Comments on: Conroy names ISPs in filtering trial, No iiNet or Optus

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:33:47 +0000

I am in a state if despair as well Daniel, I work everyday to update my record of the socialist catholics taking over the internet. The science “examining” filtering should be first class but labor conduct these abuses of science when they want to implement new laws just like Bracks did in Victoria with simulated drug driving research from Swinburne Uni. Rudd is on his way to plead with the pope that Mary McKillop is made a saint. What ignorant times we live in. Conroy is an extrem religious zealot. The socialist Christian Labor bullies act on their own conscience not what science and the Australian people demand.

Take political action and a little search engine optimisation too make sure the mongrels are exposed abusing science to make fake results. What is the sample size, etc. etc Replication of results peer reviews all normal science out the window for a paternalistic fascist Christian censorship regime for labor.

What’s more in Victoria and Queensland I might be jailed for sever ridicule of Rudd and Conroy’s religious disposition under religious vilifications laws. All praise be to Rudd.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Religion/Vilification.html#ruddy

Tim Anderson

By: Dylan

Dylan — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:15:09 +0000

What I find most annoying is Senator Conroy’s statements like ‘The Australian people voted for internet filtering in the 07 elections’. No they didn’t. I voted for Labour and I certainly didn’t! As mentioned by Glenn they voted for Opt-in filtering, not mandatory filtering. And they didn’t even vote for filtering! They voted for a new government when they were sick of the old one. I’m sure if one of Labour’s policies was something utterly insane like “Give Krudd 1 billion $ per year salary” we still would have voted them in becuase everyone was sick of Howard & Co.

By: Glenn Petrie

Glenn Petrie — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:29:30 +0000

I read those bozos are complaining that it is the Australian people’s fault for voting Labor. Sure, Labor promised that they would introduce a nation-wide filter, but they decided it will be on a voluntary basis; people could opt-in if they wished. It was not until October last year that we found out that Labor did a back-flip, announcing that this filter will be mandatory instead. They lied to their own people; and by introducing this filter, they are basically saying that parents are incompetent when it comes to protecting their own children.

By: Syd Walker

Syd Walker — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 06:17:39 +0000

Could I sugest:

“All that is lacking is the pretence of an intellectually defensible rationale for censoring the Internet – as well as _the pretence of_ an effective means of enforcement. Hence the so-called ‘filter’.”

Whether or not the ‘filters’ tested work badly or well, objections to government censorship of the World Wide Web remain.

By: Jon Seymour

Jon Seymour — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 04:33:08 +0000

@Joyce: I agree, Daniel’s point could probably have been better expressed like this:

“All that is lacking is _the pretence of_ an effective way of enforcing them. Hence the filter.”

By: Joyce

Joyce — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:45:36 +0000

All that is lacking is an effective way of enforcing them. Hence the filter.

By Daniel on Feb 12, 2009

Effective?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:13:34 +0000

Just on the aside, perhaps we shouldn’t really be all that surprised at how forcefully this filter is being pushed. Australia has a long and notorious history of censorship. Two names: DH Lawrence, and Pier Paolo Pasolini should suffice as examples. In fact, there is good evidence from linguists that a significant amount of Australian slang dates back to the days when convicts needed to find ways to avoid the censorship of their keepers.
One thing that has kept Australia reasonably free is the terribly convoluted way it designs its legislation and the slow manner in which it updates laws: remember the 90s when Victoria Police vowed never again to prosecute another porn shop after a massive raid on Club X stores around the state resulted in the case being thrown out of court because X-rated videos did not constitute “photographic film”.
On the other hand, no one cared less when hundreds of locally based phone-sex operators, many of them single mothers, were thrown out of business because the government decided that such telephonic services went against the moral order. A lot of people lost their jobs and ended up in the dole queue, but that didn’t count for anything when it came to, you guessed it, “protecting the children”.
Now the internet is a wild and untamed beast, and I honestly do not for a moment expect that an Australian government, such governments having always been obsessed with censorship, could let the internet just stay there as it currently is. We need to put this into historical context. Our governments have always been hungry for censorship. The draconian laws are already there and have been for years. All that is lacking is an effective way of enforcing them. Hence the filter.

By: a new compassionate nihilism » Blog Archive » Conroy names ISPs in filtering trial

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:47:01 +0000

[...] Somebody Think Of The Children, the ISPs named in the filtering trial [...]

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:47:26 +0000

Bloody hell. Maybe I’m way overreacting, but this is sounding more like totalitarian state tactics (eg China, Vietnam) every day. Apart from Primus, I had heard of none of these ISPs until this post. Honestly, possible provider bias completely aside, if they can’t or won’t even get the big players like Telstra and Optus on board, how can any such trial be in any way remotely credible?
Oh, but, that doesn’t matter of course. It’s becoming all too obvious that the trial is just a total sham so as to look like due process is being followed. Kinda like a general election in Vietnam, where the ruling Party declares in advance that it will be returned with a 98% majority. Just in case anyone is thinking of voting otherwise. But at least they can say, well we did hold an election, we’re a democracy.
I give up on this. This government will have a filter, and nothing, not even the hand of God will stop it implementing one. I’m already trialling VPN software so I won’t lose my online job which depends on totally unfiltered packet transfer.
Sorry for the lack of faith, but from what I’ve seen til now, I don’t think Conroy & Co. even give a flying f… about the technical issues. The scent of power and control a filter offers is much too powerful.

By: Thursday Morning News | iPhone3G.com.au – Australia’s independent iPhone Authority

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:14:27 +0000

[...] Apple related, but still relevant to us nerds here in Australia – Senator Conroy has released the list of ISPs that will take place in the first round of Internet fil… Take a look at the list and tell me that it isn’t totally rigged. Make sure to support the [...]