Read this article by Mark Newton. This gets murkier and sillier by the day.
Late addition: From the comments at the linked site:
As a young person ( 22 ) who has been brought up on the internet and as a ALP member myself working for a Labor State Govt. I have told my boss the state MP that I will seriously think about resigning my memberhsiup to the ALP should this pass.
Used to be, the ALP was the party of liberalisation and freedom of expression...
Late late note:
From here, courtesy of Jason Grossman
Later note: It's picking up in the media at last... see ITWire, and now The Age.
- Log in to post comments
Holy smokes...
44 comments at the time of reading and all bar 2 supporting Mark (and those 2 being nitpickers about ISP/PC security details).
How extraordinary to have such consensus.
Can Obama be far behind? Isn't he the source of all consensus these days?
It isn't that extraordinary. Virtually every article that's appeared everywhere has displayed similar stats.
It's a beautiful thing, unless you're a Minister of the Commonwealth. If you're one of those it's probably pretty sucky.
Iliad (of UserFriendly) presents a brief lesson on the practicalities of internet filtering/censoring for the current Australian government. It's funnier than an essay on Darwin as historiography, but rather less informative about trees.
Has anybody ever figured out how much government, any government, could save if they only put state nannies in a safe, monitored environment?
In this case, around $44 million...
There is 2 issues here IMO.
On the one hand,we'll just use TOR or any of the myriad of anonymous proxyservers to access what we want to access.So this shit is going to cost a fortune,slow everyone's speed down and make prices go up,that are already the highest in the first world anyway,without preventing anyone from accessing what they want to access.
On the other hand,there is the issue of internet censorship in principal,the idea that a democratically elected government can filter the content that people in a democracy are legally entitled to view,whether it suits some fringe cult senator or not.
Its all beyond belief.
I agree with your letter except for one thing: I reject the idea that
XXXXXXX, or anyone, should be blocked from unfiltered access to the
XXXXXXXX.
There is one other point to add: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXX is not
just a proposal. The government of XXXXXXXXX has already imposed
unjust and arbitrary XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on the XXXXXXXX, by saying it
will fine any XXXXXXXX sites that point to sites which are targets of
government XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Citizens of XXXXXXXXXX, your government
has already attacked your freedom!