|
brokey
Dec 10, 2008 2:54 PM
|
So the christians are gonna guard me and keep me safe from Internasties?? The christ for that!!!
When are these people gonna learn to keep to themselves and leave the rest of us, those that have a life and can make our own choices without having to talk to someone that isnt there, alone!!!
Comment made about the PC Authority article:
Christian, family groups voice support for ISP filtering?
Amidst howls of protest against ISP filtering in Australia, including street rallies, the Australian Christian Lobby says filtering the tubes is actually a good idea.
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
sjmilne
Dec 10, 2008 4:20 PM
|
I am a Christian AND a vocal opponent of this ridiculous legislation, can't anyone think about what access Christians have to their websites in Korea and China?
I'm also a socialist (no, the two are not mutually exclusive), will a future right-wing government use this filter to block access to my websites? |
|
jaxcaer2007
Dec 10, 2008 4:25 PM
|
This argument of "keeping our children safe" is of the same doubtful validity as the never ending attempts by governments and public servants to whittle away civil liberties under the umbrella of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". The filters that ISPs are asked to employ to keep children away from pornography WILL slow speeds down, nor do I think that I am supposed to be responsible for what other people's children look at. There already are effective net filters that people with under-age children can put in place, and internet cafes (for instance) can be made to ask people who look doubtful to provide proof of age. But it is extremely aggravating to see the Christian right once again jump in feet first all holier than thou and "how can you be against this, it is for the good of our children!" Etc. It is such a cop-out. Let parents take their own responsibility rather than make others pay the penalty for their negligence. |
|
neo
Dec 10, 2008 5:01 PM
|
It's like Port Arthur gun laws knee-jerk reaction all over again. Ignorant do-gooders attempting to pass legislation that restricts the freedom of law abiding citizens while the criminal element continue on unaffected. |
|
exitnow
Dec 10, 2008 5:15 PM
|
"who will think of the children". If you want to have kids then you have to accept the responsibility for raising them and if you can't don't have them. Heroin is ileagal in australia but you still can get it and the same will be the case with child porn or what ever else they want to ban. Are they going to block or monitor VPN's or remote connection to server (via RDP or tons of other protocols) oversea where no data is transmitted back to here but you will still be able to see all the child porn you want. It will only have an impact on the rest of the users. |
|
exitnow
Dec 10, 2008 5:16 PM
|
"who will think of the children". If you want to have kids then you have to accept the responsibility for raising them and if you can't don't have them. Heroin is ileagal in australia but you still can get it and the same will be the case with child porn or what ever else they want to ban. Are they going to block or monitor VPN's or remote connection to server (via RDP or tons of other protocols) oversea where no data is transmitted back to here but you will still be able to see all the child porn you want. It will only have an impact on the rest of the users. |
|
daniel2501
Dec 11, 2008 4:22 PM
|
It is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are trained to safely use the internet. About 2 years ago, the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, sent letters to every church unit throughout the world, which basically stated: "Parents are responsible for ensuring the continued safety of their children whenever they use any computer to access the internet. To this end, it is strongly recommended that computers that have internet access be kept where a parent can actively monitor what their children are doing. Make it a rule that children are not allowed to connect to the internet when there is no parent there. Do not use computers as baby sitting devices." These instructions are very easy to enforce, and they will keep our children much safer than using this proposed filtering scheme. At this time, hosting or receiving Child Pornography is illegal in almost every country of the world, if not all of them. Whenever a Child Pornography site is discovered, it is very quickly taken down by law enforcement officers of the country concerned, and the operators are charged with criminal offenses. This suggests that filtering is not required. If families want a clean feed (no child pornography or any other nastiness), from the internet, there is already one available, and Senator Conroy, the Minister for Communications, knows this. There is software available right now that can be installed on home computers for free. This is available through the NetAlert scheme that was started by the previous government, but not for much longer. The Labor government has determined that this was not successful, because the take up of the filtering software was 2%, and the availability of this software will cease before the end of the year. With a filter installed on home computers, only internet traffic intended for that computer will be filtered, not everyone's. The government also claims that it will do more to make the internet a safe place for our children. Yet they have reduced the amount of funding for the section of the Australian Federal Police that investigates, arrests and prosecutes Australian suppliers and consumers of Child Pornography. The money that has been allocated for implementing this filter would be better spent on that section of the AFP, that is responsible for this effort, so that they can have more active staff available to carry out the required work. On a more personal note, I am an experienced Computer and Network Technician, and have a reasonable knowledge of how the Internet works. The closed trials that the government has already run, have indicated that all of the software tested has a minimum "overblocking" or "false positive" rating of 1.3%, maximum of 7.8%, resulting in an average of 4.1%. As a percentage this may not sound like much, but lets translate that into actual figures. Using any reasonable sized ISP (I'm not talking about Telstra or Optus here, they are regarded as being large), that processes an average of 1,000,000 page requests each second. That translates into 41,000 pages that would be incorrectly blocked every second, in an hour that translates to over 14,400,000 pages. Even if only 1% of these blocked pages belong to businesses (that is still over 144,000 sites), how would you feel, if it was your own business that was being blocked? I would point out that these tests were of 6 products, and that the most effective successfully blocked 98% of illegal & undesirable material, but also had blocked 7.5% of legitimate material. One thing that needs to be pointed out, is that "the people who are objecting to this proposal are those who keep the Internet in Australia running." They know the effect of this proposal on our Internet access. They also know that bypassing this filter is extremely easy, and that ultimately, it will do nothing to protect our children and grand children from pedophiles. Yet the government has still gone ahead. Why?
Appendage: Today's news features the capture of a very large amount of Child Pornographic material. This was accomplished by means of good quality police investigation. This is where our money needs to be spent, not on some fanciful "Internet Filter" that will only slow our internet down, and cost a lot of money. |
|
ENFUSIA
Dec 15, 2008 2:05 PM
|
Oh yay! Let's all jump up and down and voice our support for the first idea that comes along to help make the internet a safe haven for little kiddies. Even though it's completly misguided and no thought has been put into it. But hey, it makes the government look good by pretending they actually care about the problem.
How bout you go on your merry little way and make your own safe haven of an internet. Maybe call it Government Controlled Information GCI instead of WWW. I like to have my freedom of information thanks, and we don't need a government forcing / telling a country what they can and can't read/watch/play/look at. |