|
2012
Dec 9, 2008 6:58 PM
|
I think they should filter the backbones for spam email and porn sites.
^-- all very hard to do without making mistakes or upsetting peoples sense of privacy though.
I have heard many people joke these days about downloading porn, however, from my point of view porn is very detrimental to the happiness of those that get hooked. I am a middle aged male and think it is a real threat to the happiness of individuals.
Illegal movie downloads are detrimental to those that download them... all those hours people spend grabbing and burning them is wasting their lives away. I doubt it has much effect on the movie industry other than creating obsessive movie buffs... and collecting extra royalties from people renting all their old favorites again to burn. Life is too short for that.
Illegal mp3's do have a bad effect on the industry... however if they succeed in shutting down the ez distribution of entire mp3 albums then the piracy effect becomes positive again.. if people like an album they will buy it to get a good copy. Really they should educate people to support there favorite artists by buying DVD's... especially if those artists are not popular.
Software piracy has always had a positive effect on the success of software companies, despite what they will claim. I was on the net in the early 1990's and back then some of the hidden university download sites almost looked like they were organized by Microsoft/Nortons etc... the innocuous http front pages of these piracy ftp sites where even promoted in magazines... that takes $$$. These days, adults with money will buy software, kids won't but the large companies still want those kids as 'users' advertising to their mates what they use.
Comment made about the PC Authority article:
Feeling the love for Telstra?
Telstra's decision not to take part in controversial Internet filtering trials could win it new friends in the Internet community.
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
Dec 9, 2008 9:50 PM
|
The filter will do nothing to stop porn or piracy. P2P is not affected by the filter, and considering it is the main source of pirated and illegal material, you can see where this is heading. Not to mention that the filter is simple to bypass. |
|
mordie
Dec 10, 2008 8:42 AM
|
The bit about the filter that should concern all is that the ACMA and the minister/government are the ones that will be setting the list of "offensive sites" and they will not be published - so for all we know they could end up blocking sites that are politically sensitive to their own agenda ..... The filter is the biggest waste of tax payers money ever. It will be circumvented within the first 24 hrs ..no Filter is perfect ... The minister needs to be hang up to dry over this
Anyone see the question video on youtube where he could even answer question on it even though the questions where on notice (ie he had advance notice to the questions and time to formula answers)? |
|
2012
Dec 10, 2008 11:37 AM
|
I have not read anything about how's and who's. I just think blocking certain websites is still very beneficial... they could just get the list off google. Spam is the biggest problem though.
I did not mean they would be blocking P2P... for this is is a matter of shutting down the large servers and catching the biggest general public offenders... this is already happening. The police in Australia are starting to look more closely at who is doing what... so be careful if you are doing too much 'what'.
|
|
MartyG
Dec 10, 2008 4:39 PM
|
At last! After all these years! Someone with brains at Telstra.
Find out who it is and bloody well promote them to CEO immediately at whatever remuneration they want. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
Dec 10, 2008 7:08 PM
|
Anyone who supports the filter has little idea. Anything which slows down the Internet, costs the tax payers money, blocks innocent websites, and can be bypassed in minutes, has nothing going for it. Period. |
|
2012
Dec 10, 2008 8:16 PM
|
I write TCP\IP software for a living... been doing it for 10 years.
I never said I supported the filter.. just the idea. What are they actually proposing?.. removing crap sites from the DNS servers etc would only speed it up. It would probably make it .00001 milliseconds faster. So I don't believe what they say.
They only say "We've already heard how the plan will slow down your connection"... with no reference |
|
malai5
Dec 10, 2008 9:27 PM
|
I just have to wade in here.
When ANYTHING is "filtered" it is done with agendas and judgments relating to those that are doing the "filtering".
There will always be a "Motherhood" argument proffered to make any opposition look like they are the baddies.
You know what I mean.
"Well, don't you want your precious offspring protected from the "nasties" out there on the web?????"
Well, if you oppose what we propose (on the surface) you obviously are an uncaring sod and your opinion is worth nothing, and so it goes on, Ad Infinitum, Ad Nauseum.
So, good on you Telstra ( a company that used to be good, but went bad) for refusing to get involved in what amounts to political manipulation of the populace by making them feel guilty, AGAIN.
Sheesh, does it never end???
Cheers
Malai5 |
|
2012
Dec 11, 2008 12:22 PM
|
I think dodgy internet sites are more akin to someone sitting in a park handing out free porn and stolen goods to kids and the stupid, some of which are laced with spy cameras to look inside your homes or explosives to burn down your home... if people did that do you think there would be outrage or would people just install anti-x devices in their homes to destroy the corrupted goods or would the police raid the parks?
Currently (this month) the State police are raiding ISP's and Telstra announced yesterday they were helping the Federal Police with new initiatives... all good.
I am not a crazy zealot or anything and I don't have kids, although I know it would be easy to slot me there in your mind from what I am saying. I used to be a real hacker back when it was all clean fun, these days though it has hit mainstream and is all about movies, mp3s, spam and porn... so I just set up my own filters and ignore it all/steer clear. Other than all that junk slowing the entire internet and forcing people like Sony to sack 16,000 people next year resulting in less movies, it does not even impact me, but I can imagine how it would impact young families.. like you say they say. |
|
grumpyoldman
Dec 11, 2008 6:50 PM
|
It seems to me that the main problem with filtering/censorship is being dismissed.
When you agree to allow your duly elected govt to submit to self interest groups of any kind, good or bad, you opening up a pandora's box of problems. If you have a problem with this then go to your elected member & complain. If enough complain then something can be done. If not, rack off.
The people who should be forcing censorship are the parents of the affected. Get off your backdides & take some responsibility for your children & their actions & stop crying. Bunch of whingers. |
|
krazikiwi
Dec 11, 2008 10:53 PM
|
Personally, I have to agree with malai5.
I quite like the idea of the protection that this filter may provide for my children.
But the thing is, I don't see it working very well,
because it is just a candy coating. How are we, as individuals, supposed to make decisions, as individuals, when all that we see and hear is controlled/censored/filtered?
And, grumpyoldman, us parents don't need to force anything. perhaps if we learn to communicate better with our children, instead of blaming other people and expecting them to fix it for us, they will be able to learn some good values and morals from us, and perhaps then they will be better equipped to face the horrible, big, nasty world of the internet... |
|
MartyG
Dec 13, 2008 5:12 PM
|
Hey you Christian Groups and all those who want to protect your children from porn and other nasty stuff on the 'Net. Good Onya. But get off your Lazy Pontificating Holier Than Thou backsides and do it by being proactive parents and carers. Abrogating your responsibilities as parents and cares and handing over our rights and freedoms to Governmental censorship is not the way to go. |
|
ENFUSIA
Dec 15, 2008 1:39 PM
|
Everyone harps on about Freedom of Information these days. Yet here we have people who think it's ok to place a filter on "THE MOST USED AND WIDELY AVAILABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION" which I might add gives you a point of view from every angle imaginable on every topic imaginable. Why on earth would anyone even begin to think of placing a filter on this?
Here's an idea........why not setup a section of the world wide web that is governed by licences. Organisations must apply for a license before they can publish their websites into this governed part of the net, thus creating a safe haven from the "REAL WORLD" where people can live their lives in complete oblivion. |
|
malai5
Dec 15, 2008 10:04 PM
|
I think the place of oblivion was called "Half Life", or "Life Lite", if you like.:roll:
I think a point is being missed here.
Censorship is just CONTROL dressed up as CARE.
You gotta make the sure that everyone agrees that the "King" has "New Clothes", otherwise there is individual freedom and individual responsibility and who in their right mind would want that.:roll:
Cheers
Malai5 |
|
mordie
Dec 23, 2008 2:49 PM
|
::deleted::
Edited by mordie: 23/12/2008 02:59:20 PM |