give up TV, then internet, then mobile phones.

He did have some interesting things to say about necessary control of content and the need for quality sites to provide quality information and that in this speedy world more and more of us can't be bothered/haven't the time to sift through noise looking for the signal and so the natural progression for Web development is for sites to build names/reputations for themselves as being providers of good quality information.

I had to LOL when he described how Iran? (can't remember which country ATM) solved its filtering of unwelcome data issue by deliberately choking broadband down to dial-up speeds so no one could be bothered doing the big downloads any more.

No one tell Senator Conroy that as he'll be running to Krudd to say "I've figured out how to solve the filtering issue AND save you not only the cost budgeted for broadband development, but also the cost budgeted for filtering. Instead of trying to make it faster, we'll just make it illegal to go faster than 64/64" :)

Anyway, one of the better Press Club addressess of late ... I wonder if anyone happened to stream it and tube it, as it touched on many things which have been topical to this filtering debate and concern ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt8

I'm not talking about "prohibition style" at all – I'm talking about sensible content filtering along the lines that we see everywhere else but the internet and I'm talking about making an attempt to start somewhere with this – which is what I believ the Governement is trying to do. They won't get it right the first time or even the second or third time – but should that stop them from attempting at all?

"1+" Been saying the same thing myself, over, and over, and over. :)

And then KJ wrote in reply to [deleted] "if another political party came to power with this ability to block what ever how would you feel ??? better still what if another country invaded us and imposed further restrictions on the net how would you feel ??"

Uh, the internut would be the last thing I'd be worrying about if that happen, let alone the slightest thought as to whether a tube read about in a USofA forum was blocked in Oz ...

I'm starting to worry about folk's addiction to "teh web" here ! Could it be that people are beginning to prefer to use the internut as a form of filter to sieve out being confronted by and having to deal with Real Life ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

Once upon a time I used Veridas and they had firewalled 60,000+ IPs and only one complaint that I can remember.

And what a complaint that was ! I'm still grumbling about how they turned everything off and ran off to party with our money. Have you got your $50 refundable signup deposit back yet ?

No, me neither. Let's agree not to darken the forums with the name "veridas" again ... well, certainly not as an example of anything good.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

derspatz writes...and be bold enough to start saying "you know, this filtering idea ain't as bigger deal as some would like it to be

Do you actually believe this stuff, David? I mean, seriously?

– mark

I do Mark, sincerely and seriously, for it typifies and compliments a whole bunch of other stuff that I reckon is necessary in relation to the ultimate benefiting of mankind vs decent into hopelessness, degredation, and lasting misery.

A progressive and lasting society and civilisation does not and cannot have unfettered/uncontrolled liberatarianism as its foundations ... well, certainly not with typical human nature currently as it is.

In short, no, we cannot really be trusted to live by the golden rule without a bit of a Helping Hand in whatever form it might take.

To strive for true and worthwhile greatness requires constant vigilence and moderation of direction.

At the risk of introducing yet more straw to the debate, aren't the very packets of information we are bouncing about the place in the trillions upon trillions upon trillions etc, all marked in such a way so that each stage of reception can verify accuracy of transmission, and packets missing such readable/checkable data are discarded ... that the very function of the internut depends upon rigourous fundamental filtering ?

Same applies for establishing a worthwhile and lasting society, culture and civilisation. Filtering and censorship of that which is counter productive and undesirable for the sake of promoting and preserving the worthwhile.

Filtering wouldn't be required if the world was totally populated by righteous fine upstanding Godly citizens more concerned with the well-being of their neighbour, communities, society, etc etc, but the fact is the opposite seems to be more true and a good way of turning around such a poisonous and destructive way of being is to try and stem the flow and spread of poisons in the first place.

Which is something I feel I am obliged to promote and support, and am quite happy to, at that.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

Remember that ISPs will have access to the unfiltered feed if they so desired.

So there is your solution right there. Get yourself a business name and an ABN and purchase your internut feed at wholesale prices from which ever source turns you on and get access to all the uncleanfeed you want whilst even maybe selling some cleanfeed access to your neigbores.

A sole-trader business name registration will set you back, what, about $115 ? (can't be bothered getting off my butt to check out the price associated with the two different registered names and associated ABNs I have going ... it usd to be about $75 or $95 but has gone up now) and the ABN registration is free, and so too the new tax file number if you decide to do it as a trust or corporation (I use a trust for one of mine ... costs me about $660 a year in accountancy fees, but I come out a long way ahead because of it).

Ha. I can see it now ... all of a sudden Oz grows a couple of million registered ISPs and the tax department is kept busy processing a whole bunch more ABNs and quarterly GST submissions.

... actually, not a bad idea if you wanna try and break the beaurocratic system by way of overload.

And you lot wished I wasn't posting in here. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

[deleted] writes...I'm still yet to read a single coherent argument to counter my 'Why should we censor the radio if we shouldn't censor the internet?' argument

You're in the wrong forum if you want that, [deleted]. :)

I tell you what is gratifying though, and that is to start to see an increasing number of folk beginning to calm down a bit, take a step back and maybe look with a cool eye, and be bold enough to start saying "you know, this filtering idea ain't as bigger deal as some would like it to be, and what is wrong with bringing the online into line with how we already deal with our offline ?"

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

Derspatz I am curious the crux of your position seems to be that there is no valid argument against blocking content that is illegal in the first place.

A reasonable assumption supported by much waffle on my behalf so no disagreement there.

Do you believe that all laws made in this country are justified and morally valid?

No. For example, I have great problems with certain laws in certain states regarding surrogacy and IVF ... and more besides – but don't actually care enough (or am wise enough not to bother) to storm Government house throwing blood around and screaming "won't you please think of the children ... listen to me, for I am an adoptee".

What if two different democratic nations have different laws regarding the legality of the same thing, who is right?

The richest one with the most allies/useful friends and guns, But Of Course. Which one did you think it was ?

Don't you see how subjective this all is?

Yup, that is what one gets when they abandon the objective in favour of the (usually selfish) subjective.

Constant vigilance from the people who question the state at every turn is needed to maintain a democracy.

As I read earlier elsewhere of someone I respect moreso than is average of anyone else, "In everyone there is a demon desiring to witness/cause suffering. Whether this desire is manifested in an evening of Crash Scene Investigators, or the most vile and bloody murder, it resides in us all. If you don't believe me, just turn your eye inward. The demon will be there, waiting, grinning."

No, I don't trust you, the Government ... or even me, really – and I certainly don't believe you should you suggest that each should decide/live for themselves. We simply cannot be trusted to bring much good out of that without help of a more co-operative collective approach to things.

The fact that this debate is often discussed on the technical limitations is nothing but disgusting.

Disagree. The internut is not the be all an end all – but to make it so is nothing short of idolatry and thus worthy of even more resistance, scorn, and disdain.

Thou shalt not serve a machine made by thine own hands to serve thee and thine.

... or something like that.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

derspatz writes...(in reference to ISPs getting onboard) I reckon most don't care all that much at all other than how much of the promised tax payer millions they can get and deny their competition of.

how do you figure that... stats ?

Human nature, principals of commerce, acquisition and competition, self interest/preservation, and greed.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

Better yet, use the money to force the ISPs to send a disk out with every new signup they do to say YOU MUST install these products before you can use the net. And have the ISP box somehow probe the PC to check that it does have anti virus/spyware software installed.

Ha. I love it richary. 'bout time more of this kind of thinking burst forth in here.

Dunno how one would get around the linux issue in this case, but details details, and I reckon you're on to something.

It sounds like what most of us would like out of The Net is the kind of safe sanitised clarity we can get in our typical workplaces, but without the blat on the tubes and the like.

BlueCoatSystems, Oz. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt7

[deleted] writes...And from what I have gathered, you've been stinking up every iteration of online communication since biblical times. That's quite possibly why BBS turned into whatever, turned into blah, turned into internet: To get the f--k away from you.

Absolute gold. I love it!

Gather around, my children, and thank me for this your McNet that thou so enjoyest, for without me, it might never have been. :)

regarDS