What is Digg?191 Comments
- greenfyre, on 12/03/2008, -10/+127Can they do Limbaugh and Fox?
Sigh, there's the rub, isn't it? we can all think of a whole bunch of sites that should be blocked ... and others think our sites should be.
If history repeats itself we will see the ones that "should" be blocked (ie really illegal sleaze) will get around it within hours, whereas ones that shouldn't (due to errors, poor judgment, political based decisions, etc) will be gone for ever. - audiomodder, on 12/03/2008, -1/+105they already have software that filters the internet if you want to pay for it. they're called filters, that's what they're for, and if you want one to protect your children, you buy one.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -1/+66Blocking websites won't prevent child abuse; it'll just make the real criminals harder to track down.
- jojopumpkin, on 12/03/2008, -0/+61Looks like the Australian Government wants to be your Nanny. That's a pretty big DANGER SIGN. I'm sure blogging will follow.
- Jynx97, on 12/03/2008, -0/+57Filter your own internet. Be your own boss. I use ubuntu / squid / dansguardian to proxy my daughters laptop. The government should not be in this roll. Scary.
- GeeksSpeakFont, on 12/03/2008, -1/+51i'm not sure that websites are really all that detrimental to children. perhaps it's better to push through an initiative to encourage more active parenting?
- Gizza, on 12/04/2008, -0/+49"However, opinion is sharply divided about how well the system will work"
If by sharply divided you mean about 3 people who think it will work and 20 million who know it wont, then yes, opinion is sharply divided. - aolshove, on 12/03/2008, -0/+47If my 8 yo daughter ever made it to a porn site, first I'd be freaked out that A) she cares about porn and B) she learned to use Google on her own (mixed with pride, that's a tough one). Then I'd distract her away from the computer and turn on the net nanny software. Problem solved... at least until "The Talk" and then there's a whole new can of worms. *yikes!*
- NixiePixel, on 12/04/2008, -1/+37Yes, they get to decide what is harmful to children. Soon, what is harmful to adults. And then...
Have a double-plus good day!! - vbullinger, on 12/03/2008, -0/+31As much as I dislike you, this was a good post and I thumbed it up.
Let freedom ring, make the internet, and all information, be freely available to all and let us all come to our own conclusions of things.
I'll be a good parent, regardless of what sludge is thrown in front of my children, and they will turn out better than the children of those that think that this is a good idea. - TrellSaracen, on 12/03/2008, -0/+28People have been blogging about this for a couple of months, now.
The Government's reaction has been "We won't be swayed by public opinion."
I ***** you not.
Oh, and they're taking an "Evidence-based" approach, apparently. Despite the fact that the "evidence" from all the laboratory trials firmly points towards the whole thing being a very bad idea, and that we shouldn't do it.
He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past. - weif, on 12/03/2008, -0/+26the comment from the Child Wise exec is pretty narrow minded: "images that nobody should be viewing." Who is she to be the judge of that. Let people put up the content they want, when they want it, how they want it, and where they want it. It should be the responsibility of the users to determine what they want to see and what they don't. And it's the responsibility of parents to... well... parent (e.i. monitor what your children are doing and what they are exposed to). As has been noted previously, blocking the content will make the criminals harder to track while simultaneously making people come up with other ways to get around filtering. Parents who can't be bothered to parent, and governments who decide to parent for people are both problems, and this article is showing evidence of both.
- Gizza, on 12/04/2008, -1/+27You don't even need to pay for one. The Australian government already provides one for free to anyone who wants it.
- HamstaMan, on 12/04/2008, -0/+25Hmm, let me put it this way. Internet censorship DOES NOT WORK. And it gives the government power they should not have.
Here in Finland we have had a censorship system for quite a while, and almost all sites it has blocked has been legal sites (for some reason most of them are gay porn. Is our government bigoted?). Not too long ago they accidentally managed to block the W3C as well. Even critics of the censorship system have been blocked. - vbullinger, on 12/03/2008, -0/+22Oh, no, that's silly! The government should take care of our children. I've got more important things to worry about.
- KaiserArny, on 12/04/2008, -0/+22Censorship can only work in a totalitarian regime.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -2/+24wow only in australia........ sad that place is becoming a prison state (again). too bad, I wanted to visit it one day
- Azerael, on 12/04/2008, -0/+21https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&i ...
^ Donate here to raise awareness of the Government's plans.
Not blogspam or rickroll or anything. - TrellSaracen, on 12/04/2008, -0/+21EVERYONE can still bypass the filter, including the criminals. And by bypassing it, you become harder to trace.
- benmod, on 12/04/2008, -0/+21hahaha stupid americans with their stupid american government
oh wait.. - sfajou, on 12/04/2008, -1/+22www.nocleanfeed.com
- stricken, on 12/04/2008, -0/+19Damn, Gizza beat me to it, link if anyone wants to get the filter: http://www.netalert.gov.au/
Don't worry if you don't feel like downloading it, no one in Australia did either. - inactive, on 12/03/2008, -2/+19they're built into most browsers, no need to buy one.
- Spoomeister, on 12/04/2008, -1/+18Austrailia is harmful to children.
- davidbarnes, on 12/04/2008, -0/+17This is absolutely outrageous.
- Khast, on 12/04/2008, -0/+17So, I think they should have to publish a list of ALL sites which are to be filtered.
Ah screw it, you know, eventually the world is going to have internet like the Chinese.....because don't you know, this is bad for you, that is bad for you, you shouldn't know this...ect....pretty soon the only websites which people can go to are propaganda sites for whoever is blocking your internet, claiming to protect you from *THEM*. - ThermiteTerrace, on 12/04/2008, -0/+17I sincerely hope that they're met with the wrath of 4chan and Anonymous in the form of tens of thousands of spammed images of Goatse...(sorta like the Wall of Jericho v. 2.0 collapsing under a barrage of memes.)
- Jammamorf, on 12/04/2008, -0/+16Welcome to Australia
Where Stupidity Rules...
Honestly, people who are for this program want the internet policing to be done for them... If you were a parent, YOU watch what you children are doing, don't make an entire country suffer for your awful parenting.... (maybe a little bit exaggerated)
"Most illegal material these days is traded on peer-to-peer (P2P) or using other technologies that can't be filtered." Futility?
There is also mention of 'the government' controlling what is blacklisted and what isn't, who stops it from going to far where legitimate sites are blocked?
The issue of speeds being slowed down is another concern... "previous filtering trials have reduced net speed by as much as 86%. " That just seems impractical since Australia doesn't exactly have the fastest internet speed in the world.
An Australian. - TrellSaracen, on 12/04/2008, -1/+16What child-dangerous websites? Accidentally stumbled across any recently? Ever?
Let me guess, it "just popped up," right? And you "couldn't close it?" At least, that's what you told your SO, right? - redwallhp, on 12/04/2008, -0/+15Six years later...
Disallow *.wordpress.com
Disallow *.blogspot.com
Disallow youtube.com - str1fe, on 12/04/2008, -0/+15I've been strongly considering immigrating to Australia for a while now, but this makes me completely eliminate that as an option. As an above commenter stated, censorship only works under a totalitarian regime. First illegal sites get blocked, then borderline illegal but still legal sites get blocked, then entirely legal porn sites will get blocked, then illegal piracy sites will get block with legals ones mixed in with that, then critics of the government will start getting blocked...
Seriously, this Australian Firewall reminds me strongly of the Great Firewall of China. Do you seriously want your internet policy to be compared to today's leading Communist state? I think not, and I refuse to move to a country that wants to pull that kind of *****. Quit assuming your own citizens are dumbasses, if they want to protect their families from stuff that parents don't want their kids seeing, it's not hard for them to do it themselves. Instead of doing something so controversial that can obviously be easily abused (and, like I said, compared to China), put that taxpayer money towards encouraging parents to take a more active role in what their kids look at online and give them information on how to set up their own filters. That way everyone's happier.
The idiocy of people in power astounds me. Every elected office in the world needs term limits. All of them. - lopla, on 12/04/2008, -7/+21LMFAO!! AUS get's their first taste of christians meddling with their gov't. Fun ain't it! next on the menu creation science, wohoo!
- ericjorgensen, on 12/04/2008, -0/+14Sounds strikingly similar to the lovely tradition of book burning.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+14Your two examples of "not evil" don't apply here. Flickr is a private company and can choose whatever the hell kind of pictures it wants on its site. When you work for a company, you are to behave yourself as the company requires, and they can fire you if you don't. However, the government is neither a private organization nor a company for which we all work and therefore to whom we are all subject to judgment at any given moment. The government's job is to protect our right to free speech.
- Azerael, on 12/04/2008, -0/+13Even Rush Limbaugh and Fox deserve the right to free speech. It's vital that the right to free speech extends to EVERYONE, even loudmouthed idiots.
Because if that right is ever taken away, odds are Fox and Limbaugh won't be the ones getting censored.
I'm also going to take this chance to link to the site of a group fighting the censorship plan,
https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&i ...
I don't have enough money to donate myself (I'm broke :( ), but hopefully we can raise awareness of the Government's crazy scheme.
Also, if you're an Aussie, sign the petition if you haven't already. - treelovinhippie, on 12/04/2008, -0/+13Yeah Australia's future is butt-***** for the next 10+ years if they put this through. The Internet is just about to see a massive boom in terms of economic power, and with Australian broadband speeds and prices already ridiculously high compared to every other developed nation... a censorship plan which has questionable motives, implementation and has been shown to slow speeds by up to 75%.... we're *****.
- s0nicfreak, on 12/04/2008, -0/+13They already have filters for the internet built in to parents' bodies... it's called WATCHING YOUR DAMN KIDS
- Zenham, on 12/04/2008, -0/+13The worst thing about censorship is ████████████.
- LordSeth, on 12/04/2008, -1/+13Well looks like I need to flee this stinking country. I guess I will be a refugee. But where to go... I guess Canada looks good.
- slowth, on 12/03/2008, -0/+12That reminds me of a recent interview with Imperial Lord Cheney. The unpopularity of the Iraq War was mentioned, and Cheney responded, essentially, with 'so what'. So much for government by and for the People, this is more like government somewhat by the People and for your own good. I understand and appreciate the role of a limited government, but I'm now having trouble holding back the Fear.
- andsalvatierra, on 12/04/2008, -0/+12There is no replacement for making parents do their job right - raise your children and teach 'em what's right and what's wrong, what's safe and what's not, and the consequences of certain actions.
You can do as much as you like with propositions such as these, but unless parents do what they're supposed to do, it's just gonna be a waste of everyone's time and money. - TrellSaracen, on 12/04/2008, -1/+12First!? We've had religious lunatics in politics just as long as you have!
http://www.cdp.org.au/
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/
Not to mention our Fearless Leader KommRudd, who is a self-avowed "Christian Socialist."
Scum. - tsotha, on 12/04/2008, -0/+11Huh. I wonder how long it will be before sites critical to the government are seen as "harmful to children".
- AbsurdParadox, on 12/04/2008, -0/+11You're right Square. We need to protect these children by pointing guns at people and enforce some LAWS! And if someone refuses to install a filter or comply with said law, they need to be struck down!
Remember, the best way to protect children is by threatening millions of people with violence! - TrellSaracen, on 12/04/2008, -0/+11And so are the $44million ISP-level filters. Because guess what: They use the EXACT SAME TECHNOLOGY.
Quick! There's a pile of money! Let's all piss on it! - TrellSaracen, on 12/04/2008, -0/+11@nolimits
Basically, the filters will filter HTTP traffic. Only.
So to bypass it, all you need is Tor or a VPN with a non-Australian endpoint, or something similar. And both of those solutions use encryption, which makes it (damn near) impossible for law enforcement agencies to trace.
You are correct, it is the law enforcement agencies' job to catch Child Pornographers. The interesting question, though, is: if the ACMA have a list of CP websites that will be blocked by these filters (lol), why have they not passed this list on to those whose actual job it is to deal with them? - hack314, on 12/04/2008, -1/+12worst thing ever
- theNazz, on 12/04/2008, -1/+11"Even critics of the censorship system have been blocked."
I believe that is proof enough to show that censorship DOES work. - Gizza, on 12/04/2008, -0/+10And no one wants that one either.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 192 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is