The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Australian Government to impose mandatory nationalwide internet filtering
This is getting fucking silly. Does Stephen Conroy actually live on the planet Earth anymore "A country with a history of human rights abuses, oppression of its citizens, rampant censorship, propaganda and other atrocities filters it's internet so why shouldn't we?"
This is getting fucking silly. Does Stephen Conroy actually live on the planet Earth anymore "A country with a history of human rights abuses, oppression of its citizens, rampant censorship, propaganda and other atrocities filters it's internet so why shouldn't we?"
Without regard of the topic, every time a politician uses "Country X implemented it/it worked for them/it didn't work for them." argument they should be automatically asked to resign and forbidden from ever holding public office again.
Such a statement is not part of a debate, it tries to prevent debate.
zeeny on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Google out of nowhere with a can of smackdown.
It seems that this is getting mad traction with the general populace though, at least according the the media and somewhat lame polls conducted by Wednesday night variety programmes.
This is getting fucking silly. Does Stephen Conroy actually live on the planet Earth anymore "A country with a history of human rights abuses, oppression of its citizens, rampant censorship, propaganda and other atrocities filters it's internet so why shouldn't we?"
Without regard of the topic, every time a politician uses "Country X implemented it/it worked for them/it didn't work for them." argument they should be automatically asked to resign and forbidden from ever holding public office again.
Such a statement is not part of a debate, it tries to prevent debate.
Well, no. You could theoretically argue that "Well, it worked out really well for Canada." or say "But there's less gun crime in England because of it!" etc etc.
Though yes, this is retarded, as is that Stephen Conroy person. Silly Australia. Everything there is already trying to kill you all. Yes, even the sun. Australia is a terrifying island of spiders and dingos and no-porn.
This is getting fucking silly. Does Stephen Conroy actually live on the planet Earth anymore "A country with a history of human rights abuses, oppression of its citizens, rampant censorship, propaganda and other atrocities filters it's internet so why shouldn't we?"
Without regard of the topic, every time a politician uses "Country X implemented it/it worked for them/it didn't work for them." argument they should be automatically asked to resign and forbidden from ever holding public office again.
Such a statement is not part of a debate, it tries to prevent debate.
Well, no. You could theoretically argue that "Well, it worked out really well for Canada." or say "But there's less gun crime in England because of it!" etc etc.
I didn't manage to make myself clear enough. Giving a factual example from a similar situation iin another jurisdiction is certainly ok. However, the structure of the argument should be very different - "A was implemented by country B, in response to C(which is very similar/the same to our C' ) and the effect was D which is what we're looking for.". In most cases however, in politics mentioning another country's efforts on a similar law is used as a justification without regard of the result of the action and simply for the "They did it, so it can't be bad." factor.
For reference: Implementing EU directives. It's pretty much done with a copy/paste of the text accepted in first country to get it done and public discussion is at an absolute minimum.
It seems that this is getting mad traction with the general populace though, at least according the the media and somewhat lame polls conducted by Wednesday night variety programmes.
Google told China to fuck off, i'm pretty certain that if they wanted to they'd be happy to get up on the table and tea-bag Conroy.
It's things like this that make me love the First Amendment,
I go two words for you, hot coffee.
What about it? It wasn't banned from America it was given a higher rating.
Which was dumb, but the game was never banned or altered in any noticeable fashion so that it could be brought back down to M, so it's hardly comparable.
This is getting fucking silly. Does Stephen Conroy actually live on the planet Earth anymore "A country with a history of human rights abuses, oppression of its citizens, rampant censorship, propaganda and other atrocities filters it's internet so why shouldn't we?"
I love how Conroy justifies the existence of the filter. In that he doesn't whatsoever, he just shows how much of a worthless waste of money it is. Even admitting that it doesn't work and will never work, then tries to back it up with retarded arguments like "well some people speed so I guess we just shouldn't have any speed limits! *smug*"
Also I love how the filter still doesn't have a point or any goals. What is it for?
The only reasonable argument I have seen put forward is that the goal is to enforce on the internet the same laws that are applied to print media. That is, the government feels it should at least make an effort to block stuff that you wouldn't be allowed to print in a magazine/book/whatever, which I can sort of see the reasoning behind, however futile/silly the implementation may be. This tends to get lost in the whole "zomg think of the children" hysteria, however. I can't help but laugh at the people who argue this is to protect children from accidentally finding obscene material on the internet. I suspect 99% of cases of accidental porn browsing only become accidental after parental discovery.
Has anyone seen a statement by an industry professional or a communications expert or anyone apart from Conroy or someone from the government that is in favour of the filter?
It seems like everyone that actually knows what they're talking about is unanimously opposed to these plans. Conroy seems to stand alone against every informed voice in the nation. The latest: computer science academics.
On Friday, Herald reporters Matthew Moore and Andrew West were advised by a contact to go to the website nswtransportblueprint.com.au, where material on the transport blueprint was available.
The reporters did not require a password to view the documents, which were available to anyone with the URL address.
The reporters immediately printed out as much material as possible.
The Premier's chief of staff, Walt Secord, that evening told West: "This was a website in progress."
The website was run by Bang The Table. West attempted to contact the principals of Bang The Table, Matthew Crozier and Crispin Butteriss - in Mr Crozier's case, twice - but neither returned his calls.
The so-called hacking involved typing a URL into the address bar. Bang The Table erred in making the material publicly available prematurely. The minister appears to be acting on behalf of Bang The Table....
This is getting fucking silly. Does Stephen Conroy actually live on the planet Earth anymore "A country with a history of human rights abuses, oppression of its citizens, rampant censorship, propaganda and other atrocities filters it's internet so why shouldn't we?"
Without regard of the topic, every time a politician uses "Country X implemented it/it worked for them/it didn't work for them." argument they should be automatically asked to resign and forbidden from ever holding public office again.
Such a statement is not part of a debate, it tries to prevent debate.
Well, no. You could theoretically argue that "Well, it worked out really well for Canada." or say "But there's less gun crime in England because of it!" etc etc.
Though yes, this is retarded, as is that Stephen Conroy person. Silly Australia. Everything there is already trying to kill you all. Yes, even the sun. Australia is a terrifying island of spiders and dingos and no-porn.
I actually own a dingo. Did I just set racial stereotypes to eleven?
Also, can we factor in that Conroy may be open to bribing TV companies?
That is to say, we are changing the argument from Conroy is a Jerk and knows NOTHING about the internet, too Conroy is a Jerk and knows nothing at all?
HOLLYWOOD'S landmark legal bid to make internet companies responsible for online copyright infringement is to enter another lengthy round.
The group of 34 companies lost the first round in the legal bid early this month when Federal Court Justice Dennis Cowdroy ruled that Perth-based iiNet couldn't be held responsible for acts of copyright infringement carried out by its customers.
Today the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), which is representing the studios, said that it would appeal the decision.
AFACT's executive director Neil Gane said that there were good grounds to appeal the decision.
"The court found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them," he said. "In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorisation of copyright infringement."
Mr Gane also said that if the decision is allowed to stand it will render safe harbour laws adopted in Australia as part of trade agreements with the US, which were designed to encourage ISPs to stop internet piracy, "ineffective".
"If this decision stands, the ISPs have all the protection without any of the responsibility," he said.
iiNet chief Michael Malone said that he was confident that the court would uphold Justice Cowdroy's ruling.
"It is more than disappointing and frustrating that the studios have chosen this unproductive path," Mr Malone said.
iiNet has already incurred nearly $5.7 million in legal costs defending the action which has been partially offset by insurance.
Can they appeal the decision the Federal Court gives (which is where this appeal will be taking place), though? My understanding of it is that they can't.
Edit: iiNet made $12.1 million in profit during the first six months of the 2009-2010 fiscal year. I doubt this will bankrupt them.
Most of the Court's work relates to the hearing of appeals against decisions of other courts. There is no automatic right to have an appeal heard by the High Court and parties who wish to appeal must persuade the Court in a preliminary hearing that there are special reasons to cause the appeal to be heard.
In considering whether to grant an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court under this Act or under any other Act, the High Court may have regard to any matters that it considers relevant but shall have regard to:
(a) whether the proceedings in which the judgment to which the application relates was pronounced involve a question of law:
- (i) that is of public importance, whether because of its general application or otherwise; or
- (ii) in respect of which a decision of the High Court, as the final appellate court, is required to resolve differences of opinion between different courts, or within the one court, as to the state of the law; and
(b) whether the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in the particular case, require consideration by the High Court of the judgment to which the application relates.
This could be argued as a matter in accordance with (a)(i), but I'm not sure how likely that is to be tried.
The justice who heard the case in the first place was actually really, really impressive.
Not only did he bitchslap AFACT as they tried to portray Iinet's ceo as a crim, he showed a very good understanding of the technologies and processes used. Actually it restored a lot of my faith in the courts.
The appeal is going ahead and they are challanging 20 points of the original decision. Also they are saying that Iinet should pay AFACT's legal bill. Yeah, you come sue me, lose and then demand I pay your bill....
Anyway, I really doubt that the supreme court will over-rule.
THE minister in charge of the Government's web censorship plan has been caught out censoring his own website.
The front page of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's official website displays a list of topics connected to his portfolio, along with links to more information about each one.
All the usual topics are there – cyber safety, the national broadband network, broadcasters ABC and SBS, digital television and so on.
All except one.
It was revealed today a script within the minister's homepage deliberately removes references to internet filtering from the list.
In the function that creates the list, or "tag cloud", there is a condition that if the words "ISP filtering" appear they should be skipped and not displayed.
Accusations of government website hacking in 3...2...1...
The source code in the .js is Oz government's intellectual property, one has no right looking at it without signing an NDA.
Not only hacking, but infringement for sure! The hackers broke down their defenses and stole their code!
Man ... I was considering to go to college in Australia and maybe even live there afterwards too. I know a couple Aussies, and the country seemed nice.
But after hearing stuff like this, plus the ban of certain games like L4D, and the girl-booze tax ... no.
No personal offense intended to the Aussies here, but I must say that all this censorship is really hurting Australia's reputation worldwide. Soon we'll be hearing jokes like: "in Soviet Australia..."
Posts
This is getting fucking silly. Does Stephen Conroy actually live on the planet Earth anymore "A country with a history of human rights abuses, oppression of its citizens, rampant censorship, propaganda and other atrocities filters it's internet so why shouldn't we?"
Without regard of the topic, every time a politician uses "Country X implemented it/it worked for them/it didn't work for them." argument they should be automatically asked to resign and forbidden from ever holding public office again.
Such a statement is not part of a debate, it tries to prevent debate.
It seems that this is getting mad traction with the general populace though, at least according the the media and somewhat lame polls conducted by Wednesday night variety programmes.
Though yes, this is retarded, as is that Stephen Conroy person. Silly Australia. Everything there is already trying to kill you all. Yes, even the sun. Australia is a terrifying island of spiders and dingos and no-porn.
I didn't manage to make myself clear enough. Giving a factual example from a similar situation iin another jurisdiction is certainly ok. However, the structure of the argument should be very different - "A was implemented by country B, in response to C(which is very similar/the same to our C' ) and the effect was D which is what we're looking for.". In most cases however, in politics mentioning another country's efforts on a similar law is used as a justification without regard of the result of the action and simply for the "They did it, so it can't be bad." factor.
For reference: Implementing EU directives. It's pretty much done with a copy/paste of the text accepted in first country to get it done and public discussion is at an absolute minimum.
I go two words for you, hot coffee.
Google told China to fuck off, i'm pretty certain that if they wanted to they'd be happy to get up on the table and tea-bag Conroy.
What about it? It wasn't banned from America it was given a higher rating.
Which was dumb, but the game was never banned or altered in any noticeable fashion so that it could be brought back down to M, so it's hardly comparable.
The hungry beast segment mentioned:
http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/stephen-conroy-extended-interview
I love how Conroy justifies the existence of the filter. In that he doesn't whatsoever, he just shows how much of a worthless waste of money it is. Even admitting that it doesn't work and will never work, then tries to back it up with retarded arguments like "well some people speed so I guess we just shouldn't have any speed limits! *smug*"
Also I love how the filter still doesn't have a point or any goals. What is it for?
Pretty sure this turned out to be a bullshit rumor.
It seems like everyone that actually knows what they're talking about is unanimously opposed to these plans. Conroy seems to stand alone against every informed voice in the nation. The latest: computer science academics.
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=4488
Which smacks of bullshit. Except for Telstra, because Telstra is fucked.
God almighty, conroy just pissed off the most powerful online entity in the existance of the human race.
They have a set of torture implements ordered by Dewey code
Ook.
What? He's just a mon.....aaaaaahhhhhh.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/minister-a--monkey-could-have-hacked--secret-transport-site-20100223-p085.html
Here is the background to the issue:
On Friday, Herald reporters Matthew Moore and Andrew West were advised by a contact to go to the website nswtransportblueprint.com.au, where material on the transport blueprint was available.
The reporters did not require a password to view the documents, which were available to anyone with the URL address.
The reporters immediately printed out as much material as possible.
The Premier's chief of staff, Walt Secord, that evening told West: "This was a website in progress."
The website was run by Bang The Table. West attempted to contact the principals of Bang The Table, Matthew Crozier and Crispin Butteriss - in Mr Crozier's case, twice - but neither returned his calls.
The so-called hacking involved typing a URL into the address bar. Bang The Table erred in making the material publicly available prematurely. The minister appears to be acting on behalf of Bang The Table....
...that URL was not linked though. Cyber crime!
I actually own a dingo. Did I just set racial stereotypes to eleven?
That is to say, we are changing the argument from Conroy is a Jerk and knows NOTHING about the internet, too Conroy is a Jerk and knows nothing at all?
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Oh wait, I don't really have to wonder.
Edit: iiNet made $12.1 million in profit during the first six months of the 2009-2010 fiscal year. I doubt this will bankrupt them.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
With Kirby gone that's a bit worrying. The High court are a bit batshit crazy atm, and Kirby was often one of the soul voices of reason....
Some Googling turned up this,
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about_03.html
Furthermore, as per the Judiciary Act of 1903 in relation to "special reasons",
This could be argued as a matter in accordance with (a)(i), but I'm not sure how likely that is to be tried.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Not only did he bitchslap AFACT as they tried to portray Iinet's ceo as a crim, he showed a very good understanding of the technologies and processes used. Actually it restored a lot of my faith in the courts.
The appeal is going ahead and they are challanging 20 points of the original decision. Also they are saying that Iinet should pay AFACT's legal bill. Yeah, you come sue me, lose and then demand I pay your bill....
Anyway, I really doubt that the supreme court will over-rule.
It's not like they are going to lock someone up indefinitely... again...
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
The source code in the .js is Oz government's intellectual property, one has no right looking at it without signing an NDA.
Not only hacking, but infringement for sure! The hackers broke down their defenses and stole their code!
But after hearing stuff like this, plus the ban of certain games like L4D, and the girl-booze tax ... no.
No personal offense intended to the Aussies here, but I must say that all this censorship is really hurting Australia's reputation worldwide. Soon we'll be hearing jokes like: "in Soviet Australia..."