Hey, I’ve got an idea. No internet or computer required. We print the porn on paper and staple it together like one of those magazines. We can sell it and mail it in a brown envelope to whoever we like, or even take snapshots from the magazine and send it to the mates. Up yours gov’!

Me, I think I’ll just sit around and think pornographic thoughts. I’m thinking one about Stephen Conroy as we speak. 😆

Filtering out the fury: how government tried to gag web censor critics

The high price of internet filtering

Internet filters a success, if success = failure

“Like anything in life it’s about finding the right balance between the basic freedoms we all expect to have in a democracy like ours while at the same time wanting to protect minors from exposure to material we prefer they didn’t see. We think the arrangements that we had in place when we left office struck that balance.”

Believe it or not Minchin said something to Computerworld worth a read. This is the one bit of legislation I will cheer about if blocked. Go Nick.

Joe, I get this sinking feeling that Labor are digging their political graves.

Seen this?

Bill Henson scandal prompts overhaul of art laws

Much more nonsense like this and we’re back to the Lieberals in control. I’d love to think that the Greens will enjoy a protest vote, but they’ll be many moons before they can control Parliament at any level.

Family First demands wider internet filters

This is the text of the note I have sent to both Conroy & Rudd. Plagiarise at will. 🙂

Dear Mr Conroy,

I am writing today regarding Labor’s mandatory plan to filter internet services to all residences, even those which have no children.

This plan is flawed from beginning to end. The internet is designed to recognise censorship as damage and routes around it. There are easily available privacy applications like Tor (see: http://www.torproject.org/overview.html.en) which will circumvent any attempt to filter internet traffic. There’s nothing the government can do to prevent anyone in Australia from getting around filtering, even at the Internet Service Provider level.

The correct way to prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate materials is to supervise their internet usage. The family computer should be placed in a common area in the household where parents can see what the kids are up to.

Secondarily, filtering, if needed, can be done at the family computer, where parents have control over what sorts of sites are blocked. The government already provides free filtering applications for families with children.

There is no technical way that an ISP filtering scheme will not have a dramatic effect on the speed of Australian internet access, already among the poorest in the developed world. Households without children should not be penalised for the poor parenting skills of those who do not wish to supervise their children’s internet use.

At the end of the day, you do not prevent children from drowning by banning water; you teach them how to swim. In a case where children have encountered age-inappropriate materials, the correct course of action is to discuss what children have seen and put it in context suiting the age of the child.

Please reconsider this ill-conceived scheme. It won’t protect children. It will just annoy the millions of Australian voters who don’t need filtering.

Regards,

(your name)

cc/ Kevin Rudd

Government uploads hypocrisy with internet censorship – Antony Loewenstein