Clean Feed Banner

Talk about anything.
User avatar
bsmith
Site Admin
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:20 am
Location: The Dust Bowl

Clean Feed Banner

Post by bsmith » Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:24 pm

You may notice I've added a banner to the head of the site.

As a Computer Systems Engineer I can't express how silly the clean feed policy is from a technical perspective; Please have a read, nothing here is an exaggeration.
Uninstalling dictator ... 99% complete ███████████████████████████░ -ERROR-

Mr Skeletor
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:55 am
Location: Fawkner, Melbourne

Post by Mr Skeletor » Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:00 pm

Well I didn't vote these jackasses in.

User avatar
bsmith
Site Admin
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:20 am
Location: The Dust Bowl

Post by bsmith » Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:12 pm

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people," Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. "As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Uninstalling dictator ... 99% complete ███████████████████████████░ -ERROR-

gregor
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Burwood
Contact:

Post by gregor » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:50 pm

Good on yer.

I probably would have voted for the jackasses, if I had that privilege, but Uncle Kev is a bit of paternalistic twat.

User avatar
shawn_low
Posts: 607
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 6:51 pm

Post by shawn_low » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:23 am

gregor wrote:Good on yer.

I probably would have voted for the jackasses, if I had that privilege, but Uncle Kev is a bit of paternalistic twat.
People are never happy! Howard was such an easy target to rib and dismiss. Now Kev is being lambasted too!

Ah well. Politics. Love it. Hate it.

User avatar
jeff
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Moonee Ponds

real problem

Post by jeff » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:48 pm

The real problem is the Family First senator.

But with him chasing down this phone leak showing how stupid Dubya is, maybe the government will tell him to go jump.

Anyway, serves them right for giving Family First preferences over Greens.

Mr Skeletor
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:55 am
Location: Fawkner, Melbourne

Post by Mr Skeletor » Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:46 pm

shawn_low wrote:
gregor wrote:Good on yer.

I probably would have voted for the jackasses, if I had that privilege, but Uncle Kev is a bit of paternalistic twat.
People are never happy! Howard was such an easy target to rib and dismiss. Now Kev is being lambasted too!

Ah well. Politics. Love it. Hate it.
Kev is an A grade creep. Worst post wartime Prime minister this country has seen. You'll see.

jttm80
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:16 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by jttm80 » Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:05 pm

I think its a good idea.

Regardless on whether websites are incorrectly blocked or not (from a technical perspective), the kids will be shielded from the bulk of the illicit material.

It doesn't affect us grown-ups in any way does it?

Also, the banner mentions it will actually increase the vulnerability of kids to predators, but never mentions how. I'm very skeptical about that. Sounds like scare-tactics to me.

kracken
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:29 pm
Location: Glenroy

Post by kracken » Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:17 pm

It would most certainly affect us adults. From what I understand, there are two levels to the restrictions... one for illegal content, and one for 'undesirable' content. One problem is that hasn't been a strict definition on what the 'undesirable' may be... It's whatever the one in-charge decides it to be.

Another problem that's been cited is the degradation of internet speeds, reducing access speeds from anywhere between 25% to 75%? I think those are the numbers...

Lastly, it has been observed that even with the restrictions in place, it is fairly simple to work around them... so the 'undesirable' content wouldn't be difficult to access, but the whole infrastructure will still take a performance hit.

jttm80
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:16 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by jttm80 » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:05 pm

Again, I would have to say these drop in access speeds sound like scare-tactics by the opposition.

A DNS filter will not slow down your net access anymore than your local firewall. Also, for adults, presumably this filter will be removed, so there will be no slow-down for normal net users.

The only slowdown (if there is any visible lag) will be for the kids.

User avatar
christianmoura
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:23 am
Location: Kensington

Post by christianmoura » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:06 pm

This idiotic proposition is not just to shield kids, but also to prevent distribution and access to illegal material such as pedo porn.

Thing is that no filter can stop p2p transfer of files or use of proxy IP services to trick Australian filters into thinking you are not in Australia. I am positive that were I a 12 year old child, I'd be smart enough to get my fix of porn by figuring out how to use these proxy ISP services. Pedophiles would be undeterred. What about believing your kid is safe because of such filters, but how are they going to stop predators online chats? It can't be done.


The government is spending a truckload of tax payer money on implementing something which is ineffective. That to me is enough of an argument to abort this cretinous proposal. Not to mention all other strong arguments raised here and elsewhere (criteria for censorship, slowing of the internet, increase costs to ISPs and customers, etc.).
Last edited by christianmoura on Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
christianmoura
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:23 am
Location: Kensington

Post by christianmoura » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:09 pm

jttm80 wrote: It doesn't affect us grown-ups in any way does it?
It does. It is my tax money that is paying for a filter. Aren't website filters already available FOR FREE on a government website? Why shouldn't parents install that one on their PCs if they are concerned about their children?

User avatar
bsmith
Site Admin
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:20 am
Location: The Dust Bowl

Post by bsmith » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:27 pm

As was noted by a user on Slashdot, it was a dumb idea ten years ago too. :)

http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1996-01-23/
Uninstalling dictator ... 99% complete ███████████████████████████░ -ERROR-

User avatar
gerald
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:29 pm
Location: Templestowe Lower

Post by gerald » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:40 pm

jttm80 wrote:Again, I would have to say these drop in access speeds sound like scare-tactics by the opposition.
The claim of slower access comes from a government-sponsored report on some potential filters that would be used; See an analysis here:
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.c ... a-failure/
(The article links to the full report if you want to check it for yourself)
No scare tactics here, just a genuinely eager minister intent on ignoring its own government reports, just like Brumby is in denial with reports of increasing levels of gambling in Vic.

Also, please note it's the government that is using scare tactics. They tried to gag some critics of the filter:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/ ... e=fullpage

Another disgusting tactic from the minister is to call whoever is against the filter a supporter of child pornography -- it's the old "you're with us or you're a terrorist" line.
A DNS filter will not slow down your net access anymore than your local firewall. Also, for adults, presumably this filter will be removed, so there will be no slow-down for normal net users.

The only slowdown (if there is any visible lag) will be for the kids.
It is yet unclear if DNS filtering is the only implementation considered. Also part of this filtering will be compulsory for all, i.e., no opt-out, everybody will be affected.


Anyway, all this is on the clean feed page, with plenty of references, so it's not just one guy's uninformed opinions.

User avatar
bsmith
Site Admin
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:20 am
Location: The Dust Bowl

Post by bsmith » Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:08 pm

jttm80 wrote:A DNS filter will not slow down your net access anymore than your local firewall. Also, for adults, presumably this filter will be removed, so there will be no slow-down for normal net users.
If they filter a similar way firewalls do (likely) then every connection needs to be compared to what will be a very, very large blacklist of sites, that's where the slowdown will happen. It's not like a normal garden variety office or uni firewall; They want to block illegal content, so all XXX sites will need to be blacklisted... anyone tried figuring out how many of those there are? Alternately... they can look for keywords; So if there's a random "cock" in a gaming forum somewhere... will the filter correctly determine if it's XXX or not? Who decides?

In a perfect world it's a good idea, but in practice it has the potential to affect all Internet use. Legitimate sites incorrectly blocked, speed issues. And at the end of the day the only people unaffected are the paedophiles who are still distributing their content freely.
Uninstalling dictator ... 99% complete ███████████████████████████░ -ERROR-

Post Reply