First, China. Next: the Great Firewall of... Australia?

[Don McKenzie]

From time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated
with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely
curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory Internet filter go
ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the
ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the
Internet is restricted by the state.

Cheers Don...



--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam

These products will reduce in price by 5% every month:
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html

 

[Rod Speed]

Don McKenzie wrote:

From time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated with nations where human rights and freedom of
speech are routinely curtailed.

Mindlessly silly, most obviously with child porn and snuff movies etc.

But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory Internet filter go ahead,

I doubt it will make it thru the Senate. The only way that can
happen is if the coalition and labor are stupid enough to be for it.

Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations
where access to the Internet is restricted by the state.

And its completely routine for anyone with even half a clue
to do an end run around it even if they are that stupid.

 

[keithr]

On 17/06/2010 6:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:

From time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated
with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely
curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory Internet filter go
ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the
ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the
Internet is restricted by the state.

Cheers Don...

It is a bad idea that should not be allowed to happen, but
hyperventilating and comparing it to repressive political filters does
not help the cause.

 

[David Eather]

On 17/06/2010 6:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:

From time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated
with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely
curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory Internet filter go
ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the
ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the
Internet is restricted by the state.

Cheers Don...

Yes, it is a "wonderful" idea (not!)

We are being sold a bunch of crap based on the "3 horses of the
apcolypse" argument (every argument for the banning / restriction of
cryptography is based on "stopping" the "three horses" ie Paedophilia,
Organised crime, and Terrorism - even though it is a crap argument.
Paedophilia exists unrelated to cryptography and convictions still need
to be done the old fashion way - by police work. Terrorism has always
existed even in the 50's - 70's when the US had a total lock on
cryptography and electronically monitored everyone it could, and
organised crime has nothing to do with cryptography - you could look up
many of the major organised crime drug suppliers on the internet and
send them as many encrypted messages as you like and nothing will happen
- but send enough money and drugs can appear at your doorstep)

But even before "the wall" is working it is being subjected to "mission
creep". For example with euthanasia - the ebook "the peaceful pill" has
already been placed on the banned list with child pornography and sites
containing it's content (and perhaps links to it will be blocked)

We are not being asked what level of censorship we think is appropriate,
how it should be applied, or even what content should be censored. This
is very, very bad. Heaven help us if we get a truly corrupt government.

 

[John Tserkezis]

David Eather wrote:

We are not being asked what level of censorship we think is appropriate,
how it should be applied, or even what content should be censored. This
is very, very bad. Heaven help us if we get a truly corrupt government.

Censorship is NOT about what level you're going to be happy with.
You don't get a say in it, for any reason. That's not how it works.
There is no "for the better good for the people", that's not what it's
about. It's a very efficient manner of crowd control, arguably better
than religion, especially now that less than 100% of the population
follow the official religion of the nation.

It happens, and most of the time you don't even realise it. You may
not see that now, because you're not living under a cone of silence, and
are in full awareness (well, mostly) of what's going on.
Once you're obscured by the goings-on that no longer concern you, since
you don't know it's happening, you live blissfully unaware.

Talk to people who have lived (past tense) under that regime, and
they'll tell you that things could be happening across the road
(literally) from where they live and not even know it.

 

[dmm]

On 17/06/2010 3:18 PM, keithr wrote:

On 17/06/2010 6:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:

From time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated
with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely
curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory Internet filter go
ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the
ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the
Internet is restricted by the state.

Cheers Don...

It is a bad idea that should not be allowed to happen, but
hyperventilating and comparing it to repressive political filters does
not help the cause.

Talking about it on these ngs doesn't get to the people who need to
listen. Write to your local Federal MP and let them know what you think
of this proposal. Get to know your local members. Talk to them in their
offices, or if you see them when they're out and about. Remind them
about the repressive regimes (and deaths)that have eventuated after
governments have extended their controls over the population.

And ask your Federal member if they really want to be remembered for
passing legislation that helps to turn Australia into a police state.

Also, there's no guarantee that the Libs will can the internet filter if
they win government either.

If enough voters let their MPs know how they feel, then perhaps, just
perhaps, your representatives will change their minds.

And also make sure that they kill the proposal to log all your web
brousing and communications at the same time.

Unfortunately we don't have any guaranteed human rights, freedom of
speech, or pretty much any other rights in Australia.

Bring on the election.

Never thought I'd turn political.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Tserkezis wrote:

David Eather wrote:

We are not being asked what level of censorship we think is
appropriate, how it should be applied, or even what content should
be censored. This is very, very bad. Heaven help us if we get a
truly corrupt government.

Censorship is NOT about what level you're going to be happy with.
You don't get a say in it, for any reason. That's not how it works.
There is no "for the better good for the people", that's not what it's
about. It's a very efficient manner of crowd control, arguably better
than religion, especially now that less than 100% of the population
follow the official religion of the nation.

It happens, and most of the time you don't even realise it. You may
not see that now, because you're not living under a cone of silence,
and are in full awareness (well, mostly) of what's going on.
Once you're obscured by the goings-on that no longer concern you,
since you don't know it's happening, you live blissfully unaware.

Talk to people who have lived (past tense) under that regime, and
they'll tell you that things could be happening across the road
(literally) from where they live and not even know it.

Mindless conspiracy theory with this country.

 

[Rod Speed]

dmm wrote:

On 17/06/2010 3:18 PM, keithr wrote:
On 17/06/2010 6:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:

From time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually
associated with nations where human rights and freedom of speech
are routinely curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory
Internet filter go ahead, Australia may soon become the first
Western democracy to join the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of
other nations where access to the Internet is restricted by the
state. Cheers Don...

It is a bad idea that should not be allowed to happen, but
hyperventilating and comparing it to repressive political filters
does not help the cause.

Talking about it on these ngs doesn't get to the people who need to
listen. Write to your local Federal MP and let them know what you
think of this proposal. Get to know your local members. Talk to them
in their offices, or if you see them when they're out and about.
Remind them about the repressive regimes (and deaths)that have
eventuated after governments have extended their controls over the
population.
And ask your Federal member if they really want to be remembered for
passing legislation that helps to turn Australia into a police state.

Also, there's no guarantee that the Libs will can the internet filter
if they win government either.

If enough voters let their MPs know how they feel, then perhaps, just
perhaps, your representatives will change their minds.

Pigs might fly, too.

That aint how MPs decide what they are for and what they are against.

And also make sure that they kill the proposal to log all your web
brousing and communications at the same time.

Fat chance.

Unfortunately we don't have any guaranteed human rights, freedom of speech, or pretty much any other rights in
Australia.

Thats a lie too with political speech.

Bring on the election.

Fat lot of difference that will make. The most that might happen is
that the greens get complete control of the senate with stuff where
the coalition opposes labor.

Never thought I'd turn political.

You dont have a clue about how the political system actually works.

 

[David Eather]

On 17/06/2010 6:05 PM, John Tserkezis wrote:
....

Censorship is NOT about what level you're going to be happy with.
You don't get a say in it, for any reason. That's not how it works.
There is no "for the better good for the people", that's not what it's
about. It's a very efficient manner of crowd control, arguably better
than religion, especially now that less than 100% of the population
follow the official religion of the nation.
.....

Your thinking is truly bizarre. Of course there are levels of censorship
- most countries (including Oz) censor the availability of pornography
and violence to minors. We also censor the availability of the more
extreme forms of pornography and violence to adults. And society has a
good deal of input into where that level is set, and it is set "for the
good of the people".

 

[Clocky]

Rod Speed wrote:

dmm wrote:
On 17/06/2010 3:18 PM, keithr wrote:
On 17/06/2010 6:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:

From time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually
associated with nations where human rights and freedom of speech
are routinely curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory
Internet filter go ahead, Australia may soon become the first
Western democracy to join the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of
other nations where access to the Internet is restricted by the
state. Cheers Don...

It is a bad idea that should not be allowed to happen, but
hyperventilating and comparing it to repressive political filters
does not help the cause.

Talking about it on these ngs doesn't get to the people who need to
listen. Write to your local Federal MP and let them know what you
think of this proposal. Get to know your local members. Talk to them
in their offices, or if you see them when they're out and about.
Remind them about the repressive regimes (and deaths)that have
eventuated after governments have extended their controls over the
population.
And ask your Federal member if they really want to be remembered for
passing legislation that helps to turn Australia into a police state.

Also, there's no guarantee that the Libs will can the internet filter
if they win government either.

If enough voters let their MPs know how they feel, then perhaps, just
perhaps, your representatives will change their minds.

Pigs might fly, too.

That aint how MPs decide what they are for and what they are against.

And also make sure that they kill the proposal to log all your web
brousing and communications at the same time.

Fat chance.

Unfortunately we don't have any guaranteed human rights, freedom of
speech, or pretty much any other rights in Australia.

Thats a lie too with political speech.

Bring on the election.

Fat lot of difference that will make. The most that might happen is
that the greens get complete control of the senate with stuff where
the coalition opposes labor.

Never thought I'd turn political.

You dont have a clue about how the political system actually works.

You're content to let yourself get pineappled because you can't be bothered
to stand up for your rights. People like you have gotten us to this point.

 

[John Tserkezis]

Eavid wrother wrothe: Eather David Eavid.

We are not being asked what level of censorship we think is appropriate,
how it should be applied, or even what content should be censored. This
is very, very bad. Heaven help us if we get a truly corrupt government.

You don't get a say in it what level you're is not how the population.
You don't get a say in it, for any religion, especially now. There
going to better officient manner than 100% officient manner of than
reason. Arguably be happy with. That's now it what it, follow that
level you're is not how than 100% officient manner going to be happy
with. That's a say in it's a very efficient manner of that's now the
be happy with. There going to better good follow the people", that's
about works. You don't get a say in it works. You don't get a say in
it, follow than reason. Censorship is NOT about what it, for any
reason. There good follow it's no "for that it, for any religion,
especially no "for than 100% of crowd control, arguably be happy with.
Censorship is NOT about works.

You may not see time you, silence you don't even realise it. Oncern
you living under cone of the time you may not see. You don't know,
because it. You don't know it. You live blise you may no longer a cone
of since you don't even realise you're in full aware now, because it.
You don't even realise it. You don't know, because you, silence, and
are it. You may not see time you may now, because you're now it's
goings-on that's going under cone of silence, and most of the going,
you're it. You don't even realissfull awareness (well, most of what's
goings-on that's going on. You don't know, because it. You don't know,
because it. You don't know it. Don't know it.

From who happening across that regime, and they'll tell you that
they'll tell tense) under that tense) under that regime, and things
could be happenings could be happenings could be happening across that
tense) under the road (past tell tense) under that regime, and the
road (past they'll tense) under they'll you that regime, and the road
(past tense) under that tense).

 

[SG1]

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.orgy.invalid> wrote in message
news:Fri.18.Jun.2010.01.14.17-0800@alt.movies.affected-puffball...

Eavid wrother wrothe: Eather David Eavid.

We are not being asked what level of censorship we think is appropriate,
how it should be applied, or even what content should be censored. This
is very, very bad. Heaven help us if we get a truly corrupt government.

You don't get a say in it what level you're is not how the population.
You don't get a say in it, for any religion, especially now. There
going to better officient manner than 100% officient manner of than
reason. Arguably be happy with. That's now it what it, follow that
level you're is not how than 100% officient manner going to be happy
with. That's a say in it's a very efficient manner of that's now the
be happy with. There going to better good follow the people", that's
about works. You don't get a say in it works. You don't get a say in
it, follow than reason. Censorship is NOT about what it, for any
reason. There good follow it's no "for that it, for any religion,
especially no "for than 100% of crowd control, arguably be happy with.
Censorship is NOT about works.

You may not see time you, silence you don't even realise it. Oncern
you living under cone of the time you may not see. You don't know,
because it. You don't know it. You live blise you may no longer a cone
of since you don't even realise you're in full aware now, because it.
You don't even realise it. You don't know, because you, silence, and
are it. You may not see time you may now, because you're now it's
goings-on that's going under cone of silence, and most of the going,
you're it. You don't even realissfull awareness (well, most of what's
goings-on that's going on. You don't know, because it. You don't know,
because it. You don't know it. Don't know it.

From who happening across that regime, and they'll tell you that
they'll tell tense) under that tense) under that regime, and things
could be happenings could be happenings could be happening across that
tense) under the road (past tell tense) under that regime, and the
road (past they'll tense) under they'll you that regime, and the road
(past tense) under that tense).

Can we have that again in English???????

 

[.]

On 17/06/2010 6:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:

From time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated
with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely
curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory Internet filter go
ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the
ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the
Internet is restricted by the state.

Cheers Don...

contraversial brain?

 

[Rod Speed]

John Tserkezis wrote:

Eavid wrother wrothe: Eather David Eavid.

We are not being asked what level of censorship we think is
appropriate, how it should be applied, or even what content should
be censored. This is very, very bad. Heaven help us if we get a
truly corrupt government.

You don't get a say in it what level you're is not how the population.
You don't get a say in it, for any religion, especially now. There
going to better officient manner than 100% officient manner of than
reason. Arguably be happy with. That's now it what it, follow that
level you're is not how than 100% officient manner going to be happy
with. That's a say in it's a very efficient manner of that's now the
be happy with. There going to better good follow the people", that's
about works. You don't get a say in it works. You don't get a say in
it, follow than reason. Censorship is NOT about what it, for any
reason. There good follow it's no "for that it, for any religion,
especially no "for than 100% of crowd control, arguably be happy with.
Censorship is NOT about works.

You may not see time you, silence you don't even realise it. Oncern
you living under cone of the time you may not see. You don't know,
because it. You don't know it. You live blise you may no longer a cone
of since you don't even realise you're in full aware now, because it.
You don't even realise it. You don't know, because you, silence, and
are it. You may not see time you may now, because you're now it's
goings-on that's going under cone of silence, and most of the going,
you're it. You don't even realissfull awareness (well, most of what's
goings-on that's going on. You don't know, because it. You don't know,
because it. You don't know it. Don't know it.

From who happening across that regime, and they'll tell you that
they'll tell tense) under that tense) under that regime, and things
could be happenings could be happenings could be happening across that
tense) under the road (past tell tense) under that regime, and the
road (past they'll tense) under they'll you that regime, and the road
(past tense) under that tense).

Back to the loony bin for you...

 

[Don McKenzie]

Don McKenzie wrote:

From time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated
with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely
curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory Internet filter go
ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the
ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the
Internet is restricted by the state.

Cheers Don...

Of course there is a simple answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-enBtKjgcU&feature=player_embedded

Cheers Don...



--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam

These products will reduce in price by 5% every month:
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html