Jump to content

Australia to adopt China-like firewall.


demonfirzen

Recommended Posts

 

[big quote]

 

 

 

worst of all is that you have to opt-out, aka it's automatically put up -.-

 

 

 

And what's the big deal there? All you have to do is make a phone call to say "I opt-out of the additional material blocker".

 

 

 

In Aus, to call up any Gov department, it takes a few hours to get on the line with a person -.-

 

 

 

 

On the final point, of course the speed issue is a worry. I suppose the question is whether internet speed should be sacrificed for the sake up getting rid of kiddie porn. Having posed that question, there's probably a much better way of doing that. I'm thinking serious international action to track down and prosecute rather than just blocking websites.

 

 

 

look, if it is going to reduce my already slow enough internet by 22% while idle, I don't care what safety features it has, it means no more online gaming, or downloading anything of a decent size, not to mention it will cause most people with dial-up to stop using the internet, becuase they can't get broadband in their area...

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

look, if it is going to reduce my already slow enough internet by 22% while idle, I don't care what safety features it has, 1) it means no more online gaming, or 2) downloading anything of a decent size, not to mention it will 3) cause most people with dial-up to stop using the internet, becuase they can't get broadband in their area...

 

1) Are you for real? Online gaming doesn't require a super fast connection. ISPs and routers probably count for more connection issues than the speed of the connection.

 

 

 

2) No... you can still download things it just takes a little longer. Only impatient people would seriously complain about the speed issue. As said, most things on the Internet do not require a fast connection, it's just more convenient.

 

 

 

3) That's simply ridiculous. Dial-up is notriously slow anyway. Take 80% of 56K, and you're still talking fractions of the bigger picture. Over half the population is now on broadband, and that figure will rise sharply in the coming years. Then there's libraries, Internet cafés... so many places where you can get broadband.

 

 

 

I'd have thought, with a way to take out a large chunk of paedophilia on the Internet, people would jump for joy. You oppose it because "it means no more online gaming". I think your principles are a bit out of whack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[big quote]

 

 

 

worst of all is that you have to opt-out, aka it's automatically put up -.-

 

 

 

And what's the big deal there? All you have to do is make a phone call to say "I opt-out of the additional material blocker".

 

 

 

In Aus, to call up any Gov department, it takes a few hours to get on the line with a person -.-

 

 

 

Is that in your own experience or do you know that for a fact? I doubt it would be that hard to set up a department to take calls for something. I've never had to ring up a government department for anything, but I seriously doubt it would take any more than a few minutes on the average day.

 

 

 

Sorry, I can't say I'm at all worried at the prospect of ringing up the government to opt-out of something. Strategically, an opt-out is just better for some things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have thought, with a way to take out a large chunk of paedophilia on the Internet, people would jump for joy. You oppose it because "it means no more online gaming". I think your principles are a bit out of whack.

 

Congratulations, you're gullible. This firewall is going to block a grand total of two kiddie porn pictures per year, the other several million will continue to be transmitted undetectably much as they are now, via encrypted files on drop sites, etc.

 

 

 

The reality is that this isn't about protecting children from seeing porn, nor is it about from keeping paedophiles from their beloved kiddie porn. This is about setting up an infrastructure with which they can block free thought and discussion, protect corporate interests (aka copyright) and quash political descent (this post).

 

 

 

So %$#* you for supporting it, you bloody idiot. This is book-burning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the personal attacks make you look smart?

 

 

 

I like how you say it will block so few without any sort of credibility or source to back it up. The fact is, if it's gonna stop even 1% of these sick bastards from abusing children, I'm for it. I don't care about connection speed because the Internet's fast enough as it is.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't buy into the Daily Mail's "government's trying to control free will" crap either. Why would a government block this website? You can access al-Qaeda sites in this country with near contemptuous ease. I can even learn how to make a napalm. Hardly my idea of "book-burning".

 

 

 

The Western World supports freedom of expression and thought, and they use it that for ammo every year against the Chinese, just as they used to against the USSR. No chance of them getting rid of that stance any time soon.

 

 

 

You're just hung up because your little toy's being restricted. The way you lambasted me for supporting this ban speaks volumes about your ulterior motives in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the personal attacks make you look smart?

 

No, but do I think my personal attacks are accurate? Hell yes. You're a dolt, and as if to prove it you post the notion that a digital firewall is going to stop real people abusing real children. In reality the opposite may even be true [1][2]. These people are sick but it's not the porn that's causing it.

 

 

 

I like how you say it will block so few without any sort of credibility or source to back it up.

 

 

 

[...]

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't buy into the Daily Mail's "government's trying to control free will" crap either. Why would a government block this website? You can access al-Qaeda sites in this country with near contemptuous ease. I can even learn how to make a napalm. Hardly my idea of "book-burning".

 

 

 

The Western World supports freedom of expression and thought, and they use it that for ammo every year against the Chinese, just as they used to against the USSR. No chance of them getting rid of that stance any time soon.

 


  •  
    [*:3lelmfk4] Child porn was being distributed in encrypted form as early as 2001 [
3]. The fact you're not aware of this speaks to your credibility, not mine.
 
[*:3lelmfk4] I said "this post" not "this website." Learn to read.
 
[*:3lelmfk4] "a napalm"? Do you even know what it is? If you do then learn to write, if you don't then see below.
 
[*:3lelmfk4] Napalm is a flammable, sticky substance and beyond that not very exciting. The composition is public knowledge and available on wikipedia [4].
 
[*:3lelmfk4] This government (they who you love, trust and bend over for) have already banned all books that fall into the ridiculously wide category of containing "material that may be of use to terrorists." This was included in the The Terrorism Act 2000 [5]. Yes, that's 2000 as in 'before September 11th 2001'. They have already misused this legislation on a number of occasions [6][7][8]. That legislation was a sweeping grab for additional power for which there is little to no justification and so is this.
 
[*:3lelmfk4] It's amusing that you'd mention China given that this Australian firewall is only the second of it's kind. Care to guess where the first was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Collective is right - most people have these ideas of child porn sites where you just log on and the pictures are there to be viewed, and think oh, if we filter those all will be well. This just isn't true. They use sites with no mention of "child porn", they have communities based around IRC chats where they post links to encrypted rapidshre and megavideo downloads. This filtering won't even do anything. It is extremely easy to encrypt a file, anyone with even a remote understanding of technology could do it, and even then - there are guides on the internet. Pedos will just continue as normal, and send amongst themselves encrypted files and this filter will do NOTHING. Stopping abuse of children is a GOOD thing, but this will not do that.

 

 

 

This is an extremely slippery slope. How will this filter system work anyhow? How many legal sites will be accidentally filtered? How long is it before they add sites to the filter list that simply disagree with the Government's political ideology? Sure, I'm dealing with extremes here, but has anyone forgotten how these totalitarian regimes start?

 

 

 

I

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the personal attacks make you look smart?

 

No, but do I think my personal attacks are accurate? Hell yes. You're a dolt, and as if to prove it you post the notion that a digital firewall is going to stop real people abusing real children. In reality the opposite may even be true [1][2]. These people are sick but it's not the porn that's causing it.

 

No, my good sir, you are the dolt who cannot understand the difference between correlation and causation. Could it not also be argued that the rate of rape is going down because of more effective policing, and better awareness amongst the public (additional awareness to date rape drugs and alcohol, for example)?

 

 

 

Porn, particularly Western porn, gives an incredibly twisted portrayal of sex which, yes, does lead to the idea a woman can be 'controlled'. It usually depicts the woman giving the male pleasure, and seldom the other way round. If you can't see how that portrayal of sex can lead to the idea that rape is "not as bad" as others make it, then you're just being ignorant. Hell, we've gone this far and not even touched the other problems porn has...

 

 

 

By your logic, let's just gives drug addicts more drugs. Can't hurt. I mean, they're sick, but it's not the drugs causing it. -.-

 

I like how you say it will block so few without any sort of credibility or source to back it up.

 

 

 

[...]

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't buy into the Daily Mail's "government's trying to control free will" crap either. Why would a government block this website? You can access al-Qaeda sites in this country with near contemptuous ease. I can even learn how to make a napalm. Hardly my idea of "book-burning".

 

 

 

The Western World supports freedom of expression and thought, and they use it that for ammo every year against the Chinese, just as they used to against the USSR. No chance of them getting rid of that stance any time soon.

 


  •  
    [*:2yimzp4f] Child porn was being distributed in encrypted form as early as 2001 [
3]. The fact you're not aware of this speaks to your credibility, not mine.
 
I'm sorry, where did I say it's not transmitted in encrypted form?
 
 
 
There are websites who don't operate through encryption however. Particularly far-Eastern websites where the age of consent is as low as 14, meaning porn movies can be made there with girls below the age of 18 which is the legal age in this country, and uploaded to the Internet with little resistance. If this filter were to block those sites, good. Loopholes between national laws cannot be allowed to be looked over while people are viewing abusive content.
 
[*:2yimzp4f] I said "this post" not "this website." Learn to read.
 
This post is on this website, correct? It would be logistically impossible to monitor each and every opinion on the Internet, especially given the pace at which it's growing.
 
[*:2yimzp4f] "a napalm"? Do you even know what it is? If you do then learn to write, if you don't then see below.
 
Congratulations - you spotted a typo. Here's a medal!
 
 
 
[*:2yimzp4f] This government (they who you love, trust and bend over for) have already banned all books that fall into the ridiculously wide category of containing "material that may be of use to terrorists." This was included in the The Terrorism Act 2000 [5]. Yes, that's 2000 as in 'before September 11th 2001'. They have already misused this legislation on a number of occasions [6][7][8]. That legislation was a sweeping grab for additional power for which there is little to no justification and so is this.
 
Again, where did I mention I love the government? Stop asking questions you don't know the answer to.
 
 
 
Using a measure which prevents the downloading of illegal content is a "sweeping grab for power"?
 
 
 
If you want the Internet to become this anarchic place where terrorists can meet up to organise plots, where they can gain information on how to make explosive bombs which can kill dozens, where they can spread vicious ideologies to corrupt young minds, where paedophiles are allowed to just willy nilly trade pictures with each other, where the masses can steal copyrighted data through programs like LimeWire, then by all means, we'll go for your model.
 
 
 
I mean, don't let common sense get in the way of your fight against the government, please. :roll:
 
[*:2yimzp4f] It's amusing that you'd mention China given that this Australian firewall is only the second of it's kind. Care to guess where the first was?

 

This firewall is barely anywhere near as extreme as China's. I'm sure people in Australia will still be able to view the Liberals' website under a Labour government. Same can't be said for China.

 

 

 

You're comparing chalk and cheese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There goes another reasonably sized country controlling what it's citizens can and can't view. I'm all up for blocking of illegal materials (illegal weapon manufacturing, child pornography, how to create drugs etc) but if they were to block anti-government sites or other legal sites just so the citizen couldn't develop a lesser opinion of their government then I will be completely against.

 

 

 

IMO every teenager needs a bit of what the internet offers to develop properly, blood, gore and pornography. Let the parents choose what the child can and can't view, don't place a country wide ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, my good sir, you are the dolt who cannot understand the difference between correlation and causation. Could it not also be argued that the rate of rape is going down because of more effective policing, and better awareness amongst the public (additional awareness to date rape drugs and alcohol, for example)?

 

In other words you didn't even read the sources I posted after you criticized me for not posting any. This is not how one gains respect in an argument, and is a lot less fun than simply calling people names - you should pick one or the other, not neither.

 

 

 

This post is on this website, correct? It would be logistically impossible to monitor each and every opinion on the Internet, especially given the pace at which it's growing.

 

Yeah, it's not like they can scan pages for words automatically or anything. Seriously, destroy your credibility more, it's funny.

 

 

 

 

If you want the Internet to become this anarchic place where terrorists can meet up to organise plots, where they can gain information on how to make explosive bombs which can kill dozens, where they can spread vicious ideologies to corrupt young minds, where paedophiles are allowed to just willy nilly trade pictures with each other, where the masses can steal copyrighted data through programs like LimeWire, then by all means, we'll go for your model.

 

By all accounts that's how the internet already is and has been since it's inception. Last I checked the sky hadn't fallen.

 

 

 

The claims you're making as to this firewall's efficacy are wholly unrealistic; it doesn't have a hope in hell of stopping paedophiles and terrorists, and claiming otherwise isn't helping your case but rather just highlighting your naivety. It would be a minor inconvenience to those groups at best, but at worst it would be a tool to stifle political debate in the hands of this government or the next.

 

 

 

 

Stop asking questions you don't know the answer to.

 

[...]

 

Using a measure which prevents the downloading of illegal content is a "sweeping grab for power"?

 

I asked one real question in that post and the answer was 'China'.

 

 

 

It's a case of using a chainsaw where a scalpel would be the ideal tool. The fact that it's being done in the name of protecting children is galling, and the fact that people like you lap that nonsense up is depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to know what "illegal content" is before really giving an informed opinion, but I have a feeling that it's probably kiddy porn. In that case, it's fine by me. That stuff needs to be blocked so that there can't be an audience for it. If there's no audience, then there are no people buying it and the industry dies.

 

Harsher criminalization of child pornography will not remove the demand for it. Even if, hypothetically, all internet-based child porn is successfully removed, the audience will simply shift to another medium. The same would happen if the government was to block all internet-based "normal" porn.

 

 

 

More importantly, such harsh criminalization will simply push the industry further "underground." This is counter-productive if our ultimate goal is to reduce the occurrence of child sexual assault. "See no evil" does not translate to it not happening. Adult-child sex will occur with or without the demand for it to be videotaped, and for the sake of identifying and helping the victims, a distributed recording (photo/video) is far more useful than no recording at all.

 

 

 

A related question arises: Is there any benefit in criminalizing illustrations of child porn, such as drawings and 3D renders?

 

 

 

By your logic, let's just gives drug addicts more drugs.

 

Sorry to digress, but treating opiate addicts with the hallucinogenic Ibogaine has shown to be tremendously effective at removing their physical and psychological addiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should porn be blocked? Sure, it can be anti-women, or it can cause viewers to maintain anti-women values, but this is irrelevant. PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE. The same goes for drugs and prostitution but this isn't the place for that debate.

 

 

 

The women have consented to it, it isn't even in the same league as child porn. All these anti porn people are anti-FREEDOM, full stop. It's bad that it can cause people to have negative attitudes towards women, but are you seriously suggesting that we tell people in the porn industry that they can't do something WITH THEIR OWN BODY because others don't agree with it?

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, my good sir, you are the dolt who cannot understand the difference between correlation and causation. Could it not also be argued that the rate of rape is going down because of more effective policing, and better awareness amongst the public (additional awareness to date rape drugs and alcohol, for example)?

 

In other words you didn't even read the sources I posted after you criticized me for not posting any. This is not how one gains respect in an argument, and is a lot less fun than simply calling people names - you should pick one or the other, not neither.

 

I've gained more than enough respect in arguments in my time here, and it's not what I come here for either. Indeed, I actually like running against the grain. I read your sources, and I'm telling you they're nothing more than implicit remarks regarding the supposed 'correlation' between two frequencies. Stats will tell you whatever you want to believe.

 

 

 

This post is on this website, correct? It would be logistically impossible to monitor each and every opinion on the Internet, especially given the pace at which it's growing.

 

Yeah, it's not like they can scan pages for words automatically or anything. Seriously, destroy your credibility more, it's funny.

 

I don't care for credibility. This is apparently something you have yet to understand. My e-penis would be fine at the tiny size of an inch.

 

 

 

The idea that you think any government aside from China would ban this website from being viewed is just hysterical.

 

 

If you want the Internet to become this anarchic place where terrorists can meet up to organise plots, where they can gain information on how to make explosive bombs which can kill dozens, where they can spread vicious ideologies to corrupt young minds, where paedophiles are allowed to just willy nilly trade pictures with each other, where the masses can steal copyrighted data through programs like LimeWire, then by all means, we'll go for your model.

 

By all accounts that's how the internet already is and has been since it's inception. Last I checked the sky hadn't fallen.

 

Yes, but things can be changed. If infrastructure didn't change, we'd still picking wild berries for food whilst kneeling down to paganism.

 

 

 

The claims you're making as to this firewall's efficacy are wholly unrealistic; it doesn't have a hope in hell of stopping paedophiles and terrorists, and claiming otherwise isn't helping your case but rather just highlighting your naivety. It would be a minor inconvenience to those groups at best, but at worst it would be a tool to stifle political debate in the hands of this government or the next.

 

Internet usage can be monitored now, it's just not automatically filtered. Yet here I am, freely expressing my opinions. Speaks volumes for your conspiracy that governments would use this to oppress free speech more than they use watchdogs and regulations to restrict tabloid newspapers.

 

 

 

Seriously, your fear of government and its intentions is just ridiculous to the max.

 

 

Stop asking questions you don't know the answer to.

 

[...]

 

Using a measure which prevents the downloading of illegal content is a "sweeping grab for power"?

 

I asked one real question in that post and the answer was 'China'.

 

You made several statements about my character when you clearly had absolutely no idea. I suppose a better proverb would be don't leap into the unknown.

 

 

 

It's a case of using a chainsaw where a scalpel would be the ideal tool. The fact that it's being done in the name of protecting children is galling, and the fact that people like you lap that nonsense up is depressing.

 

The fact there are people like you who cannot possibly accept a government might actually need more power to do what is right to keep people safe is equally as depressing for me, I assure you.

 

 

 

I've made my point clear, and I've had enough of this aimless titfortat. Aside from mere rambling about an "apparent" invasion of free speech, I've yet to see one conclusive argument against this apart from its cost. If you're not doing anything illegal, I don't see where the problem is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

look, if it is going to reduce my already slow enough internet by 22% while idle, I don't care what safety features it has, 1) it means no more online gaming, or 2) downloading anything of a decent size, not to mention it will 3) cause most people with dial-up to stop using the internet, becuase they can't get broadband in their area...

 

1) Are you for real? Online gaming doesn't require a super fast connection. ISPs and routers probably count for more connection issues than the speed of the connection.

 

 

 

2) No... you can still download things it just takes a little longer. Only impatient people would seriously complain about the speed issue. As said, most things on the Internet do not require a fast connection, it's just more convenient.

 

 

 

3) That's simply ridiculous. Dial-up is notriously slow anyway. Take 80% of 56K, and you're still talking fractions of the bigger picture. Over half the population is now on broadband, and that figure will rise sharply in the coming years. Then there's libraries, Internet cafés... so many places where you can get broadband.

 

 

 

I'd have thought, with a way to take out a large chunk of paedophilia on the Internet, people would jump for joy. You oppose it because "it means no more online gaming". I think your principles are a bit out of whack.

 

 

 

my internet is already slow enough, as I have already written and just bolded, especially with my sister who knows nothing about downloads/bandwidth/download speeds and refuses to listen, even when she is complaining about internet spped while trying to steam 6 videos at once, using up just about all of our d/l speed :evil:

 

not only that, but the 22% is idle, imagine what the reduction may be when this thing is going full swing through every page you try to view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that in your own experience or do you know that for a fact? I doubt it would be that hard to set up a department to take calls for something. I've never had to ring up a government department for anything, but I seriously doubt it would take any more than a few minutes on the average day.

 

 

 

Sorry, I can't say I'm at all worried at the prospect of ringing up the government to opt-out of something. Strategically, an opt-out is just better for some things.

 

 

 

My parents have given up calling the government about stuff, too long and ineffective. A thought that just occurred to me is that you will most likely have to call up your ISP, and they do take ages to call up, mum is always on hold for an hour atleast, she can go and do other stuff for about an hour then come back to the phone, and still wait. This is the same with everyone else I've spoken to.

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there's no point whatsoever in doing this kind of thing. They say they're trying to protect people, but they're just monitoring them. Someone will have gotten through them in a matter of hours anyway.

My Last.Fm

LeekSpinner!!!

Random Furry Dance!!!

Proud to hate life, since not too long ago!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there's no point whatsoever in doing this kind of thing. They say they're trying to protect people, but they're just monitoring them. Someone will have gotten through them in a matter of hours anyway.

 

 

 

Ye, considering it's a government run program some anti-government hacker will probably have the thing crashed within days just to portray the government as week.

 

 

 

I wonder how many lives it would save by investing that 125.8 Million into Healthcare instead :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image how much legit stuff could be blocked if they somehow manage to stop torrents.

 

 

 

 

Maybe a whole 5 megabytes :lol: (Jk, but 'legit' content is about 0.1% of all torrents)

 

 

 

im going to continue to download music from limewire because im not interested in paying a record company to stamp out cd's

 

 

 

The problem is, if they start monitoring the traffic and the government asks IP access lists of popular public proxies (a venue commonly used by people wishing to mask their identity), RIAA/Australian equivalent can take legal action against private consumers such as you, not just the uploader. Wont be any jail time but monetary fines.

 

 

 

Or, if you don't have a proxy at all, the ISP could just throttle your P2P bandwidth to 0kb/s if they obtain evidence you use it for illegal content which is otherwise blocked by the filter.

 

 

 

Not really sure whether to agree or disagree with the law, but if they add political/neutral opinion sites and blogs to the filter, it's an intrusion of privacy and likely against any Australian legislature enabling free speech.

 

 

 

It's not like any kind of downloads will ever stop though regardless of vast filters.. (Hint hint, irc/xdcc bots)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to know what "illegal content" is before really giving an informed opinion, but I have a feeling that it's probably kiddy porn. In that case, it's fine by me. That stuff needs to be blocked so that there can't be an audience for it. If there's no audience, then there are no people buying it and the industry dies.

 

Harsher criminalization of child pornography will not remove the demand for it. Even if, hypothetically, all internet-based child porn is successfully removed, the audience will simply shift to another medium. The same would happen if the government was to block all internet-based "normal" porn.

 

 

 

More importantly, such harsh criminalization will simply push the industry further "underground." This is counter-productive if our ultimate goal is to reduce the occurrence of child sexual assault. "See no evil" does not translate to it not happening. Adult-child sex will occur with or without the demand for it to be videotaped, and for the sake of identifying and helping the victims, a distributed recording (photo/video) is far more useful than no recording at all.

 

 

 

A related question arises: Is there any benefit in criminalizing illustrations of child porn, such as drawings and 3D renders?

 

 

 

First, it's important to get our wording right. We're not talking about criminilization with this plan (it's already a criminal offence to make/distribute child porn) - we're just talking about internet content blockers.

 

 

 

Having said that, I think you make a good point. Ok, perhaps saying the industry dies was a bit much, but I doubt the whole industry would simply move to another medium if all child porn was successfully blocked, either. I'm sure some of the activity would die off, but when we're only talking about Australia it's really just pissing into the wind, to be honest. The best point you made, though, is with the consequences of pushing it underground. Obviously having a clear indication of who these people are and what they're doing is the best bet we have to stop them doing this. As I said before, this kind of measure isn't going to be as good as international collaboration to seek out and bring down this industry.

 

 

 

The final question is an interesting one. As Collective brought up, legalising porn has been linked with a drop in rape rates, possibly due to people getting their "fix" before having to go out and do it for real. The same could be true (however disgusting it may seem) for fake child porn; there are people out these with these weird fetishes, and if we can help them get their "fix" before doing it for real, then that could only be a good thing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "harsher criminalization" I mean something along the lines of "harsher enforcement/crackdown." Apologies for the poor choice of words on my part.

 

 

 

Ok, perhaps saying the industry dies was a bit much, but I doubt the whole industry would simply move to another medium if all child porn was successfully blocked, either.

 

True. I'm sure there are a few that will be forced to stop viewing child porn because of this censorship. However, I suspect the majority will continue to seek it out, perhaps even in higher demand than before. Take a look at the rise in demand and consumption during the American Prohibition; could something similar happen here if the censorship is successful?

 

 

 

Like you said, though, since it's only Australia, this will probably have little impact on the child porn industry as a whole.

 

 

 

What worries me is how broadly this plan defines 'illegal content'. Surely the focus of this plan isn't just to block child porn -- which is already pretty well blocked, or at the very least well-hidden.

 

 

 

I'm fairly sure that the $125.8 million was not spent solely with the intention of blocking pornography. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that this plan was formed with corporate interests in mind. Quashing of political descent on a Runescape fan board, though, seems like a bit of a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there's no point whatsoever in doing this kind of thing. They say they're trying to protect people, but they're just monitoring them. Someone will have gotten through them in a matter of hours anyway.

 

 

 

Ye, considering it's a government run program some anti-government hacker will probably have the thing crashed within days just to portray the government as week.

 

 

 

I wonder how many lives it would save by investing that 125.8 Million into Healthcare instead :|

 

about 3

iteme3721.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such Bullcrap! its bad enough we have the third worst internet in the world but to put such a stupid system i place is goin' overboard. Kevin Rudd, you have failed EPICALLY!

 

 

 

I wonder how many lives it would save by investing that 125.8 Million into Healthcare instead
or if they fixed the stupid health systems like new facilities etc we might actully praise them.

 

 

 

 

 

and yeah, when you have a sister who downloads a ton and broadband (telstra) while dishing out 60$ a month, its going to destroy online gaming here since i'll have to pay 80-100$ JUST to increase speed.

Popoto.~<3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how you say it will block so few without any sort of credibility or source to back it up.
I don't care for credibility.

 

That's probably for the best.

 

 

 

The idea that you think any government aside from China would ban this website from being viewed is just hysterical.

 

Again, "this post" not "this website". You're doing the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.

 

 

 

Internet usage can be monitored now, it's just not automatically filtered. Yet here I am, freely expressing my opinions. Speaks volumes for your conspiracy that governments would use this to oppress free speech more than they use watchdogs and regulations to restrict tabloid newspapers.

 

It speaks volumes for your blind trust in government that you think this firewall will actually achieve anything in terms of stopping terrorists and paedophiles. In reality anyone with any sort of technical knowledge will tell you that's nonsense, and even Australian politicians are shying away from that as the main justification. Let me make that clear: even people on your side think you're stupid. The main thrust of their justifications now is blocking children from seeing adult porn, not adults from seeing kiddie porn.

 

 

 

If you're not doing anything illegal, I don't see where the problem is.

 

If I'm doing nothing wrong, then why do you need to know what I'm doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such Bullcrap! its bad enough we have the third worst internet in the world but to put such a stupid system i place is goin' overboard. Kevin Rudd, you have failed EPICALLY!

 

 

 

I wonder how many lives it would save by investing that 125.8 Million into Healthcare instead
or if they fixed the stupid health systems like new facilities etc we might actully praise them.

 

 

 

 

 

and yeah, when you have a sister who downloads a ton and broadband (telstra) while dishing out 60$ a month, its going to destroy online gaming here since i'll have to pay 80-100$ JUST to increase speed.

 

Ouch. I agree this was really a mistake >.> Thank god I am not in Australia right now. *phew*

Wongton is better than me in anyway~~

 

94qbe.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such Bullcrap! its bad enough we have the third worst internet in the world but to put such a stupid system i place is goin' overboard. Kevin Rudd, you have failed EPICALLY!

 

 

 

I wonder how many lives it would save by investing that 125.8 Million into Healthcare instead
or if they fixed the stupid health systems like new facilities etc we might actully praise them.

 

 

 

 

 

and yeah, when you have a sister who downloads a ton and broadband (telstra) while dishing out 60$ a month, its going to destroy online gaming here since i'll have to pay 80-100$ JUST to increase speed.

 

 

 

crap! that means I'll need to get a job just for faster internet, as mum will not pay anymore, and if I can pass it off as rent I can get the money from CentreLink, as I will then be eligable for Youth Allowance (or is it something with student in its name..? :-k ) As my friend is doing that, he pays for his internet, he calls it rent, but is only paying for the internet, and gets enough to pay for it (he is an only child, and his parents don't use the internet, so they won't pay for it.)

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.