Say NO to Internet Censorship in Australia

[DextrousWeevil]

Originally Posted by ChickenStrangler

Well I’m pretty sure nothing will go forward due to the effect it would have on allot of business, government originations and just give everyone too much strife.

As a contractor to defence I can tell you that I use their systems every day and I can't access this site as it is, or any thing else gamining related, and just to load google can take up to 5 and more minites thats how much restriction there is already with them as it is so I know how it could feel for the rest of us "home users".

[Jango]

MySpace.com - No Clean Feed - 18 - Male - AU - www.myspace.com/nocleanfeed

kgo to protests.

Watch video at bottom too.

[Ulric]

Jango,

Unfortunately if you are defamed or slandered by government or the media your only recourse is through the legal system. This is both expensive and time consuming, and is not a sure thing when you are going up against the media who have very deep pockets for legal fees.

By the time you may get your day in court, and if you are lucky enough to win, the damage will have been done, and the issue will be moot.

Having said that.

Everyone write a letter to the communications minister stating your outrage. They at least reply to them, and the more outraged voters they see the more they may re-think their policies.

[ReaperSmurf]

Try sending THIS BLOKE an e-mail: Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators:Senator the Hon*Stephen*Conroy

and here's where to find the rest of them: Government Ministry - australia.gov.au

[sperex]

Filtering is not a new concept and it won't go away. Netalert bombed because it was ineffective, conceived in haste and generally not wanted by the community, (It's the Australian way, whine forever, but never actually do something about it when the opportunity arises). This one will bomb for the same reasons, but at a much higher cost with wider rammifications.

Note, that's two different successive governments, with different applications of the same effective policy and the same disregard for reality. This is a political pissing competition, nothing more.

I have to say, I fully support all efforts to block illegal material as long as that effort is effective and targeted, (ie: isn't a complete waste of time, which the current proposal is). If a country's law decrees something illegal, then that's what it is. If you want the law changed, then you need to take the democratic approach, (that's just how it is), otherwise you need to pursue the illegal activity yourself and bypass whatever checks and guards are in place and accept the consequences when they arrive.
Whether that's a morally right or wrong is a completely different argument.

Have a good look at the proposal and you will see it's designed to prevent accidental exposure. Now, that's a hell of a lot of effort and money just to boost the prevention of accidental exposure

Regardless of how it's been sold, it does not block all means of distributing illegal material and can not do so without seriously impinging on privacy and security. Think HTTPS for banking and ecomm transactions, SSL/IPSEC for VPNS. This is highly protected, highly valuable data that will _not_ be filtered, because it simply cannot, without destroying the very base that encryption technologies rely on and thus destroying all faith in online security.

The dispensation won't change, just the methods and you can't just point at a particular government and say "it's all their fault", because it's our fault to allowing successive governments to think they can just whack on a bloody expesive bandaid made up of crepe paper and UHU glue and have the problem go away.

You see that little advert on the top-right side of this screen? That's been there for quite a while now, so you'd better believe there are a lot of very worried people out there.