Internet censorship.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willem

There are no easy answers. I think Rudd's and Conroy's idea of censoring the internet, tho well intentioned, is unworkable. I think that the censorship there is the responsibility of parents teaching their children to self censor.
......
Willem

---

I have great difficulty in believing that it is well intentioned. They must know (or are totally incompetent if they don't) that it cannot possibly work. There has been no statement made as to what it is intended to achieve, nor any evaluation as to whether it can achieve that. The plan to go ahead was announced during the Copenhagen summit when all attention was elsewhere, and Rudd was out of the country. Conroy has been caught out manipulating his website to make references to it difficult to find, and has repeatedly made direct lies to the press and parliament about the plan, denying what he has previously stated. He has resisted ansswering questions on notice about it, and is resisting FOI applications about the "Trial", which might cast light on the extent to which the trial report was rewritten by his office (The initially published report showed from its Word metadata that it was written by DBCDE not Enex, but as soon as this was noted the document was modified to remove this data, with no explanation forthcoming).

No, I have great difficulty in believing it is well intentioned!

John

John, looks like that in China works very well :D

The kids at our school have already hacked the censorship thing on the schools computers, by using a different search engine they can view the you tube facebook etc etc that were blocked on the schools computers.
Previouslly they used USB sticks with Firefox web browswer to by pass the schools internet timer that charges for time used on the net.
11y olds know more than the so called computer administrators:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Ed. is not considered scholarly in events like the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinande, the October Revolution, The Great War, the Versailles Treaty 1919, League of Nations, Sino Japan War, Wall Street Crash, The great Depression, the Weimar Republic, appeasement, anschluss, Invasion of Poland, Operation barbarossa, Atlantic Conference, Japanese Pearl Harbour attack, Wannsee conference, invention of the programmable computer, Tehran Conference, Manhattan Project, Yalta Conference, Potsdam Declaration, Trinity test, dropping of "Little Boy", the Marshall Plan, the Macarthur Plan, Korean Police Action, Rock N Roll, Bay of Pigs, invention of the microprocessor, assassination of JFK, Apollo program, Détente, Woodstock festival, sacking of the Whitlam Governemnt, Assassination of John Lennon, development of the internet, etc etc etc in fact in the absence of all those facts the 1911 edition looks pretty pale as a scholarly reference today.

---

That is why I also have a 1999 Encyclopedia Britannica CD-Rom in addition to my 1910, 11th edition Britannica. And yes my Cd-ROM is out of date for 21st century events.

Would never get rid of my 29 volume authoritative 11th edition Britannica though as it has much history that others have changed.

I also have a first edition Britannica that I purchased for $10--.

John don't forget that history can change without it being a conspiracy. Otherwise why become a historian? The object is a re-evaluation of existing data and theories as well as perhaps the discovery of new sources of information previously unavailable. To rely on the 1911 edition as the only version of the truth would be foolish - look at how even recent history changes (eg WWI, WWII events) because new news footage comes to light or archives become available to researchers that were previously classified. Sorry off topic...

I don't know what the intention of the filter is. I suspect it is pandering to right-wing groups and ignorant people who cannot see beyond this logic:

1. There is porn on the Internet, some very nasty porn.
2. The Government is trying to block it. OK, they won't get all of it, but if one kid doesn't manage to see one image it's all been worth it.
3. There are a bunch of pinko lefties who are in favour of free speech and probably love pedophiles who don't want a filter. They're probably up to no good. That fellow Conroy is just trying to stand up for good moral values.
4. We censor books and films, why not the Internet? Why does it have to be special?

All these questions are rhetorical by the way. I know exactly how the Internet works and like everyone else in the industry am against this silly 'filter'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmp

I don't know what the intention of the filter is. I suspect it is <snip>

---

The intention is that there are political motives in everything.

Some politicians get themselves into politics because they have a need to push their own personal philosophy, maybe religion, maybe bandwagon onto the rest of society, (E.G. Fred Nile) because they know best.

Others are on such an electoral knife-edge, that they need the preferences of minority wacko fringe groups.

So when in power they push the necessary bandwagon even if they know it wont work.

It has nothing to do with the mainstream Australian society, it's wants or needs.