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.
The Giant Firewall of Australia has been greenlit
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.
"About half of the sites on the list were not related to child porn and included a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist."
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internet-censorship-plan-gets-the-green-light-20091215-ktzc.html
This looks good...
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.
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.
" 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.
" 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.
" @Mars_Cleric said: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." 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. "
" 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.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment