Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

derspatz writes...What the majority of Oz citizens, particular families want for our society

Anything that threatens the well-being of the majority

Good effort, but noone can absolutely define those things for everyone in one go. Not me, not you, not the guy sitting behind a desk at the ACMA.

Agreed, which is why I suspect we will end up writing yet more software to do it for us. Think of the various Bots and AIs involved in the myriad of computer games out there, along with spiders and web-crawlers building search engine databases for us and then apply a similar idea re: looking after The Web for us.

The job is far too big and complex to leave to mere inflexible simplistic lookup/hash tables and databases.

I don't think anyone is expecting success in one go. Since when is that the way with things IT anyway ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

derspatz could you please define what minister conroy means in your understanding the definitions of

1 deemed illegal

2 deemed inapropraite

3 deemed unwanted

And please explain how blocking a CP web site is better than the cops closing it down and busting them. You see if the cops close the CP web sites down then why do we need a filter?

Hi [deleted]. sure, I'll give it a go.

1) What the laws n roolz of Oz in the offline world process and prosecute and seek to prohibit and prevent, etc, etc, in our normal everyday offline world and society that we all (hopefully) try to be a positively contributing part of. How many P words was that ?

2) What the majority of Oz citizens, particular families (coz they are providing our future somewhat, yes ?) want for our society in terms of being the best place for their children to have the nicest and happiest and most fulfilling and safest/longest/healthiest life in.

3) Anything that threatens the well-being of the majority. A bit like how cancer ain't usually welcome in healthily replicating body tissue and so is cut out – sometimes taking some healthy flesh with it.

And please explain how blocking a CP web site is better than the cops closing it down and busting them. You see if the cops close the CP web sites down then why do we need a filter?

I don't see why that should be viewed as an "either/or" situation. I reckon DO BOTH. Filter until it can be busted.

There is no "magic bullet" (and certainly ILCF isn't anywhere near being one) so instead LOTS of bullets need to be fired and from more than one location.

Get the monster caught in the Cross-Fire and it is more likely to go down.

That help ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Maybe if you actually answered some of the arguments and replies put to your incredibly repetitive statements you would have a better reception.

Ah, so it is okay for you to stick to your opinions but not me mine ?

Which reply to what do you think I've been lacking in offering a return to, anyway ?

Hmmm, ok, I'm being a bit reactive here so let's wind things back a bit. What do you have in mind that you feel I haven't offered a reasonable response to ?

Maybe if you stopped using those highly annoying cute words you so cleverly made up you be able to get your point across with more success.

How do you like "ILCF" ... or am I taking credit there where it isn't due, in which case I'll not only offer a loud apology but also herald credit where it is due.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Clean your own filthy stream thank you very much.

I'd like to think I'm being much more community minded by wanting a clean stream for everyone – after all, tis surely more healthy for the whole (or at least the most that counts) population and saves on a bit of duplication of effort.

If I break a law, arrest me and put me on trial.

Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper (not to mention better for you and your family, etc, etc) to make it harder for you to break the law and more able to fit in with the general law abiding community ?

Job done. Problem solved.

Yup, that is no doubt one of the goals of bringing (as best can be done) the virtual world into line with how the offline world operates.

What are you REALLY/SPECIFICALLY worried about losing access to, anyway ... and is it really likely you are going to be denied ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

As noted by many, including ISP's, blocking at the ISP level will not work.

I agree. At most it will work "some but not all of the time". Tis all a matter of degrees and percentages. I feel that it is neither wise nor helpful to think in terms of absolutes in this, BTW.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

(quick eduction:

??? Do you mean "education"? :)

Cheers [deleted]. See how we can all help each other out regardless of difference of opinion ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Muslim groups start demanding a block on all historical sites that contain images of Mohammad or sites that put muslims in an unflattering light, does that go under the censorship because its offensive to a section of the community?

Is the internet the only medium for the sharing of such information ?

Heck, a catastrophic power outage would do far more temporary censorship ... and yet the info would still be available by other means.

I really worry about how much reliance is being put on this particular (and relatively somewhat fragile) medium here.

The eggs are NOT all in one basket and nor should they ever be.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

derspatz writes...Incorrect, it was Hewson (Liberal) in his "fightback" campaign in 1991 that sowed those seeds which Keating resisted.

You are incorrect. The idea of a consumption tax (now called the GST) was first proposed as part of the Bob Hawke Labor Government's Tax Summit in 1983. It was proposed by Paul Keating.

I stand corrected if we are to take this back to a name other than GST (which is what originally was being talked about).

Yes, Keating proposed a consumption tax, then many years later Hewson put together a package that involved a GST which Keating appeared to reverse his earlier idea about in order to see the defeat of Hewson in the election.

Everyone happy with that ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Do we want government mandated censorship, including "underirable" but not illegal sites where they can add them as they wish?

Depends on the government and what is being deemed undesirable as per the wishes of the majority that the elected government are mostly representing. Your question reeks of scare-mongering – is that the best path to be taking ?

Do we want a slower internet?

More scare-mongering (and pandering to individual selfishness) and ignores the fact that technological advances are continually making things faster ... not that faster is necessarily better anyway.

Do we want a filter that makes parents feel comfortable but doesn't protect against chatrooms etc where kids are targetted by predators?

No. Gasp, I said no and offered yet more common agreement ! :)

All we have done here though is shown where ADDITIONAL filtering will be required ... which is still not an argument against ILCF.

If the government puts this in it will never be got rid of.

True ... well, ILCF will mostly fail, but face the fact richary, many parents and most governments are NEVER going to stop trying to take control of the internut now that the "genie is out of the bottle".

The war is being fought on the wrong front here – which doesn't mean that your battle is irrelevant or without merit, but rather just doomed to failure ... on this front.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11

Where is the 'moral' line where you DO feel this might pose a potential problem? An unscrupulous man in power banning certain site encouraging a certain religion? Blocking libertarian or 'alternative' political views? I'm just curious of when in your book the tool goes from useful to questionable.

When I ramp this all up to the kind of level that Mark Newton knows me better for, it all becomes quite irrelevant. If I'm quite prepared to burn books that various folk deem holy (and probably idolize so much that they would viciously kill me for doing so) then I'm hardly going to be all that much bothered (let alone commit the sin of idolatry over) with what I choose to call "the internut".

Folk have been misusing/idolising the contents of so called "holy books" since folk first started scatching on rocks or tieing knots in ropes, so it is no surprise that the relatively latest form of information preservation and transfer should be similarly misused ... or idolised !

I'm more interested in the message than the medium and thus don't really give a crap whether it be via scratched rocks, knotted ropes, printed paper, or packet exchange via optic fibre, etc.

If the foundations are sound, the house will stand ... but still no excuse for idolatry or ascribing more worth to something than it deserves/is due.

Does that satisfy your curiosity [deleted] ?

regarDS

PS: I've read virtually every message in this entire thread and look in on a daily basis but simply have not seen much needing responding to or drawing attention to in the last week other than the mis attributed quotes (with most of those responses blatted by mods) and so didn't.

I'll now ask the question, respect the answer and back it up with deeds. Do people in this forum want to share the forum with those of a contrary opinion to their's or not ? If not and you want a forum full of only agreeably like-minded, I'll leave you to it, but conversly, if you actually want this particular corner/facet of the internut to be free and unfettered, then leave off the "troll" cop-outs and herring punching and start practicing what you preach.

That "unfiltered internet" includeds me. Someone who disagrees with many of you re: ILCF (among probably many other things). I don't take it personally but I'm curious as to why some of you seem to.