Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:19 pm
by bsmith

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:42 pm
by Mr Skeletor
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.
This is untrue. It has been revealed that even if you opt out of the Clean Feed you will still be in a lower filter - ALL Australian net access will be filtered to the lower degree.

No offense but maybe you should do a bit more reading, because your argument is not based on the facts.

Fact is no other western country has such a bullshit filter. Child Porn is not on http sites so I fail to see how the filter will block them, unless its somehow going to search even file transfers. What an amazing breach of privacy.

Forget the speed issue, the fact the government is refusing to release the list of what sites will be black banned should be more than enough to get any free thinking individual opposing this totalitarian move. People have died in order to keep this country free, and this government attempt at controlling information goes against everything the western world stands for.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:41 pm
by jttm80
Actually, I haven't read anything about Clean Feed at all.
(you'll note I used the word presumably in the quote above.)

I don't understand the vehemence against stopping kids from viewing porn sites. Are you saying we shouldn't try at all?
Even if the fishing net doesn't catch all the sites, it'll still make it harder for the kids to find. Its like putting the cookie jar on the highest shelf. It not fool-proof, but its a deterrent.

As for the technical side of things, honestly, this slowdown that you guys seem to be worried about is highly dependent on the programmers implementing it. If they're not complete idiots, and they can come up with a clever algo (think Google), I really doubt your net would be much affected, especially with broadband speeds these day.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:55 pm
by bsmith
jttm80 wrote:I don't understand the vehemence against stopping kids from viewing porn sites. Are you saying we shouldn't try at all?
I think it's (way) more effective to spend the cash on educating parents or tracking down paedophiles. They already have the tools to more effectively block content at home and really that's the best way to do it.

I don't believe risking our liberties and freedom of speech is worth the odd chance a child somewhere is prevented from viewing a porn site. You have to draw a line somewhere, at what point does the level of protection become so great that kids grow up without the tools or experience to deal with exposure later in life?

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:26 am
by kracken
jttm80 wrote:I don't understand the vehemence against stopping kids from viewing porn sites. Are you saying we shouldn't try at all?
The vehemence comes from the the problem that it'll be expensive to implement, expensive to maintain, does little of what it's supposed to be and therefore has very little of its intended benefit, has no clear guidelines on what will be considered 'inappropriate'.

While the technical aspects may slowdown the internet, it has not too much real impact to me. It might mean my online gaming is slower, but I can probably still access emails and do random surfing.

With content filtering, there are two levels... one that filters illegal material such as pedo porn, and another that filters 'inappropriate' material.

And for me, the second level is where the problem is... 'Inappropriate' as decided by whom? Would gay rights be considered inappropriate? How about detention of immigrants? Which news sites will be filtered out as a result?

It's as if someone looked at the Great Firewall of China and thought, "That's an excellent idea!"

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:43 pm
by Mr Skeletor
Conroy is already talking abouyt blacklisting internet gambling sites and euthanasia sites.

It's book burning, plain and simple.

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:33 pm
by gregor
"I don't understand the vehemence against stopping kids from viewing porn sites."

AFAIK, that's not even what it's about-- they won't be filtering porn generally, just child-porn and "other illegal material". Which supposedly is a big problem, but I've never come across any on the web -- has anyone else?

I did once come across 2 pics once (in 15+ years of net use) on an alt-binaries group; but they're distributed, so IP filtering won't help.

The main thing is not to prevent so-called "harmful" experience, but to teach people how to deal with it; to make good choices about what they're taking in to their mind. The environment is full of toxic crap, you just need to make good choices about what you allow in to your life.

In the end the question is do you want your elected officials making decisions on your behalf, and I don't. I'm an adult, I don't need a big mummy or daddy to look after me, and I'll teach my kids how to look after themselves as well, so that they grow up in turn.

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:22 am
by hayden
Looks like its back to wanking with a glossy magazine.

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:42 pm
by bsmith
hahaha. Universities can start scaling back from 30Tb Frame Relay to 256Kb ISDN as students begin using the network for actual research.

Start buying up shares in Newspower newsagents.