• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

Bluelight and the Aussie Internet Filter – Will it affect us?

The UK system is not in fact mandatory though. That is the difference, ISP's may or may not participate, and even then it is possible for user to opt out of the filtering system.
 
i read about this internet filter it is for porn or teen porn bitchez that arre 18 but with small breasts who loook underage nd shit its bullshit ayy nd shit they are gunna filter porn sites nd not only that other graphic material like heaps of shitits bullshit i dont this would passs anyway
 
Akhenaten said:
The UK system is not in fact mandatory though. That is the difference, ISP's may or may not participate, and even then it is possible for user to opt out of the filtering system.
Click to expand...

Yep thats totally correct, Australia would be the first western "democratic" country to implement a mandatory filter of this nature. The only other countries who use similiar technology are China, Iran and Burma. Italy has some form of internet censorship but it is nowhere near as comprehensive as what conroy is trying to push onto us.
 
^ I think France is following very close in our footsteps though:

French net filtering plan moves forward
Peter Sayer
17 February, 2010 22:09

French lawmakers voted Tuesday to approve a draft law to filter Internet traffic, a measure the government says is intended to catch child pornographers. The bill will now go on for a second and final reading.

Critics of the catch-all "Bill on direction and planning for the performance of domestic security" say that filtering won't stop the spread of child pornography -- but could allow the government to censor other materials.

The bill, known as Loppsi II in French, was approved by 312 votes to 214 in a vote in the National Assembly on Tuesday. The government has a large majority in the Assembly; two of its deputies abstained, with the others all voting in favor of the bill.

...

The bill is a mishmash of unrelated measures, boosting the amount the police spend on "security," multiplying penalties for counterfeiting checks or credit cards, increasing use of CCTV cameras, extending access to the police national DNA database and authorizing the seizure of vehicles driven without a license.

Among the measures dealing with the Internet, it seeks to criminalize online identity theft, allow police to tap Internet connections as well as phone lines during investigations, and target child pornography by ordering ISPs to filter Internet connections.

ISPs will be required to block access to any Internet address the authorities consider necessary to prevent distribution of child pornography.

Critics of the bill, while opposing the distribution of child pornography, say filtering is the wrong way to go about it....
Click to expand...

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/336563/french_net_filtering_plan_moves_forward/
 
MrIbis said:
Overall the comments that a cup tits are banned is basically correct. The size of a females breasts leads directly, in alot of cases - especially those where the female is posing nude - to speculation as to the persons age.
Click to expand...

According to the guidelines, this is not the case. Banning porn containing a woman with small breasts would happen if her particular body type was being used to portray her as under 18. So for example if the woman was dressed up like a 13 year old schoolgirl, and the situation in the actual movie showed her doing things that a kid that age would do, and the movie was called "fresh little nubiles" or something like that, then the movie would be banned. But if the actress had small breasts, and other than that it was a completely standard porn movie with no effort made to make the girl seem young, then the size of her breasts would not be grounds to ban the movie.

Just saying.
 
Do you trust the government to adhere to those guidelines?

I know I don't. Some of the proposed sites have clearly gone against the "proposed" guidelines of the Internet Filter. Hell, some websites covering subjects that haven't even been mentioned by the power to be have been banned.

Do we really want to give the government power to choose what we see and don't see?

The potential for the government to corrupt this is simply too far, let along the fact that they are breaking the basic human right of freedom of speech. I wonder how ling it will take them to block anti-government websites (if they haven't already).
 
Last edited:
I trust the government to adhere to those guidelines. But those guidelines are extremely easy to manipulate to ban whatever you like. All I'm saying is that porn isn't banned because the actresses have small breasts, it's banned for other reasons. That's not to say that the ACB and the government generally can't ban things which should not be banned. They can and they do. This is part of what's wrong with the internet filter as a policy. I just want there to be some clarity about what people are opposing rather than 'omg they banned small boobs,' which is basically a fabrication to give people something else to get angry about.

I think the main problem with the policy is firstly that it's ineffective, and secondly that there's absolutely no accountability. Nobody knows what's on the list. Ultimately it's a policy made by people who don't understand the internet and who have strong Christian conservative views on what people should be watching.

(Ps: There is no enshrined right to freedom of speech in Australia)
 
^ To be honest - the only thing we can do is give people something to be angry about - people are too easily led by what is a 'good idea' based on moral principal and ethics. If you give an example of how the laws are manipulated - it can portray a series of issues, that the public will get agro about, simply because they never thought of it.

We know there is know right of freedom of speech, but it's a basic human right in the developed world. I hate to use the USA as an example, but the only thing they have that is correct is the constitution that gives them that freedom, its the most simple freedom we have, and something the internet has protected - until now.

now alot of the developed world has some kind of isp-level filtering, and in most cases it's not compulsary, we're going to be in the minority of countries that ban fucking everything. What is it the government really doesn't want us to see?

It seems far and wide that Tor will be the easiest method of circumventing this crap, unfortunate, but it will do the job for reading on the net. Usenet is my niche for downloads, newsgroups absolutely kick the living shit outof everything else. Can't get onto that prick government ;)
 
^^
Heh, I've actually just started usenet for a lot of my downloading myself. I think it's the way of the future, even though I don't see the government successfully filtering torrents any time soon.
 
A sign of things to come?

http://www.news.com.au/technology/c...rences-to-filter/story-e6frfro0-1225834474153

THE minister in charge of the Government's web censorship plan has been caught out censoring his own website.

The front page of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's official website displays a list of topics connected to his portfolio, along with links to more information about each one.

All the usual topics are there – cyber safety, the national broadband network, broadcasters ABC and SBS, digital television and so on.

All except one.

It was revealed today a script within the minister's homepage deliberately removes references to internet filtering from the list.

In the function that creates the list, or "tag cloud", there is a condition that if the words "ISP filtering" appear they should be skipped and not displayed.

The discovery is unlikely to do any favours for Senator Conroy's web filtering policy, which has been criticised for its secrecy.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

related coverage
Broadband: 'Speeds are too slow'
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

According to Google's cache records, the exception has been included on the minister's homepage since at least February 14.

A message on the page says it was last updated in October last year.

Melbourne web developer David Johnson told news.com.au the code was intended to remove references to internet filtering.

"The code is a quick fix," said Mr Johnson of creative agency Lemonade.

"If the developers of the minister’s site had wanted to do it properly they would have placed the 'ISP filtering' keyword exclusion on the server side where it is inaccessible to the public, instead of the front-end code which can be seen by anyone and understood by people with even a basic knowledge of scripting."

The function, written in web scripting language Javascript, appears to have been first discovered by a user on the Whirlpool broadband discussion forum.

Senator Conroy's office has been contacted for comment
Click to expand...
 
MrIbis said:
Stephen Conroy; The Man Who Killed The Internet.
Click to expand...

I liken his approach to the old question "If a tree falls in a forest, does it still make a noise?" according to Conroy's logic of course it doesn’t because you can’t see it or hear it thanks to his filtering system.


He hasn't destroyed the Internet, but he has made it easier for people to be complacent about what happens on it, whilst actually completely failing to address the root cause of the problem his filter is supposed to address.

Those of us who are tech savvy enough will find our way around it if the filter comes to fruition.

The latest news is that Kate Lundy, is proposing that there should be an opt-out option that people can nominate as a safe level for their households. Within a ‘reasonable’ time limit, either elect your level of filtering or you will be left with Conroy’s RC filter.
 
If any Australian's are thinking of joining the Pirate Party http://www.pirateparty.org.au/faq and would like to do so for free just PM me!

Once we get 500 members we can contest seats at the next election.

BTW - I work in a state health dept and there are already discussions about what sites will be blocked once the filter comes through. It is a concern for us as many harm reduction sites will be potential candidates. All it will take is a "concerned citizen" to lodge a complaint :\
 
I don't think associating opposition to the internet filter with the Pirate Party is a good idea. It makes it look as though the only reason people would be against this filter is so that they can get around copyright. It's irrelevant and discredits opposition to Conroy's policy (which has nothing to do with copyright). The Greens are also against internet censorship and are a serious political entity. Support them instead.
 
Pirate party have a good set of morals on them, I whole heartadly think where they went wrong was by naming themselves the pirate party.

It's almost impossible to take them seriously with that name. Should've called it the freedom party.

And on that note, knowing full well that I doubt they will get many votes, My vote stays with the greens... (Plus I'm an environmentalist.... They want true HR for everyone)
 
^ they called themselves The Pirate Party because that was the name from where the party originated - The Pirate Party in Sweden, who have I believe at least one seat in European Parliament.
 
^ Makes sense but I still think it was a bad plan, >90% of my friends wouldn't know that.
 
Last edited:
^ haha yep I agree, I think it's a bad plan too. I was a member in Pirate Party AU's hey-day, went to their first meeting at Macquarie Uni in Sydney. There was a lot of debate over the party title, namely because it would allow other parties to draw focus to it for the less educated (which unfortunately tends to be the masses). There was one politician who was quoted as saying "maybe they'll setup preferences with the shoplifting party" which highlights immediately the problem with naming it The Pirate Party.

c'est la vie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top