Printable View
Well here is our 'public consultation'..
hidden deep on their website:
Measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material | Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Remember that submissions are published and consisdered public record untiless you specify otherwise. This is what makes it official, the emails can be easily ignored....
I attended a public forum in Dubbo today on telecommunications with Senator Conroy present and speaking.
In it he agreed to answer questions on internet censorship, but when I did so he launched into his usual spiel about those who oppose it supporting child pornography.
He did admit that he was copping a lot of flak about it, but claimed that it was supported by the vast majority of Australians (seems to be ignoring the SMH poll). What he either does not realise or is also ignoring is that it is not him that is mostly copping the flak from overseas, but Australia as a whole.
John
Political "speak" John .Doesn't it crap ya? they never answer any question that you ask. Maybe we need some more like " Dad Rudd MP Remember Steele Rudd ?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Cheers,
John ( disco )
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Disco44
John
I found this article the other day and I think the analogy works beautifully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conroy abandons speed hump plans for Australia's freeways
aturner | December 21, 2009
In the face of a significant public backlash, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has backed down on plans to install speed humps on every Australian freeway.
Last week Senator Conroy said he was confident that placing speed humps every 100 metres on all Australian freeways would protect children - reducing accidents by 100 percent with a "negligible" impact on traffic congestion and travel times. The plan was supported by traffic management trials which had only been conducted in suburban back streets.
The plan to throttle Australia's road transport system was slammed by critics as flawed, unworkable, easily bypassed, politically motivated and open to abuse, as reported in the media on Friday.
After listening to public concern over the mandatory speed hump plan, Senator Conroy today abandoned the concept in favour of public education campaigns and better policing.
"Over the weekend I've realised that I don't actually know that much about traffic management and it might be best to listen to the experts," Senator Conroy said.
"I realise that certain segments of the community were keen on the idea of mandatory speed humps, using them as a tool to control everywhere Australians go and everything they see. Such a plan is not acceptable in a democratic country and would make Australia an international laughing stock."
Rather than waste the time and money already invested in the mandatory speed hump plan, Senator Conroy has decided to apply the exact same concept to Australia's internet access - introducing mandatory ISP-level internet content filtering for all Australians. He has ignored criticisms from networking experts and consumer advocacy groups that the mandatory internet filtering plan is just as unworkable as speed humps on the freeways.
"There are a lot of analogies between Australia's road system and its broadband internet network," Senator Conroy said. "Both are critical infrastructure, vital to the nation's economy. Both require significant investment and long-term planning, driven by experts in the field. Neither should be manipulated for short-term political gain at the expense of the nation's future."
"The difference is that your average man on the street can understand how foolish the speed hump idea is, but if we apply the same concept to Australia's internet access most people will blindly accept it because they don't understand how ill-conceived and unworkable the idea is."
"People might have thought we were joking about speed humps on the freeway, but I can assure you the plan to do the same to the internet is completely real. It's been all over the news. That's fine, because anyone who opposes mandatory internet filtering obviously loves kiddie porn."
"We know the filtering plan will work, because a website opposing mandatory filtering was taken offline in record time last week. Australia's domain authority body pulled the plug on stephenconroy.com.au in three hours, even though the process generally takes days. That clearly proves that we can eliminate unsavoury websites, although once the web filtering is in place you won't even know that we've done it."
More details of Senator Conroy's mandatory ISP-level internet filtering can be found at nocleanfeed.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that this censorship idea has to be one of the least thought out policies, written by people that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. it has had bugger all testing, and all the ISP's who trailed it say it wont work. It doesn't even touch binaries and P2P and if you speak out against it then you are obviously into "kiddy porn".
GRRRRRR I feel a rant coming on but I will stop before I get upset.
Craig
Now I'm getting concerned...
Australian Government asks google to get-censoring.
Google's told Conroy to go jump from what I read as he allegedly said they can do it because they already censor Google in China. Someone should censor Conroy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot
He said that on television, I believe. (See ABC Hungry Beast show last Tuesday).Quote:
Originally Posted by dm_td5
He does not appear to understand the difference between what Google does in China, which is filter search results, and what he wants them to do for Australia, which is to filter Youtube requests - which is a whole different ball game. Google has pointed out that the request would mean filtering material which is not only legal to view everywhere else in the developed world, but which is likely to be of significant political importance in Australia; and have basically told him to get lost.
For anyone who has any doubt whether the filtering proposal is a good idea, just ponder for a moment the meaning of the Minister speaking approvingly of how China censors the net. After all, this is the same government that criticised China for internet censorship during the Olympics.
John
just another nail in the coffin of free speech and expression.
I mean, censorship in Australia, a modern developed country it's just a joke.
You know I don't even know what political party this idiot bats for but i'll damn sure find out come next election
"Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star."
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
As a ten year old I was naive in my knowledge of drugs, bomb-assembly, hard-core porn, fetishes and the like. I benefitted from a pre-Rudd filter called Mum and Dad. They taught me right from wrong, responsibility/consequences, stranger danger, common sense and how to survive and flourish in the big, bad world. They were the gatekeepers at the front door of our home, nurturing, protecting and educating me.
Fast forward 40 odd years in Australia and what do we find? Mum and Dad either unable or unwilling to perform this very gatekeeper role. On one hand we have the civil liberties of responsible, informed adults being stifled by increasing external regulation (government, lobby groups, experts etc) and on the other, irresponsible, incapable parents thriving despite the ever-increasing list of rules, regulation and intervention.
Have the bad eggs destroyed the social pavlova? You bet.
As a parent, I have very specific guidelines for internet use by my 10 year old. Her computer is in plain view. I monitor the sights she visits, am aware of her passwords and have taught her not only to never give personal information online but also to notify me of “weird” stuff she encounters. Alas, I am adult, parent and filter all in one. Just as I wouldn’t let her get into a stranger's car, I wouldn’t let a stranger into her room through the internet.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way. “It’s your room/ I’m busy/It won’t happen here/I don’t understand it myself/Great, computer as babysitter”, are all examples of this approach. This is the approach which has grown the monster which is the government’s current social reform agenda. We are now in a position where the government sees its’ role to gate-keep on our behalf. Be it your child’s education, computer, diet, access arrangements, alcohol consumption or driving privileges, the government has a say.
This is the growing shame of modern parenting.
We have allowed legislation to encroach on our civil liberties because we have forgotten that hand in hand with our rights and freedom comes individual responsibility.