Thought I'd make thread on this tonight to get everyone to watch.
Lets hope everyone grills him.
Im looking forward to the first time he tries to infer Anti-Censorship ppl are pro-Child Pornography.

Would love to have been in the Audience.

don't you mean "imply"

pls try to use good grammer

Nice work airing 4chan bulls*** ABC.

I literally can't believe Conroy cited Moore's law in discussion of broadband infrastructure.

Yeah that's probably an implication or correlation not an inference

oh darn i missed it - did anyone ask im how it feels to be the most hated man in australia / a tremendous f*****?

So is Conroy taking Anti-Censorship and Pro-Pedophelia and leveling the distinction between them as ambiguous?

Come on you don't really believe he's that dumb being in a position he is do you?

I dont think theres a minimum IQ level for entry into Politics.
Its more about being good at following instructions.

The show will be up later i guess
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

Just about to start up here for us Daylight Laggers.
I think Infer is correct.

last edited by FaceMan at 22:26:46 26/Mar/09

I almost feel sorry for the guy, he's looking like a massive douche and the audience is laughing at him.

Almost.

That chicka Louise Adler totally PWND him.

Conroys defence comes across as almost childish. He tries to pass all responsibility onto the ACMA. He seems to be arguing from a tiny narrow view of how he can protect children from one part of the Internet.

Andrew Bolt is actually 'Dumberer' in person than his column.
Did he actually suggest that some parents are just too dumb or dont care enough to protect their children from the Internet ?
Jesus, just put the computer in the loungeroom and keep an eye on them.

Unfortunately the segment was too short.

You can watch the show here.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm
The chat is about 30 mins.


last edited by FaceMan at 23:22:30 26/Mar/09

last edited by FaceMan at 23:27:35 26/Mar/09

Andrew Bolt suggested we need to protect those children from the parents.
Because it's those parents that are going to abuse their kids.

Not entirely sure how blocking their internet is going to stop that though.

Andrew Bolt suggested we need to protect those children from the parents.
Because it's those parents that are going to abuse their kids.

Not entirely sure how blocking their internet is going to stop that though.

Exactly, at that point isn't it a complete failure by child services?

I think the best bit was when Conroy said that they wouldn't publish the blacklist because then people would browse the blacklist (which wouldn't be browsable if the blacklist was going to actually work in the first place). It's a broken solution to a problem that is always going to exist.

I literally can't believe Conroy cited Moore's law in discussion of broadband infrastructure.

Cited, and got it incredibly wrong.

f*** me andrew bolt is a d*******:

also i found qanda frustrating and pointless

there was loads of q's, not so many a's

Incredible watch, Andrew Bolt sure is a f***ing retard .. almost on par with Conroy. The validations used for the censorship agenda are a joke.

I generally agree with Andrew Bolt. Didn't watch last night - is he pro-censorship or anti-censorship?

Seems to be pro-f***ing retarded. In my opinion it looks like he's pro-censorship just because he has to due to his reputation, he keeps pulling out the moral card on any discussion.

I thought that Conway bloke did alright. Maybe it's just me, but he sorta looked frustrated that a lot of people didn't get what he was saying. I'm fine with banning s*** like kiddie porn and beastiality stuff so that doesn't worry me. And as long as the Government is being honest with the stuff they are banning and it doesn't f*** with my net speed I'm fine with it.

Plus he mentioned they've been blocking stuff the last nine years and we haven't noticed.

Well they've had a censorship list which is opt-in, so the vast majority of internet users would probably have gone to those sites without any problem. However the governments proposed filter will make it mandatory that those sites are blocked. So that dentist in Brisbane who had his site hacked would suddenly get no more visits under the proposed filter and would appear to have no ability to get it removed. I read an interview with the dentist who said it's the first he'd ever heard of his site being on any sort of list..

Although the list has been in place for 9 years, it's only just been leaked and everybody now can see how ridiculous the sites on it are. The government should be transparent and provide methods and processes for challenging blocked sites rather than somebody deciding it upon themselves what's good for the country's population.

One of the questions I would've liked to have seen asked is "If the Russian Mob have gone away now, why is his site STILL blocked". In cases where sites are legitimately blocked, what is the review timeframe to see if they've 'come good'?

Plus he mentioned they've been blocking stuff the last nine years and we haven't noticed.

they arent blocking s***;

its on the blacklist, its not blocked;

Considering they dont tell you and you cant find out if you are on the blocklist, the review period would be never probably.

Unless you somehow found out you were blocked and complained, they couldnt tell you if you were or not, and then it would probably be magically unblocked a few weeks later.

Personally i dont want to see the list, but an independent body needs to review the list occasionaly I think.

The proccess should be, review the list, report content hosted outside australia to relevenat authorites, and for content hosted, or with obviously australian originated content, they should be going after these people, then the people would have recourse to defend themselves, without publishing the list to everyone.

Not sure how you would know that the independent body wasnt just doing the govenments work and blocking s*** that shouldnt be blocked anyway.

Is the ACMA meant to be an independent body?

Ah, must have got that bit wrong. My apologies.

8-)

I'm fine with banning s*** like kiddie porn and beastiality stuff so that doesn't worry me.

No one is arguing this.

And as long as the Government is being honest with the stuff they are banning...

They aren't being honest - there is no transparency to anyone.

...and it doesn't f*** with my net speed I'm fine with it.

It does f*** with your net speed.

So, clearly you're against the Internet Filter. You can buy me a beer later for my services helping you work out your political position on this issue.

Pinky wants a Churros instead.

Pinky wants a Churros instead.

Right on sista. Haven't had the chance yet, but I will. I'm in the city Saturday morning for a physio appointment to try and fix my back - I'll do a drive-by and grab one.

Did he actually suggest that some parents are just too dumb or dont care enough to protect their children from the Internet ?

I agree with the statement, but I'm guessing your problem is that he uses this as a reason for the blacklist?

I'm fine with banning s*** like kiddie porn and beastiality stuff so that doesn't worry me.


No one is arguing this.

And as long as the Government is being honest with the stuff they are banning...


They aren't being honest - there is no transparency to anyone.

...and it doesn't f*** with my net speed I'm fine with it.


It does f*** with your net speed.

So, clearly you're against the Internet Filter. You can buy me a beer later for my services helping you work out your political position on this issue.

I think people just need to be careful about jumping on the no-blacklist bandwagon. If it was implemented correctly (with full transparency, no sacrifice of speeds etc etc) then I'm all for it. Is that even possible though?

Not with what has been proposed, no.

basicaly they are never going to show you the blacklist:

But Wikileaks will!

I wonder if anyone has done a demonstration to conroy to show him by simply connecting a vpn to an unfiltered location, the filter is bypassed.

I'd like to see someone do it, show him, look, filtered internet, connect vpn, unfiltered internet.

Mandatory ISP filtering - $33 million a year
VPN connection to USA - $5 a month
Bypassing the internet filter in 5 seconds - Priceless.

I wonder if anyone has done a demonstration to conroy to show him by simply connecting a vpn to an unfiltered location, the filter is bypassed.

I'd like to see someone do it, show him, look, filtered internet, connect vpn, unfiltered internet.

Mandatory ISP filtering - $33 million a year
VPN connection to USA - $5 a month
Bypassing the internet filter in 5 seconds - Priceless.

Yeah, that 16yo kid did it a while back.

No one is arguing this.

Actually a lot of people are, and for good reason. Democratic rights aside, it's:

-A lot of taxpayer money and probable increased broadband costs for something that will be ultimately ineffective.

-Pointless. Seriously. Less Australians viewing CP will not decrease incidents of child abuse here or in the countries where production of it occurs. I doubt the trade even occurs on sites ACMA would ever be aware of. It's easy to say "Well why would you want to let those paedo f***s get off on this s***?" but you'd be acting in spite, not practically. Never mind that they plan to ban 'incest' and probably high-profile BDSM sites, who really gives a s*** about that? What are we doing by pulling the wool over the eyes of the Australian public on that issue? Are you aware that under Australian law there would be legal precidence to ban a comedy site that featured a crude illustration of Bart Simpson dryhumping Santa's Little Helper?

-The biggest step. Even with a perfect implementation, once the technology is there it will only take the stroke of a pen to start being less transparent and start banning less deplorable sites (gambling, wikileaks, VPN providers), and will be much harder to protest.

last edited by Hashy at 13:07:23 27/Mar/09

That kid showed them how to bypass the client side filtering, which is why they are now going down the isp filtering route, someone needs to sit conroy down in front of a pc connected through one of these filtered isp's and show him how easy it is to bypass.

I beat he has only had demonstrations from filtering software providers, showing how great there product is.

Did someone mention a Churro's, oh wait a second that's not a Chumby well now is it?

Some very good points on the show. Why is it that every other medium is bound by classification, and yet the Internet, by some notion of 'birthright', is deemed impervious to any cultural sense of morality we might impose upon it.

A fear about what it 'could' evolve into - well - we've already had a leak, and, by the very nature of ISP filtering, you push parts of some formerly centralized system to the edges.. meaning another leak is always possible.

If the technology is useless, then what's the problem with implementing it? (we don't even know what it is or if it works, yet). The point is to lift the barriers of entry to the nasty stuff. Yes p2p is probably where the main stuff happens, and I'm sure there are systems in place that cater to that.

I think it's inherently unfair to place the burden or onus of protection on the end-user.

/soapbox

I generally agree with Andrew Bolt. Didn't watch last night - is he pro-censorship or anti-censorship?

He's basically Pro-catholic-church.

I generally agree with most of what Bolt says, except when there's anything which starts looking like it has influence or bias by the church - which is exactly what this whole filter thing is.
Which pretty much explains him supporting the filter and some of the (stupid) arguments he was trying to make for Conroy.

It was depressing that Bolt was the only one to point out that basically any time an Israeli is accused of anything, everyone jumps up in arms and believes the other side (even when it usually turns out to be BS), yet it doesn't work the same way around.

I can't believe the question of publishing the blacklist didn't go into the whole "we cant access the sites on the blacklist so why not just publish" ?

i mean, if the blacklist and filter works - we should not have access to the sites on it?




.... unless ... oh right, they know it wont work and its easy to get around

Well at least 2 of the sites on that list are not blocked.
One is a joke site that uses the " You Spin Me Right round baby" song from Dead or Alive.
Another site on the list is a split site that features asian Heterosexual porn and Asian Transexual Porn on its front page.

Neither of these sites feature Child Porn and neither of these sites break any laws in our country.
Clearly the Minister has no idea what he is talking about.

Come on Conroid tell us the real target for your filter.
and tell us who is instructing you.

One is a joke site that uses the " You Spin Me Right round baby" song from Dead or Alive.

meatspin?

faceman there is no filter yet, just a list which doesn't do a whole heckuvalot

I thought that Conway bloke did alright. Maybe it's just me, but he sorta looked frustrated that a lot of people didn't get what he was saying. I'm fine with banning s*** like kiddie porn and beastiality stuff so that doesn't worry me. And as long as the Government is being honest with the stuff they are banning and it doesn't f*** with my net speed I'm fine with it.

he looked frustrated because he knows its a crock of horse poo pulled from a pelicans dark-regions, but he has to do what he is told from other places.

sure, ban the kiddy pron. oh wait, maybe a better idea is to sto pit from happening in the first fricking place!

as far as the gov't being honest, srsly, you were being funeh right? in one point, they are like the boss so they dont have to tell us lots of legal-stuff they hide (i am not debating if they SHOULD or not here) and 2. they themselves will be told what to do from other sources. wait for it.... its part of the global "thingy" thats happening.

oh, as for the speed.... how much worse could it get around here? ISPs are all capped by stoopid regulation and backstabbing anyway.

How does filtering child porn protect kids? Serious question.

If you are going to say it stops them from accidentally finding it and viewing it then how is regular porn any better in the mind of a child? If it is about protecting the children then shouldn't everything that could be considered harmful to their mental development be blocked? Studies have shown that exposure to violence can have an adverse effect on kids so we should also block all violent media and since that is on TV unfiltered we had better start blocking TV as well.

I'm totally at a loss for the purpose of this filter and why anyone would support even the concept of it. Child porn on the net isn't the problem, it's the fact that it was created in the first place that is the problem and if we spent all the money they are wasting on this filter on finding the a******s that are making this s*** then I'd truly feel as if the Govt was making a real effort to protect children and not simply wasting my money through political grandstanding.

Some of you are missing the point completely.

Let me first say that I am personally opposed to the filter mainly because it would be a bad precedent. If worse came to worse and the filter got implement, I am sure that the Labor Government would make sure that it did not hamper internet speed, and would not block anything other than pure illegal content (namely child porn). My concern is what could happen further down the track (IE another government deciding that it should now block questionable content / online gambling / other stuff.

Anyway, it's not like Labor has allocated $X million dollars to combat child porn, and has decided to allocate it all to the filter. As Conroy said on the show, the filter is definitely not considered to be one fix-all band-aid, and is just one of a number of measures to help combat the child abuse problem.

He's on Insight tonight, 7:30pm. SBS.

He's getting ripped.

i thought he did well

very balanced

Some of you are missing the point completely. .........

My concern is what could happen further down the track (IE another government deciding that it should now block questionable content / online gambling / other stuff.

welcome to the future. you didnt think this merry-go-round ride of uncontrolled insanity was going to be allowed to ride unchecked forever did you?
lookup "endgame" and "bildenburg group" and some other stuff i CBF thinking the names of. the next step is the banning of religion. dont laugh, its been said for YEARS but have a look over at chigargo (or some place in america starting with "C") where the govt is going to try and take over the catholic church's finances.

like i said.... all of this, EVERYWHERE is simply a game of chess thats approaching its endgame. screw the net speed, we'll be lucky to be ALLOWED net.

People still led happy lives before the internet was invented :O

People still led happy lives before the internet was invented :O

im pretty sure kiddy pron existed before the intarwebs also!

I don't think they did billy

On the astrology website, ACMA said it was blacklisted because, at the time it was being investigated, it had been defaced with "an image which depicted an adult female posed naked and implicitly defecating on herself".

from this article - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/net-censorship-ministers-backflip-20090401-9j96.html?page=2


Conroy has discovered tubgirl!

banning tubgirl can only mean trouble for our internets;

discovering tubgirl, 2girls1cup and goatse is an internets right of passage

discovering tubgirl, 2girls1cup and goatse is an internets right of passage

I know that my life would have even less meaning if I had not seen these things. Nothing beat the amusement of watching someone run away in horror screaming.

I thought that Conway bloke did alright. Maybe it's just me, but he sorta looked frustrated that a lot of people didn't get what he was saying.

That's because he didn't actually say anything. He criticized his opponents for saying that the regulation was only for extreme, over the top, sites (like child porn), yet when question on exactly what would be regulated passed the buck to the ACMA "I can't say what is going to be regulated, that's for the ACMA".

So, for all we, and Senator Conroy knows, the current regulation on prohibited material would be bannable.

And as long as the Government is being honest with the stuff they are banning and it doesn't f*** with my net speed I'm fine with it.

Secret + Government == honesty? Wait what?

I wonder if anyone has done a demonstration to conroy to show him by simply connecting a vpn to an unfiltered location, the filter is bypassed.

Cronroy knows that the filter can easily be defeated by any d******* with Tor, VPN, or P2P networks.

Why is it that every other medium is bound by classification, and yet the Internet, by some notion of 'birthright', is deemed impervious to any cultural sense of morality we might impose upon it.

A) Because every other medium is controlled by a handful of organizations that are easy to monitor or can be sold/imported-to/distributed-in Australia without permission. Unlike the internet that where content can be created by anybody, anywhere, and at any time.

B) Only retarded asehole eating f***wads would actually ponder this question.

meaning another leak is always possible.

If the technology is useless, then what's the problem with implementing it? (we don't even know what it is or if it works, yet).

The point is to lift the barriers of entry to the nasty stuff.

Spending billions of dollars to raise the barrier from nothing to next to nothing doesn't sound like a wise investment.

I think it's inherently unfair to place the burden or onus of protection on the end-user.

WTF?

they are trying to block motherf***in redtube. asif thats not enough to be anti blacklist

due to the number of resident greyhairs, australia hates the computer machines. One day these stupid f***ing laws will be overturned and we will look back on our fathers and think a big fat WTFM8!?

I just watched Channel4's show The Sex Education Show V Pornography 2009 E01. They are doing a show a night over the next week.

They rock up at a local highschool and interviewed kids about sex, pubic hair, boobs, vaginas and porn. It looks like each episode they will give the children sex education while reporting on their experiences and experiences of children in general.

In this episode after interviewing kids about the porn that they watch they got a group of their parents together and showed them the sort of pornography their 14&15yos are watching through the internet and swapping on their mobile phones.

Even people that supported pornography before being shown it didn't support it afterwards and stated it should be filtered at the source - they were disgusted by what they saw and what the children were watching, and the presenter stated that the videos being shown to the adults did not include videos involving children or animals since that's illegal and they aren't allowed to show it.

In the interviews with the children you could clearly see that the children were heavily influenced by the pornography they watch. They had extremely unrealistic expectations of body image and it seemed that it was putting many children under a lot of pressure

They then went on and did basic internet searches for porn, and had stumbled on child pornography videos in no time. They were critical of the 'click here if you are not over 18' approach to free websites.

They then went on to try and buy a computer or laptop at major stores in the UK stating it was for a 13 year old and stating that they wanted adult content filtering setup. No store did it for them.

The show is saying that like with phones in the UK, computers/internet should be locked out of adult material until you prove you are over 18 and enable it.

It was a real eye-opener for me seeing how much the kids have been affected by the porn they watch.

what you've just recounted there has far more to do with children's need for parental guidance and support than it does to do with a requirement for censorship. pornography is one small slice of things children can be exposed to which may or may not negatively impact them - censorship is barely a stop-gap, let alone an actual solution

all this money and buzzing around and misguided attention would be far better put to use in educating parents, and more importantly, future parents

I don't support mandatory filtering. I liked Howard's voluntary filter, it just needed more money to promote it, more support from the public and the media to back the f*** off and realise it is the right move.

All the parenting in the world isn't going to stop a 14 year old from using the home internet to access porn when the parents are at work, or to bluetooth scat porn off friends at school.

GIS: bluetooth scat porn
http://www.mintypocket.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/branson.jpg

A new service from Virgin mobile perhaps?

it absolutely can influence whether or not they will do those things, but more importantly, give them additional perspective to help prepare them if and when they do do them. positive guidance from parents who are clearly involved in their kids lives makes a world of difference with regards how things they are exposed to, effect them

this is the actual solution to the issue. it isn't feasible, or even at all wise to try and hide the world from kids. in fact it's downright irresponsible because it teaches people that:

a) conroy will save their children - put your feet up and relax, bother less with actually parenting them properly
b) if it's not censored, it's ok


it's far more beneficial to actually parent children, because your guidance and influence sticks with them even when you (or censorship) aren't around

learning to do this should be part of school curriculum, and given at least as high a priority as english, maths and science so that kids grow up with better parenting skills in preparation for having their own children

Pornography occupies an interesting position in society.
Porn is always at the front of Technology. Its propels technology.
And its aimed at ADULTS not children.

If you want to Ban Pornography because children Might see it then its fair to ban everything that has an age limit. While children cant buy Alcohol they can certainly steal it once its in the family home. Do we stop children drinking by removing Alcohol from Society ?

Sexting which is the current hip thing is not going to disappear and naked pics of sometimes underaged girls and boys are being sent. Will a Web Filter stop this ? No. A web filter only solves a part of the problem.

Instead of keeping sex a big secret till kids cross an imaginary age point maybe the best way to combat such things is through educating children about sex at an earlier age than what occurs now. If we dont, then The Internet/Technology will do the teaching for us.

All the parenting in the world isn't going to stop a 14 year old from using the home internet to access porn when the parents are at work, or to bluetooth scat porn off friends at school.

It does. If someone's kid is a deviant who is peddling child, animal or whatever other depraved s*** they find these days then they did wrong as a parent. They raised a bent deviant with f***ed expectations of what the world is like around them and what is acceptable. They'll probably go on to kill animals and rape drunk chicks at parties with alcohol the parents will most likely buy for them in their duties as a s*** parent.

The govt isn't there to raise people's kids, the parents are. If people believe they can't instill some morals in their kids, maybe rather than censoring the Internet, the govt needs to have a licensing system that tries to prevent s*** parents from breeding. If they don't pass the s*** person test they sterilize their lazy arse and make sure you don't neglect their children's upbringing.

Proper sex education goes a long way to making sure your child isn't a future rapist and animal exploiter.

last edited by Twisted at 23:41:13 01/Apr/09

Instead of keeping sex a big secret till kids cross an imaginary age point maybe the best way to combat such things is through educating children about sex at an earlier age than what occurs now

Graphic images of sexual diseases, that should stop them.