Federal Gov' Censorship

G'day,

Last night on the news some bloke from the new Federal Government has declared that they are going to censorship what we can and can't see on the net.

Now I'm not saying that child pawn is something I'd ever want to look at, but it has me concerned where in the sand do you draw the line? I'll give an example, several years ago working in an design studio the studio manager decided to put a filter on a set of words (she was very evangelical) to the extent that when I wanted to search an online photolibrary for shots for use in an ad for a client i was hamstrung as to what i could view. Photo libriaries like getty Images work on a set of descriptive words that apply to and aid a search for a particular image. If that image had one of the words that was banned under the filter then I couldn't view that image, even if if was something as trivial as a beach, because it might have the words "bikini" or "woman" within the search words associated with it. I eventually got the filter lifted because it was restrictive in what we could or could not search for.

Travel in time to this morning, I opened up Azureus with Vuse to continue some downloads and I can't see the content in it anymore (see attached screenshot) and I got the message "Access to the specified resource () has been forbidden." Why is it all of a sudden forbidden? I could view the programme in it's entireity yesterday and since last nights announcement I can't. The area now blocked off had the words " mature content", "bath" and other stuff so :: ! Now in the programme I had the choice to close off the section if I wanted to, the same as I would if I wanted to set up a filter on my browsers.

So why should I or you be told what you can and cannot have access to? And once you start shutting access off, where do you draw a line in the sand as to how far you go? The first example I gave is a perfect example of this - the intent was good, but the effect was restrictive beyond sensibility.

sounds like a dictatership. they're telling you what you can look up. lucky i dont use the net much.

Waldo the guy was the now Prime Minister on the News I saw along with the Communications Minister.

It also takes in scene's of violence etc so will historical pages of battles and war also be blotted out, accidents will we have to be careful of how we word what we put in the forum.

Such topic's as The Naked Chef, come to mind, National Geographic and the like, will it expand to what we see in Theaters, Art galleries, TV, Movies and on the streets in parades.

One of my e-mail contacts work did the same thing during the year and discovered that 80% of their work e-mails were being discarded due to one word which it picked up.:doh:


Funny many of my in bound e-mails have all been through government departments :o with content in them which :no::doh: ok that was this year.

Gee,
have you blokes had a "road to damascus" conversion on civil liberty since NOV 23?.

Happy New year!

Astrid:U:U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrid

Gee,
have you blokes had a "road to damascus" conversion on civil liberty since NOV 23?.

Happy New year!

Astrid:U:U

---

:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrid

Gee,
have you blokes had a "road to damascus" conversion on civil liberty since NOV 23?.

Happy New year!

Astrid:U:U

---

Talking in riddles again Astrid.

Maybe Kev is moving into line with the Chinese model of Internet!! Was it Google recently having to modify their search engine in order to gain market share over there? Lets call it Halfanet.
I can imagine there is a satisfactory justification, like battling pedophilia online, but as raised already, where does that filter stop? Even the simplest and presumably safest search will turn up some disturbing results, like tool for instance. Anyone who searches for tool user, shaving horse(:oo:) or anything similar may be blocked, or at worst, attract investigation...who knows where it will stop. It should be open access with no censorship in my view, with self censorship or personal filters applied. Maybe there could be a system for reporting untoward/illegal websites to a central desk, like there is on Youtube for questionable content? Maybe an Open Slather default from your computer that enables access to registered websites with adult content?? Sort of censorship by choice, a bit like going to see an R rated movie.
This censorship doesn't bode well, esp. on top of the Govt decree that all press releases be vetted by the top office...like scientific/climate change ones from CSIRO!:(


Cheers,

If you read the fine print, the idea is for a site blocker based on a list provided by the gov. Not a word filter.

It also has an opt out option.

Another bldy useless scheme brought to you by the PS.

Site blockers are useless as the bad sites just hop server to server leaving a trail of blocked servers behind.

Unmanageable.

Let's just say that all those who voted simply for a change, are getting it!

Censorship is fine. If you are a parent and don't want your children to see something, you censor it.

If you are a government, and want your kids to think in a particular way, you filter stuff they see. It's been going on since forever.

Get used to it kiddies!

Cheers,
P
:no:

Waldo its for your own good, you know that.!!!!:roll:

G'day Al,

maybe I should take that initial sketch for your gate and knock one up with my 200amp soldering iron. See if that get's censored, I know the neighbour across the road would get a laugh from it.

:censored2:

(:aro-u: see I'm getting censored already :D ) Whatyerthinkin Gra?

ISP's have always had the technology to do this i.e. supply a 'clean' internet feed.
The reason they haven't is that there was no call for it. No one willing to pay an extra few dollars a month to filter out sites that fall into some particular category. (, sex talk, violence etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

G'day Al,

maybe I should take that initial sketch for your gate and knock one up with my 200amp soldering iron. See if that get's censored, I know the neighbour across the road would get a laugh from it.

:censored2:

(:aro-u: see I'm getting censored already :D ) Whatyerthinkin Gra?

---

I may still make it but as just a panel to stick somewhere...:U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowyskiesau

ISP's have always had the technology to do this i.e. supply a 'clean' internet feed.
The reason they haven't is that there was no call for it. No one willing to pay an extra few dollars a month to filter out sites that fall into some particular category. (, sex talk, violence etc)

---

I reckon the reason they haven't is that the technology isn't good enough, see Andy's post above.

If it could be done reliably, you wouldn't need access to your spam mail filter, because you'd know that 100% of it's contents were spam, not innocent notes from your friend Debbie from Dallas.

I had emails from a large law firm go astray at random a year ago. In their footer they have their phone number which had four sixes in it. The stupid spam filter thought it was three sixes and that was probably not what I wanted to hear. That's what happens when you let a machine do the censoring.


Cheers,

P
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

That's what happens when you let a machine do the censoring.


Cheers,

P
:cool:

---

Thats why the Daleks failed in their conquest of the world..:doh: