The Giant Firewall of Australia has been greenlit

  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for noxious
NoXious

1268

Forum Posts

365

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51  Edited By NoXious

What? I thought this filter had been running for years. My usual dutch techsite constantly reported about the filter and how odd it was that a dentist's website was found in it because of a few pictures of children (non-offensive, just 'sales' pictures of happy children at his practice).
This makes me to believe that indeed, this censorship is way overboard because there's no real control over what is considered illegal and what isn't. 

Avatar image for deactivated-5f8ac39b52e76
deactivated-5f8ac39b52e76

2590

Forum Posts

1360

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

Germany implemented this a while ago, although it's hilariously easy to circumvent by letting OpenDNS do the DNS resolving instead of the german ISP. But NoDeath is basically right, once the framework is in place, someone is going to abuse it sooner or later.

Avatar image for fflyash
fflyash

150

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#53  Edited By fflyash
Avatar image for xionpunk
xionpunk

390

Forum Posts

361

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#54  Edited By xionpunk
@NoDeath:  I agree, once it's in place it is simple for the government to go from blocking harmful content, to controlling the flow of information all together (sounds very metal gear doesn't it?).
Avatar image for super_machine
super_machine

2008

Forum Posts

242

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

#55  Edited By super_machine

I cant believe how over zealous your government is becoming. How can government law be based on "morality" when moral codes are subjective? Basically, a group of companies that makes hats can pressure the government to claim that not wearing hats on Thrusday is an immoral act. A dumb example, but that is the type of Bull shit the US film industry went through in the 30s and 40s with moral codes.

Avatar image for arbitrarywater
ArbitraryWater

16104

Forum Posts

5585

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 66

#56  Edited By ArbitraryWater

Man, you aussies have it rough. First no R18 rating and now a giant internet filter. I suggest either moving away or committing terrorist action.

Avatar image for evilsbane
Evilsbane

5624

Forum Posts

315

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#57  Edited By Evilsbane
@Mars_Cleric said:
" This is to block content from sites with illegal content such as child pornography, not to censor legal content.  "
Its called a slippery slope my friend, no one should have the power to pick and choose what people consume information wise, it only leads down one very dark scary path.
Avatar image for kohe321
Kohe321

3569

Forum Posts

1444

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#58  Edited By Kohe321

Wow I would be really pissed as well. Not only are they censoring the hell out of games, but they are going to decide for you what sites you can visit? I feel for you :/
 
Thank god I live in Norway...

Avatar image for cspiffo
cspiffo

876

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59  Edited By cspiffo
@NoDeath: 
 
This is exactly my problem with Socialism and why you don't allow governments to get so powerful.  You don't realize what you've given up until it's gone.
Avatar image for driadon
Driadon

3265

Forum Posts

763

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

#60  Edited By Driadon
@Mars_Cleric said:
" My understanding was that this would only block content from sites that contain criminal content such as child pornography. So not necessarily censoring the internet so much as enforcing the law. "
It's about the same thing as plugging your ears and going "LALALALALA" in the face of crime then actually enforcing the law. If it was about enforcing the law, then it'd be about hunting down and arresting/charging each culprit individually. 
Avatar image for super_machine
super_machine

2008

Forum Posts

242

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

#61  Edited By super_machine
@Driadon said:
" @Mars_Cleric said:
" My understanding was that this would only block content from sites that contain criminal content such as child pornography. So not necessarily censoring the internet so much as enforcing the law. "
It's about the same thing as plugging your ears and going "LALALALALA" in the face of crime then actually enforcing the law. If it was about enforcing the law, then it'd be about hunting down and arresting/charging each culprit individually.  "
good point. And all laws like this do is force the real offenders deeper underground, while the government gets to play nanny with everyone else. That makes it even harder and more expensive to combat that problem.
Avatar image for klownboots
klownboots

203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#62  Edited By klownboots
@Mars_Cleric said:
" This is to block content from sites with illegal content such as child pornography, not to censor legal content.  "
That is all fine and well, however how long before they decide other content should be illegal? I am all for stopping sick disgusting shit like that, but not at the cost of my rights to view other things. Besides, blocking access to a site does not make the site go away. Instead of funding this they should focus on shutting down these sites and arresting those that make this content. This is a band aid for a larger issue, not a true fix.