Comments on: Filter supporters talk, Australia listens

By: Abbie

Abbie — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:24:34 +0000

I think Sasha has an excellent point-but there is no such thing as a magic filter so in the end, appart from airing our concerns this debate is pointless.

By: How’s the writing going? December 2008 Update — DanuPoyner.com

How’s the writing going? December 2008 Update — DanuPoyner.com — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:06:13 +0000

[...] make better use of technology. The second was another piece on net censorship for a site called ‘Somebody Think of the Children’. This one was even more exciting because I actually got paid for it, making it my first official [...]

By: Clive Hamilton & I: Sex, Lies, Hate & Censorship

Clive Hamilton & I: Sex, Lies, Hate & Censorship — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:27:43 +0000

[...] that the Internet will be ‘safe’ (whatever that means) for the young and vulnerable? Even your fellow censorship advocates admit the proposed mandatory ‘filter’ will be very ‘leaky’. Isn’t there a risk of [...]

By: Sam Bauers

Sam Bauers — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:12:34 +0000

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam is asking questions of the minister in parliament…

http://greens.org.au/node/3738

I’m quite sure that the proposal would not be supported by the Greens at all.

By: JR

JR — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:59:08 +0000

I say, hire “Crash Override” and “Acid Burn” to covertly hack illegal sites off the internet…

problem solved.

see you guys at the march

By: Lang Mack

Lang Mack — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:14:00 +0000

. Because in their world, anything that might protect the children in their mind is good, regardless of the effect on anything else.
Spot on ‘in their mind’ won’t work in reality. Conroy is either a fool or getting pressured, now I wonder by who or whom.

By: The Nannageddon approaches. « Am I so very small?

The Nannageddon approaches. « Am I so very small? — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:06:34 +0000

[...] It’s also worth mentioning that the clean-feed does not take into account the use of bit-torrent downloads and chatrooms for accessing child-pornography. Neither does it completely remove all child pornography available from websites – blocking only 30-40% of genuinely illegal material. [...]

By: Sasha

Sasha — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:14:55 +0000

Many have been saying that we really can’t argue this on a technical level. The thing is though, whether the anti-filter side argues with technical or moral, it’s met with moral arguments only from the pro-filter side.

I am so goddamn sick of the ignorant advocates of ISP filtering using the moral highground of protecting the children. Because in their world, anything that might protect the children in their mind is good, regardless of the effect on anything else.

The bubble generations are only going to get bigger, with the bubble covering more than not allowing kids to play in the dirt anymore.

By: anonny-ho

anonny-ho — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:16:43 +0000

“One day the technical stuff will be sorted out,”

Wouldn’t bet on it.

By: Terrence Valter

Terrence Valter — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:43:19 +0000

blind_dead is spot on. I think there is a real danger in arguing the technical limitations of this scheme. One day the technical stuff will be sorted out, in the meantime a lot will put up with an imperfect net experience.

Remember the old story about the guy who throws a powder around to keep the pink elephants away, when someone points out there are no pink elephants there, he says see it’s working.

To me I completely object to public servants being able to censor the net. This is UNACCEPTABLE. If someone goes to an illegal site (not unwanted) they go to JAIL. So we don’t need a filter for that.

I appreciate the technical guys with their technical arguments but we should argue the principle of government censors, and say sure we support an opt in filter system for those who want it.