Mandatory Internet Censorship in Australia (1 Viewer)

Chemical Ali

지금은 소녀시대
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
1,728
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
A quantifable amount of child pornography is distributed on the world wide web, throughout websites and such. It's not much, but it's there. As a matter of fact, I was browsing through 4chan the other day, and I saw a picture of a penis approaching a baby. It made me sick.

And you're against this filter? For shame.
reported to AFP

better start wiping a magnet over ur hard drive
 

Stringer Bell

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
73
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
To the vile mermen submerged in their sea of slime, who wade through it, gills exposed; thou shoult be caught by the in the great nets of goodness; you will be filtered and found guilty of your crimes. For we are free and we are rich. And that is WHY YOU attack us.
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
regardless who you are, ive given my view - and i stand by it.
right so even after having proved your view as INCORRECT (no, i'm not going to settle for 'this is my opinion' because opinions can be wrong) you STILL choose to stick by it?

queue for me to leave. don't care if you think you've 'won' this debate (overall as a thread) because people like you cannot fathom anything outside of their own thoughts.

you're so contained.
 

Lauchlan

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
671
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
right so even after having proved your view as INCORRECT (no, i'm not going to settle for 'this is my opinion' because opinions can be wrong) you STILL choose to stick by it?

queue for me to leave. don't care if you think you've 'won' this debate (overall as a thread) because people like you cannot fathom anything outside of their own thoughts.

you're so contained.
of course i can fathom others' thoughts. there's a number of reasons why im being facetious, including the fact that this argument has been going on for way too long and i think we basically share the same view that wiki is good as a starting point.

im not giving you an 'opinion' lecture and there are no 'winners'.
what i cant fathom is what you are trying to achieve by getting high blood pressure over a simple clash of words.
 

BigBoyJames -

Banned
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
90
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
of course i can fathom others' thoughts. there's a number of reasons why im being facetious, including the fact that this argument has been going on for way too long and i think we basically share the same view that wiki is good as a starting point.

im not giving you an 'opinion' lecture and there are no 'winners'.
what i cant fathom is what you are trying to achieve by getting high blood pressure over a simple clash of words.
bro srsly stfu
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
of course i can fathom others' thoughts. there's a number of reasons why im being facetious, including the fact that this argument has been going on for way too long and i think we basically share the same view that wiki is good as a starting point.
no, you can't.

since the start you've been going on about how 'liberals do nothing' and just because someone has power, they MUST do something. all your points have been debunked and all you do is cover your ears and say la la la la la.

and no you discreditted wiki and hence didn't even consider the evidence, and when i told you that academics used it (which you even brought up the topic of academics) you just say 'ok' and ignore the original article?
im not giving you an 'opinion' lecture and there are no 'winners'.
what i cant fathom is what you are trying to achieve by getting high blood pressure over a simple clash of words.
oh please, don't think so high of yourself as to actually being able to get my blood to boil.

so far only pman's been able to send an inkling of hatred.
 

BigBoyJames -

Banned
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
90
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
You need to understand that there is a difference between being against child pornography and being against an ineffective filter.

Lets be real. The filter is open to abuse by the government which intends to keep the list secret. There are billions of websites on the internet, with millions popping up on a daily basis ... you cannot come remotely close to filtering all of these websites.

Furthermore, if it actually worked, it'd be incredibly easy to by pass it. All it takes is a simply proxy - the same method school students are using to bypass filters at school. Besides, most child porn is circulated via secret chatrooms and email, not directly on websites. The filter will only focus on filtering websites because chatrooms, email and peer to peer (limewire etc) are literally impossible to filter.

So instead of dumping tens of millions of dollars into something that will slow down our net while providing practically no tangible results, the government should do something effective. Increasing the funding of the federal police to directly address the problem would be a good start.
the government should fuck off
 

scarybunny

Rocket Queen
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
3,820
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
A quantifable amount of child pornography is distributed on the world wide web, throughout websites and such. It's not much, but it's there. As a matter of fact, I was browsing through 4chan the other day, and I saw a picture of a penis approaching a baby. It made me sick.

And you're against this filter? For shame.

Read what JKhoury said.

a) most child porn is not distributed by websites, it is distributed through means which cannot be blocked by the filter
b) child porn which is on websites will simply be blocked, and can easily be accessed by using a proxy

and I'll add
c) just because you've blocked the site doesn't stop it from existing. Maybe they should use the money they're going to spend on the filter to actually do something about those who create and distribute child porn, rather than superficially blocking the websites and pretending they don't exist. Bring the sick cunts down, rather than just making them more sneaky.
 

nevery

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
125
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
You need to understand that there is a difference between being against child pornography and being against an ineffective filter.

Lets be real. The filter is open to abuse by the government which intends to keep the list secret. There are billions of websites on the internet, with millions popping up on a daily basis ... you cannot come remotely close to filtering all of these websites.

Furthermore, if it actually worked, it'd be incredibly easy to by pass it. All it takes is a simply proxy - the same method school students are using to bypass filters at school. Besides, most child porn is circulated via secret chatrooms and email, not directly on websites. The filter will only focus on filtering websites because chatrooms, email and peer to peer (limewire etc) are literally impossible to filter.

So instead of dumping tens of millions of dollars into something that will slow down our net while providing practically no tangible results, the government should do something effective. Increasing the funding of the federal police to directly address the problem would be a good start.
Read what JKhoury said.

a) most child porn is not distributed by websites, it is distributed through means which cannot be blocked by the filter
b) child porn which is on websites will simply be blocked, and can easily be accessed by using a proxy

and I'll add
c) just because you've blocked the site doesn't stop it from existing. Maybe they should use the money they're going to spend on the filter to actually do something about those who create and distribute child porn, rather than superficially blocking the websites and pretending they don't exist. Bring the sick cunts down, rather than just making them more sneaky.
+10 to both.

Was reading an article on the SMH this morning. Apparantly there's a few focus groups going - mostly parents. The parents - and any normal person - want the child porn outta here. But the question is HOW? Not with this filter, that's for sure. Anyway, apparnatly with these focus groups initially many parents liked the filter idea, but when they were told the legal, economic, ethical and technical aspects of it, most of them concluded that this will not work and a better approach is needed.

Oh, and did I mention that only last week the government discreetly dropped ANOTHER of their policies? This one that was dropped was a proposal for a Bill of Rights for the Australian Constitution, which would guarantee Australians the freedom of expression and access of information. Hmmm......
 

nevery

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
125
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2010

SnowFox

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
5,455
Location
gone
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
Wouldn't surprise me. I mod at another forum and we get heaps of spam and porn from Russia, some of it CP as well.
Russia = blackmarket mate.




Stringent Bell = Ad infinitum btw.
 

SnowFox

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
5,455
Location
gone
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
cool story bro
Fuck a dog dead, you are really fucking stupid. "Wikipedia is not a valid source, but ill just ignore other websites."

Ending this argument here:
Filter does NOT stop Child Pornography as it can not filter Peer to Peer networks. Evidence- Own knowledge of net topologies, my cert 2 IT, 4 years in computer science and other users points of arguments.

Filter will be abused. Evidence- Wikileaks being forced to remove the complete list, which included dentists in Queensland and Encyclopaedia dramatica being forced to remove the Aboriginal Page.

Filter will block safe sites. Evidence- See "Dentists" above.

Filter will fail on the funds front. Evidence-Between $150 to $700 just to investigate a website.

The AFP deals with CP distribution via P2P networks. Give them more funding.


Government is keeping the list secret. Give it to ISP's so they can manually block inappropriate sites if the list contains sites deemed illegal. Better yet, give it to the AFP so they can track down CP distribution rings easier.
 

Chemical Ali

지금은 소녀시대
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
1,728
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
You missed my #1 objection: the list will only ever grow, and it'll get used as a bargaining tool by ultra-conservative minor party/independent senators to get bills thru

"tax reform? only if you block all online gambling!"
 

Schroedinger

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
22
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
JKhoury said:
You need to understand that there is a difference between being against child pornography and being against an ineffective filter.
It's not an ineffective filter. Please stop pandering lies about. Just because it is ineffective ranked next to say, the total annihilation of the internet, does not make it ineffective. Any decrease in the quantity of child pornography on the internet will make this filter a success, and hence effective.

Lets be real. The filter is open to abuse by the government which intends to keep the list secret.
This isn't China. Grow up please. Not even that dinosaur John Winston Howard would have done that.

There are billions of websites on the internet, with millions popping up on a daily basis ... you cannot come remotely close to filtering all of these websites.
See point 1.

Furthermore, if it actually worked, it'd be incredibly easy to by pass it.
See point 1.

All it takes is a simply proxy - the same method school students are using to bypass filters at school. Besides, most child porn is circulated via secret chatrooms and email, not directly on websites. The filter will only focus on filtering websites because chatrooms, email and peer to peer (limewire etc) are literally impossible to filter.
I think this serves not to discourage a filter, but to encourage further internet censorship. I wouldn't be opposed to that, mind you.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top