Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

I agree with Jary and a number of others posting in here that "the religion" angle being repeatedly tossed into the mix by a particular few, is at most only tenuously linked with the subject of ILCF being discussed here.

I reckon a stronger argument could be given for women, mothers, grannies, wives, girlfriends being more likely to be in support of ILCF and a whole lot more besides if it meant that their partners, husbands, boyfriends, children would have less reason to spend so much time glued to a computer monitor and instead being giving them (The Women) more attention or doing "together" and "family" type things – or just getting outside and building a tree-house or something.

I suspect that virtually ALL guys in here with wives or girlfriends know darn well that more often than not their partner wishes they were not "online" so much. I bet many of those wives and girlfriends would be a whole lot happier if a whole bunch of "unwanted" information was less likely to be viewable by their partners too.

I reckon most Oz women not only wouldn't give a hair-flick about "internet censorship" in terms of Computer Nerdy Geek types saying "it's a bad thing", but also would probably be in somewhat support of it when it comes to their loved ones and love interests.

Sure, religiously (and predictably) draw your long bows against "Religion" if that is what makes you happy, but realistically, I reckon your wives, mums, girlfriends, and daughters are more likely to be in favour of Net Censorship regardless of which kind of faith they belong to.

Especially when it comes to pr0n.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Published a couple of hours ago on the APCMAG site. Way too much data to cross-post into here, so here is the link and intro.

[quote]
http://apcmag.com/why_iinet_will_probably_lose_the_piracy_lawsuit.htm

Why iiNet will probably lose the piracy lawsuit

Dan Warne22 November 2008, 12:41 AM

A look at the Copyright Act suggests the movie
and TV industry have an unfortunately strong case
against iiNet. PLUS: Read the court documents yourself.
[/quote]

and

[quote]
the Copyright Act makes clear that an infringement doesn’t need to be proven first in order for an ISP to be liable for allowing it to happen. The group of movie studios suing iiNet are represented by the same lawyer (Michael Williams of Gilbert+Tobin) who sued Kazaa and won, and also successfully sued Stephen Cooper and his ISP E-Talk Communications for the MP3s4free.net website.

In those lawsuits, the industry didn't have to prove the copyright infringements were taking place before it sued the providers — the court accepted evidence during the cases of the infringements.

Unfortunately for iiNet, the law is angled in favour of copyright holders, not ISPs.
[/quote]

Which ever way you want to look at it, with ILCF being brought into play from our elected government side of things, and Big Business bringing legal pressures to bear from their copyright infringements and profit-loss side of things, it certainly doesn't look like a very good time to be a traditional sort of ISP at the moment.

Seems to me that ISPs interested in maintaining profits and avoiding fines etc, are going to have to learn to jump through a whole new bunch of hoops in the near future.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

When are we going to start holding Energex responsible for providing the electricity which makes this all possible?

Electricity production is a State affair isn't it ... and how much of it is foriegn owned at that ?

Better idea is to hit the actual telcos for what they mule ... but not before telstra has been totally sold off.

OTOH, here is another idea I shared on another forum re: another method of ILCF that could be done if Whirlpool is correct in what they say here:

From: http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=WP_Censorship

[QUOTE]
Censorship & Freedom of Speech

Under Australian law, the only protected form of speech is that of a political nature, and even then, it's only protected from governmental interference. Private entities can not, by definition, be guilty of censorship. Whirlpool is a private web site – owned and operated by an individual.

In short, you have no "freedom of speech" on Whirlpool, nor is the cry of "censorship" at all valid.

In the interest of fairness and balance, as well as to help focus and improve quality of discussion, there is a team of moderators who have the ability to remove posts and threads from the public eye. There are many legitimate reasons for a moderator to remove comments, which are outlined elsewhere in the Forum Rules.
[/QUOTE]

My idea for better ILCF based on the above ?

"So, a simple solution for The Government of Oz re: controlling the internut would be to buy back Telstra and out-compete/banish all foreign intrusions into Oz communications by making access to the Public Owned Telstra communication system free for all domestic telephone and net access.

Then, after the public are well and truly addicted to the freeness of it all, blat/block to hearts content anything muled about on the infrastructure and delivered via url, etc, and not have to worry the slightest about any "waa, waa, waa"ing from the public plugged into the free communications, because after all, if it ain't political speech it has no protection anyway."

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Don't quote me on this, but I remember hearing something that under the copyright act, it is illegal to bypass a protection scheme. If the filter goes into law, couldn't that be applied to it, since the filter would be a legal protection scheme, as much as we all hate it?

If so, then let's go one better. What happens when little Joey deliberately circumvents the filter and little Joe's mum catches him and complains. Will the ISP be held accountable for allowing the filter to be circumvented ?

Also (but not related) assume that after ILCF is trialed and implemented, a mum walks in on her little Johnny one day just as he has finished receiving via msn or some such program, a little home-movie made by little Jenny at school – a webcam movie she was sucked into making by little Jeffrey at the same school coz she thought they were, "like, in [heart] like 4eva", but really he was just stringing her along so he could get the goods and then share it with his mates.

"but ILCF was supposed to stop this, wasn't it", waa every mum and dad who learns of the story, and but of course a number of the mums and dads go and see the police and see who can be arrested about all of this, and also see their lawyers to see who they can sue for damages about it too.

ATM, who can get arrested and who can get sued over such a (not unlikely) scenario ?

I've got a feeling that our elected governments would far prefer it if the ISPs could be held responsible on the financial side of things ...

Sure, ILCF 0.9b on its own ain't ever going to prevent the likes of the Little Jenny Show, so if "protect the children" is going to be forefront of our government's charge into achieving believable internet control for the sake of The Child, I think it only stands to reason that in the end, ISPs are going to be MADE to be responsible for the traffic of a lot more than mere url/web data.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

better education to bring people up better

Agreed Kj ... trouble is we are talking about Oz here. As a nation, we can barely be trusted to do the right thing by our pets (how many unregistered and non de-sexed cats and dogs running around out there ?) and neighbours (both in the homes near us, and in the vehicles sharing the roads with us).

Add to that the pity poor state the standard education of our children and youth is and it soon becomes apparent that the main educational options available in the short term consist of a national Intervention coupled with a figurative purgative followed by an enforced better diet and supervised activities until new behaviours have been learned and trust earned.

Yeah, like laid-back Oz is ever going to easily opt for that !

So, apply another band-aid. ILCF being but a part of it if we are going to consider ILCF on face value as opposed to looking at it through the lense of ultimately being used to protect the profits of Big Business and the power of Governments.

Cheers re: the song ... which should give you a better idea of how laid back I am in everything, too. :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

can't whim you as you have it disabled , why is that I wonder ?

You can get the plain and simple answer to that one towards the end of the blog entry at: http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/11/internut-by-any-other-name.html in a section between the tags: "[Overly Offensive Mode] ... [/Overly Offensive Mode] found towards the end.

In short, I'm not interesting in entertaining privately sent anonymous cowardly abuse either here nor on any blog, etc, and so do not have "Private Mail", nor "Whims", nor "Comments" enabled for forum and blog participation.

Deem it to be a form of pro-active filtering.

See, I'm not just about our Government trying to do the filtering for us via ILCF ... I am happy to put into place my own filters as well – as do the many of us who use filters like Ad blockers, Pop-up blockers, Firewalls, Spyware Blocker/scanners, Anti-virus scanners, spam-guards, etc, etc, etc.

There is always room for one more filter and I can't see that changing regardless of ILCF 0.9b ... not that anyone is actually thinking that ILCF is going to be the all-powerful magic bullet.

Tis just another filter, and just like all the other filters we do, it will get some things very right and other things very wrong.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

If someone goes to an illegal site (not unwanted) they go to JAIL. So we don't need a filter for that.

Better to build a better Net than yet more jails. Probably cheaper for the Oz tax-payer, too.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

And since 'spatz hasn't bothered responding to the question, I'll ask it again...

Uh, if I didn't respond to it before because of its trolling and hijacking nature (which was appropriately dealt with by WP moderation) then there is little point in you asking it again, one would think.

If you are so interested in taking the discussion into areas that are beyond the generally approved and typical tolerance levels of most users and moderators at WP, then perhaps you should find a suitable alt group or something to sound off in on the side.

A fair suggestion, yes ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Did it ever occur to you that the real problem for a growing number of families has more to do with state Labor governments eroding parents (and schools) rights to appropriately discipline kids.

Add the foundationless subjective morality of atheism and darwinism to your mix and you'll get no disagreement from me.

As for my more literal politics, a quick trip to: http://derspatz.blogspot.com/search/label/Election (especially the last blog entry of the four) will show you exactly who I voted for in the last Federal Election and give you a fair clue as to why.

Hint. I didn't (nor have ever) voted Labor [1], nor ever likely to. That being said, apparently a majority of Oz wanted Krudd and Co over all others, so as an Oz tax-paying citizen I am obliged, until the next election, to support to a reasonable degree Who The People wanted to tell them what to do for the next year or two.

Please don't confuse my support of our current Government's aim to try and tackle, by using ILCF, certain illegalities (etc) on the internut, as being some sort of approval of typical Labor politics or wish to retain that particular party in power for more than one moment than can be avoided.

Just like compulsory unionism, I've always seen the Labor party as being a boil on the back-side of progress and I am yet to see good reason to change my mind on that short of being worked over by the kinds of lazy bullying thugs who love compulsory unionism and/or the Labor party.

Are we clear now on my politics ? Anyway, once again, aren't we drifting somewhat from the subject of ILCF and the need for it ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

How about we neuter everyone and ban children. That would fix all of these problems in an efficient and quick manner.

Heh. I'm inclined to agree. Deem http://www.vhemt.org included ...

regarDS