The comment to this notes
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Dec 15, 2009 5:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:There is nothing a politician fears more than having to get a REAL job. When the Aussie voters start firing some politicians over this it will be quickly abandoned. The problem is Conroy has already announced (yesterday) they are going ahead with this, if the government manages to push this through the Senate (it's a distinct possibility, as they only need a couple of Greens or Democrats to vote with them to do it, and there may even be sympathy for it among the opposition Liberals), it will be law before we can do anything about it. This is really frightening stuff, and as Glen Moody points out it won't protected a single child from paedophiles, and is more likely than not to lull uninformed parents into a false sense of security. NOTE: Australian Democrats are quite different politically to the American Democrats, and the Australian Liberal Party is somewhat akin to the left wing of the American Republican party. |
| tracyanne Dec 15, 2009 10:36 PM EDT |
If you are easily offended DO NOT GO HERE http://www.lolconroy.com/ |
| gus3 Dec 15, 2009 10:52 PM EDT |
And behold, I clicked, and I was smitten from above by Ceiling Cat. Hes in yur intarwebs, eatin yur mind. |
| jhansonxi Dec 16, 2009 10:49 PM EDT |
I was against censorship until I clicked that link. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2009 11:35 PM EDT |
Yes many of us would like to censor Conroy, but we won't get a chance until this time next year, at the earliest. It may be too late by then. |
| montezuma Dec 17, 2009 12:25 AM EDT |
Bloody h*ll Trace, Oz is getting a bad name OS. First Murdoch and now this drongo Conroy..... |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2009 10:58 AM EDT |
> First Murdoch... Yeah, but Murdoch isn't hurting anyone but himself with his stupidity. |
| montezuma Dec 17, 2009 2:30 PM EDT |
I will refrain from defaming my countryman as it would violate theTOS ;-) |
| tracyanne Dec 17, 2009 4:10 PM EDT |
My boss sent me this http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-was... just in case I want to start writing to anyone about the Great Wall of OZ. There are some interesting suggestions in this article, that others might find useful. One of the biggest concerns about the filter is that while it is promoted as a device for filtering kiddie porn, the majority of sites on the black list are not porn sites, but instead political sites like wikileaks (which is on the list), which suggests that it's real intent has nothing to do with kiddie porn. In fact in other countries, Thialand , for example, where a similar filter is already used, and was also promoted as a device for stopping kiddie porn, the filter is mostly being used to block material other than such porn. |
| techiem2 Dec 17, 2009 4:28 PM EDT |
Not surprising...pretty much any time some legislation is passed "for the children" or "for your security" it has almost nothing to do with either and usually serves only to give more power to some government officials somewhere... Fascinating article there TA. I suspect that applies to most governments. |
| tracyanne Dec 17, 2009 5:19 PM EDT |
The other scary thing about such Filters, is that if they are promoted as a device to stop kiddie porn, invariably funding earmarked for services that actually do something useful where kiddie porn is concerned, like the AFP's child sex unit, and state police units with similar functions, gets spent elsewhere, and those services become less effective. The thing is while such a filter might keep ordinary people and children from accessing kiddie porn accidentally - I'm not even sure that is possible (accidentally accessing it that is), as I'm pretty sure the paedophile rings don't make their porn site public, and practice best prctice encryption, and access is by invite only etc etc. At least that appeared to be the case with the last two kiddie porn busts that I'm aware of - the perpetrators only being caught by accident when one of theor number was arrested on some other charge - it's not going to stop kiddie porn. Nor is it going to stop paedophiles from targeting children, both on the internet, via chat sites, and In real Life in schools, hospitals, parks, homes (especially homes) and other places where they can gain access to children from positions of Trust. Not even the Blue Card registration system, where people are vetted to ensure they are child safe works sufficiently well. So what we have is a System that makes political censorship possible... no probable, that takes funds away from the currently most effective methods of catching paedophiles. |
| tracyanne Dec 17, 2009 6:18 PM EDT |
By the way, thanks to comments on this thread, LXer is probably now on Stephen Conroy's black list, and LXer will now become unavailable to Australians. |
| caitlyn Dec 17, 2009 6:20 PM EDT |
Of course, tracyanne. We're truly evil and everyone knows it. |
| hkwint Dec 17, 2009 8:53 PM EDT |
Just redirect them to PenguinPete, TA ;) |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2009 9:38 PM EDT |
> Just redirect them to PenguinPete... You had to say that. Odds are that he'll now show up complaining about LXer taking his name in vain again. |
| gus3 Dec 17, 2009 10:00 PM EDT |
PenguinPete complain? I'm shocked at the suggestion! |
| tracyanne Dec 17, 2009 10:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:Odds are that he'll now show up complaining about LXer taking his name in vain again. Does that mean we have to refer to him as P-guinP-te, so that HIS name is never spoken.? A name too far. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 18, 2009 1:38 AM EDT |
@Tracyanne: I am sorry if you get cut off, I happen to like Australians in general..;-) PenguinPete...uhh no..going to leave that one alone.. |
| tracyanne Dec 18, 2009 1:49 AM EDT |
@Scott, we're not a bad mob...... until you get to know us. |
| hkwint Dec 18, 2009 2:28 PM EDT |
Well, I meant, we're on two blacklists now. |
| caitlyn Dec 18, 2009 3:52 PM EDT |
I'm sure we'll get to three soon enough. |
| phsolide Dec 18, 2009 5:39 PM EDT |
Which two blacklists contain lxer? I read it from Giant Immoral MegaCorp's "squid" WWW cache, and they use that really foolish commercial web blocker, "SmartFilter" that blocks things for being "provocative attire" and other head scratching reasons. |
| hkwint Dec 20, 2009 5:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:and they use that really foolish commercial web blocker Hey, is that the one who found out only last week that everything they block can still be seen from Google Cache? It's really a pity they found out, now their filter actually seems to work. Just checked, and I'm blocked for 'illegal / doubtful' content too and that isn't on SmartFilters list it seems. And when you're blocked for 'provocative attire', please tell your IT department to configure SmartFilter with the '--offensive' option enabled, like sudo. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!