Web filters are go in Australia

Gary · Dec 15, 2009, 18:48:30

"Australia intends to introduce filters which will ban access to websites containing criminal content.

The banned sites will be selected by an independent classification body guided by complaints from the public, said Communications Minister Stephen Conroy"

Might seem a good idea, but slowly but surely we lose our freedom to browse as we please online, the same filters could/will be used for other purposes I am sure. I just never belive whats said to be for our own good. I do not like a pre sanitised world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8413377.stm

Rik · Dec 15, 2009, 18:54:14

Thank God Mary Whitehouse is dead if it's to be lead by complaints from the public...

Niall · Dec 15, 2009, 20:09:09

Wow, I bet China are laughing now.

somanyholes · Dec 16, 2009, 07:25:57

From what I have read online there appear to have been quite a lot of issues with this new list, so the bbc saying 100% success as per usual is complete tosh. As far as I'm aware the main reason for this filter to go live was to stop child-p. However just 32% of this list relates to it. In many ways this list isn't that dissimilar from the list that is operated over here which is the iwf list. There's quite a lot of interestinhg info on the topic at wikileaks.org/

Rik · Dec 16, 2009, 08:07:50

Must we live in a world where we are protected from ourselves?

Gary · Dec 16, 2009, 08:13:57

Quote from: Rik on Dec 16, 2009, 08:07:50
Must we live in a world where we are protected from ourselves?

because we can harm ourselves so much when we have a "shut it down button"

Gary · Dec 16, 2009, 08:17:33

Quote from: somanyholes on Dec 16, 2009, 07:25:57
From what I have read online there appear to have been quite a lot of issues with this new list, so the bbc saying 100% success as per usual is complete tosh. As far as I'm aware the main reason for this filter to go live was to stop child-p. However just 32% of this list relates to it. In many ways this list isn't that dissimilar from the list that is operated over here which is the iwf list. There's quite a lot of interestinhg info on the topic at wikileaks.org/

Its a bit stricter than that, So it should stop almsot all pornography being accessed, while stopping the sick stuff as well, its control for a reason, its more than the iwf list as its desighned to be more far reaching, soon we will all have a great firewall like Iran. My friend there cannot even use msn messenger of contact me via proxie anymore, or text, or call

Rik · Dec 16, 2009, 08:28:01

Quote from: Gary on Dec 16, 2009, 08:13:57
because we can harm ourselves so much when we have a "shut it down button"

somanyholes · Dec 16, 2009, 08:30:23

Hi Gary

Sorry but from what I've read it only blocks a few thousand pages, and i think that now that number has been decreased. There's no way you could block all pornograhy whilst blocking a list that is that small. Also let's remember, this isn't a firewall like they have in iran / china etc, its a block list that is supplied to isp's to block access to certain domain's / ip's. It is nowhere near to being a filter to the level that exists in the middle east /china. Whilst I don't agree with the net being filtered, I do think there are some things that should be monitored to a degree.

Ann · Dec 16, 2009, 08:36:44

It's the beginning of the slippery slope

Rik · Dec 16, 2009, 08:37:56

Any censorship is, Ann. Once you accept the principle, someone else will draw the lines...

Gary · Dec 16, 2009, 08:38:40

Quote from: somanyholes on Dec 16, 2009, 08:30:23
Hi Gary

Sorry but from what I've read it only blocks a few thousand pages, and i think that now that number has been decreased. There's no way you could block all pornograhy whilst blocking a list that is that small. Also let's remember, this isn't a firewall like they have in iran / china etc, its a block list that is supplied to isp's to block access to certain domain's / ip's. It is nowhere near to being a filter to the level that exists in the middle east /china. Whilst I don't agree with the net being filtered, I do think there are some things that should be monitored to a degree.

A few thousand pages is easily expanded, So. The implementation is what worries me, tighter reins on out browsing habits in the name of clearing the net of perversion is a great way to get a tighter grip on what we see and read, manipulating our views, we may as well be going back to the banning of Fanny Hill again if that happens. Its better to have sites that peddle filth and know who is watching and where in many ways, I know many will not agree with that, but at least as I say you know who is doing what then, and better it be behind a monitor than in the streets

I am not keen on any monitoring, sadly you force people further underground and then things get more difficult, I loath the idea of child porn, but if its blocked and the people that watch it not monitored where do they go for there kicks? You force them under the radar and then god knows what happens.

somanyholes · Dec 16, 2009, 08:58:57

QuoteA few thousand pages is easily expanded

Thats a fair point

talos · Dec 16, 2009, 10:02:58

Rather than having filters, which as far as I can see is another word for censors, more effective monitoring and traceability would be an effective deterrent, paedo sites would soon shut down if they knew they were traceable as would their customers. No doubt it would have cost implications.

somanyholes · Dec 16, 2009, 10:44:04

they do appear to go after some of these sites, however sometimes it's easier said than done when things like this exist

http://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-hidden-service.html.en

talos · Dec 16, 2009, 14:15:45

Quote from: somanyholes on Dec 16, 2009, 10:44:04
they do appear to go after some of these sites, however sometimes it's easier said than done when things like this exist

http://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-hidden-service.html.en

You have a point there .
Another point I thought about after posting was, making everybody traceable means Everybody, big brother is looming