Internet filter -- your thoughts.

[sandybeaches]

Hey guys,

I don't know whether you know that Australia (where I'm from) is about to implement an Internet filter. A lot of Internet polls, mainstream commentators and so forth are against this but I think that if its sole purpose is to filter p0rn and other nasties it's actually a good idea.

I know my greatest fear is having my kids stumble upon or (I hope not) deliberately look up p0rn on the Internet. I can't bar my kids from using computers outside the home, so hopefully this filter will keep my kids and lot of young (and older) folk away from sin when it's implemented.

I'd like to hear your opinions and, if you're keen, vote on some web polls (there's one on ZDNet Australia and the Courier-Mail). I can't link to them unfortunately as I'm new here.

Jonno.

 

[Qyöt27]

I know I'm not from Australia, but I'll weigh in anyway.

After reading the summation of the issue on Wikipedia, it's aimed at restricting access to illegal content, and does not just cover pornography (and that was actually just a minor example given), but many other things. There's also two degrees of it - one for RC and X18+ content, which is where pornography, excessive violence and sexual violence, instructional content of crime/drug use/etc. are, and so on. The other, more restrictive, and optional filter, restricts MA-15+ content. Things such as downloadable games, flash games, and all manner of other sorts of entertainment media could be affected, just for being somewhat controversial, or for merely being in the form they are.

The problem is the potential this has for political abuse, and the freedom one has to expressing dissenting opinion (yes, this assertion has been denied by the Labour Party, but my willingness to trust politicians when it comes to censorship issues is less than zero). But then again, with as strong as it appears the public opposition is, I doubt it really can get very far. I really don't feel government has any business dealing in censorship, and that that responsibility lies only with the parents. The focus when it comes to peer pressure is often about a child's friends influencing them, while the point of a child influencing their parents never comes into play. When it comes to things like TV and Internet usage, the parents' responsibility is to be diligent, and that means that up to a certain age, usage should be constantly monitored and depending on just how young the child is, access restricted completely. They don't need to be there for their entertainment, even though our entire culture has sunk into that rut. They also don't need cell phones or any new gadget just because everybody else has them.

Sure, stuff that happens outside the home can't be controlled, but even a lot of the health ills that are so hyped in the media nowadays probably don't arise from the foods kids are eating, it's their other habits that allow things to go unchecked. I mean, I knew some kids that were overweight when I was in elementary and middle school, but they were far from the norm that the news outlets are trying to make it out to be. We ran around outside and so on all the time, even if it wasn't in formal phys ed classes or 'exercise', and the decline in that is probably the largest contributing factor.

That was kind of a rant, and not directly to anybody in particular, but just an observation that parents should really have no compunction to give their kids access to those kinds of things at ages where stumbling onto offensive content would pose a serious threat. By the time they're in high school, I think privacy and allowing them to make their own choices is warranted, and that even middle schoolers have a certain degree of privacy necessary, but that doesn't mean they should get a free license to peruse whatever they want.

 

[Steezie]

Hey guys,

I don't know whether you know that Australia (where I'm from) is about to implement an Internet filter. A lot of Internet polls, mainstream commentators and so forth are against this but I think that if its sole purpose is to filter p0rn and other nasties it's actually a good idea.

I know my greatest fear is having my kids stumble upon or (I hope not) deliberately look up p0rn on the Internet. I can't bar my kids from using computers outside the home, so hopefully this filter will keep my kids and lot of young (and older) folk away from sin when it's implemented.

I'd like to hear your opinions and, if you're keen, vote on some web polls (there's one on ZDNet Australia and the Courier-Mail). I can't link to them unfortunately as I'm new here.

Jonno.

Internet filtering is a good idea in theory but in practice its not very practical. Most filters are almost childishly simple to get around, they dont catch everything, and they block out innocuous stuff. If Australia is considering something like the Great Firewall, I think its a BAD move.

Information is supposed to be free and unconstrained.

 

[Sketcher]

So it's like China-lite.

 

[NiobiumTragedy]

So it's like China-lite.

You, sir, win the thread.

Exactly. Filtering should be the job of the parents or people who want the filters in place.

 

[vortigen84]

Hey guys,

I don't know whether you know that Australia (where I'm from) is about to implement an Internet filter. A lot of Internet polls, mainstream commentators and so forth are against this but I think that if its sole purpose is to filter p0rn and other nasties it's actually a good idea.

I know my greatest fear is having my kids stumble upon or (I hope not) deliberately look up p0rn on the Internet. I can't bar my kids from using computers outside the home, so hopefully this filter will keep my kids and lot of young (and older) folk away from sin when it's implemented.

I'd like to hear your opinions and, if you're keen, vote on some web polls (there's one on ZDNet Australia and the Courier-Mail). I can't link to them unfortunately as I'm new here.

Jonno.

I'm strongly against the idea.

I'm OK with private companies providing filtered Internet as an optional thing. But, I am concerned what the government considers 'nasties'. I dont want a politically correct Internet; do you?

 

[pgp_protector]

Once the government starts filtering, they'll only add to the list of what they think is bad for you.

 

[Sketcher]

The latest from China.

Some web hosts in Shanghai, Henan, Zhejiang and Jiangxi are now saying some customers are calling in to complain they can no longer access their own personal Web sites. Furthermore, ISPs are no longer allowed to host personal websites -- only businesses and companies approved by the government -- can have individual Web sites.

DailyTech - China Launches Latest Crackdown on Internet Smut

How about the government taking away or blocking access to your own property, even if the filter made a mistake and labeled it porn?

 

[marcusfetzer]

makes you wonder how the airwaves were ever under government control but the internet was not supposedly

 

[WadeWilson]

Personal filters on personal computers to prevent access things deemed 'naughty' by the household leader = Fine by me

Government hunting down and eliminating sources of illegal content = Fine by me

Government enforced filters = NOT Fine by me

Even under the premise of "think of the children", government filtering is slippery slope. Australia is a prime example. Not only are they filtering the illegal stuff in the mandatory filter, they are filtering stuff that "looks" like it might be enjoyed by those who enjoy the illegal stuff. That is extremely not ok.

 

[pgp_protector]

Personal filters on personal computers to prevent access things deemed 'naughty' by the household leader = Fine by me

Government hunting down and eliminating sources of illegal content = Fine by me

Government enforced filters = NOT Fine by me

Even under the premise of "think of the children", government filtering is slippery slope. Australia is a prime example. Not only are they filtering the illegal stuff in the mandatory filter, they are filtering stuff that "looks" like it might be enjoyed by those who enjoy the illegal stuff. That is extremely not ok.

So you're saying China can hunt down & eliminate my data that it says is illegal, even if it's legal for me to host in the USA?

Not all countries have the same Legal standings on sites.
Example I doubt you want to have all sites go by what North Korea says you can host.

 

[WadeWilson]

So you're saying China can hunt down & eliminate my data that it says is illegal, even if it's legal for me to host in the USA?

Not at all. I meant within the governments own country. Sorry, I should have been more specific.

 

[WadeWilson]

A bit of an update:
Anonymous [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)] launched a cyber protest against the various austrailian government websites. I won't post any links to actually news articles as to the... unsavory name of the "Operation". Just news.google Anonymous and you can find the articles.

Most outlets reporting the protest do a poor job of explaining the motives of the protest and don't understand what Anonymous is.

Thoughts?

 

[B4R7]

i personally filter myself with internet software.

 

[WadeWilson]

i personally filter myself with internet software.

Thats great! I'm glad you do, and anyone should feel free to do the same. However I don't want the government filtering my internet for me.

 

[ReBjorn]

If they do 'just this little thing' 'just this once', they'll do 'just this little thing' 'just another time' again and again.. until it's nowhere near the same and until ordinary people looses big-time in the matter of freedom of speech.

Enough big brother already..

But I recognize that there are dangers on the web. Stuff that shouldn't be there. Something should be done. Governments can not be trusted, however.

 

[Leesy]

I to am from Australia and Personally i think its a Really bad idea Firstly it only blocks out the really extreme content and not everything you wouldnt want your kids to be seeing infact most of what it is blocking is very hard to find anyway because of its extreme illegal content. If you want filtering for everything it really should be the perents responsibility to download a filter off the net there's plenty around. Secondly i have seen some of the results for the trials implemented and none were 100% successful and all slowed the internet speed down by atleast 70% higher for peak use times. Thirdly it is meant to monitor and filter secure content as well that means that there will be something checking through all bank details etc that are supposedly secure last i heard which was a while ago they still hadn't worked out how to do this and if they don't filter this content all the black listed sites will have to do to let people view there site is make it a secure site. Thirdly under there proposed scheme it would still be trivial for someone who had half a idea of what they were doing to bypass the filter all together I am not a huge networking expert but i would be able to get around it if i so desired. Fourthly if the blacklist was to be leaked information and a list of really bad sites that people shouldn't know about and that they are trying to avoid people seeing will become easly available to people not in Australia.
So in short this is a plan to significantly reduce Internet speeds while also stopping children from seeing sites that they'd never be able to stumble across anyway and leaving the ones they would be able to and still not being strong enough to block the people that it is really trying to block.

Thats My opinion anyway i live in Australia and study a computer science related degree.

 

[Rocklee]

I think the idea is great, as long as they have the right people to manage such a hefty project (usually they don't).

Looking back at their track record with Telstra, DET, Optus and web/mobile services in general corporate Australia will yet again try to validate the ridiculous costs with very little returns.