Australia plans to introduce web filters

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Albatross**

@Orkeo + Dogma

Yeah, perhaps 'exist' was a bit vague on my part. But 'rights' are no more a 'given' than say, language. Both require a certain amount of agreement for them to 'exist'. They are arbitrary.

That was my point.

**IvanTih**

Emperors Faithful wrote:"How about you take a seat over here sir..."

So he is Chris Hansen.

**Altered_Soul**

On the plus side, we will soon have Gun Kata...

**Kilkrazy**

Once again I ran out of patience by the end of the first page.

There is a difference between making wrong behaviour illegal and limiting access to information.

It is already illegal in Australia to make or download child porn. In fact an Australian was prosecuted for having a cartoon of Lisa Simson doing something inappropriate for a child of her age (if she were actually a child instead of a drawing.) It is already illegal to conspire to cause explosions, and so on.

As is this the case, why is it necessary for the government to limit internet access? Is it necessary to limit access to petrol to stop people from speeding?

There are several potential problems with the whole thing.

1. It's very expensive and won't work.

2. It will probably drive real offenders more underground.

3. It will lull parents and teachers into a false sense of security.

4. It will mistakenly limit access to completely legitimate information. (Similar to the net censorship programs already used in some places, which stop a woman accessing information about breast cancer because the program can't tell the difference between medical images and porn.

5. It may also inadvertently criminalise ordinary behaviour such as children "playing doctor". This has already happened in the US and UK with recent child porn laws.

6. Once installed, the system could conceivably be used for wrong purposes such as spying on political opponents and limiting freedom of information.

As usual there is no convincing evidence that watching porn or violence actually does affect people's psychology. This undermines the objective of the system.

If people are worried about the possible effect on children, which concerns me too. Australia already has access to age rating laws and the PEGI system for games and online.

Real sex sites are very concerned to run a good age rating system because they are in a legitimate business and do not want it closed down by some stupid teenagers hacking their way in.

Lastly, as with all child protection, the first line of defence should always be the parents.

**Lord-Loss**

Kill them, kill them all.

**Kilkrazy**

DEATH TO ALL FANATICS!

**JohnHwangDD**

@KK: those are all good points, BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

And seriously, Australia is a democracy. If you gave their government unlimited, unrestricted surveillance power, I'm sure they could be trusted with it. It's not like they're a bunch of Brits with cameras everywhere, or Americans with their warrantless wiretaps...

**Tyyr**

It's going to fail for one simple reason:

The banned sites will be selected by an independent classification body guided by complaints from the public

So once again the people who bitch loudest will get their way. This won't just be kiddy porn or how to build a bomb, it'll become a beatstick for the fad of the moment.

Kilkrazy wrote:1. It's very expensive and won't work.

The work of a couple dozen software engineers can't survive under the combined ingenuity of a tens of thousands of pissed off hackers. The music industry and film industry are both learning this the hard way.

Kilkrazy wrote:3. It will lull parents and teachers into a false sense of security.

Which is a big problem. Parents today are getting too hands off (Hence we get calls for government censorship of the internet instead of parents monitoring what their kids do.

Kilkrazy wrote:4. It will mistakenly limit access to completely legitimate information. (Similar to the net censorship programs already used in some places, which stop a woman accessing information about breast cancer because the program can't tell the difference between medical images and porn.

Another serious concern and one that will happen. The line between many things is going to be obvious to a human and blurry to a computer. Given the purpose of such a system I'd be willing to be it'll operate on a ban first, unban later set up.

Kilkrazy wrote:6. Once installed, the system could conceivably be used for wrong purposes such as spying on political opponents and limiting freedom of information.

With this system in place it'll be easier for the government to track who's looking at what and if you spend a bit too much time looking at the wrong things.... [/tinfoilhat]

Kilkrazy wrote:Lastly, as with all child protection, the first line of defence should always be the parents.

Sadly in this day and age it seems to be more and more that parents expect to be the last line.

Father of 2 with a 3rd on the way speaking here.

**Orkeosaurus**

Albatross wrote:Yeah, perhaps 'exist' was a bit vague on my part. But 'rights' are no more a 'given' than say, language. Both require a certain amount of agreement for them to 'exist'. They are arbitrary.

Ah, but the concepts described by a language are maintained even if the words change.

A rose by any other name and so forth.

**Kilkrazy**

I don't think rights are arbitrary. They didn't just crystallise out of thin air like a snow shower. They were thought up to answer obvious human concerns and needs.

If you mean there are different systems of rights that is certainly true. It doesn't mean they are all equally valid.

**dogma**

Yeah, rights don't qualify as arbitrary. They follow from a purposeful examination of human wants, and needs.

I think what Albatross meant to suggest is that rights are not objective, which is rendered true by the presence of any public dissent.

**Orkeosaurus**

But what about public dissent over Obama being born in Kenya?

**darkkt**

The concept of 'Rights' are, in my mind, a legal representation of societies current morality. Without legal backing, any 'rights' are unenforceable, and therefore merely talk.

Consider the right to life vs the right of a woman to choose. Depending on your legal jurisdiction, the right to choose is an enforceable right (you may legally have abortions), whilst the 'right' to life is unenforceable.

In Australia, we do not have a Bill of Rights. Any rights we have are embedded in the constitution, or in case law - the right of free speech is not included in either (although we are a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). There are no legal boundaries of what the government can and cannot censor.

**dogma**

Orkeosaurus wrote:But what about public dissent over Obama being born in Kenya?

Dissent over a fact is distinct from dissent over a moral construct.

It would be comparable to dissent with respect the specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but it isn't the same as dissent with respect to the worth, or merit of those rights.

Its the difference between arguing X says Y (a statement of fact), and arguing that Y is a valuable thing (or at least more valuable than anything it excludes through its presence).

**Emperors Faithful**

True that. Very well spoken darkkt.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

**Orkeosaurus**

darkkt wrote:Without legal backing, any 'rights' are unenforceable, and therefore merely talk.

How do you reach that conclusion?

Or maybe I should say "either of those conclusions"?

**ergotoxin**

Nice, just another grim step towards the "internet of tommorow" as I like to call it.

Nice decade it was, wasn't it?

**Albatross**

@ergotoxin - Yeah, I'm sure it won't be long 'til we're all wearing matching grey jump-suits... (sigh)

@Orkeo - What I was driving at was that even fundamental 'rights' - like the right to life - are constructs.

@KK - I raised the whole 'child porn/terrorism' question because someone suggested that all censorship is unacceptable. My point was that some things have to be censored - but I don't support this internet filter thingy on those grounds. I don't support it at all.

**Orkeosaurus**

Albatross wrote:@Orkeo - What I was driving at was that even fundamental 'rights' - like the right to life - are constructs.

Why does that matter? Math is a construct.

**rubiksnoob**

Albatross wrote: My point was that some things have to be censored

I still would have to question why you think some things 'have' to be censored.

**Emperors Faithful**

Becuase they are, for want of a better word, 'bad'?

**rubiksnoob**

not everyone would agree on what is "bad". What is bad for you might be good for someone else.

**Albatross**

@Orkeo - It matters because if they are 'constructed', they can be de-constructed, curtailed, changed or even removed depending on your circumstances. They are not 'inherent'.

**Wrexasaur**

rubiksnoob wrote:not everyone would agree on what is "bad". What is bad for you might be good for someone else.

Because we totally need to respect the choices of pedobears, and terrorist jihad 'warriors'....

**Orkeosaurus**

@Alby:

But I can construct a chair, then deconstruct it, cut part of it off, or destroy it.

Is a chair less existent because of this?

**Wrexasaur**

I dun see it Orkeo. No double post here.

As to the chair though, I suppose you can do all that in your mind right? If I happen to open you head, or you are kind enough to open it for me, could I too see all of this take place?

**Albatross**

@Rubiks - again, that is something which is 'agreed upon' within the wider society.

**rubiksnoob**

Wrexasaur wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:not everyone would agree on what is "bad". What is bad for you might be good for someone else.

Because we totally need to respect the choices of pedobears, and terrorist jihad 'warriors'....

You don't have to respect them. Just don't limit their freedoms, no matter how appalling they may seem to you.

As a side note, child porn seems to be being brought up a lot as an argument for censorship. Child porn would harm the child and therefore would be violating the childs rights. THAT'S why that is wrong and should be against the law. Not because it is appalling and offensive. Just because something is offensive is no reason to censor it.

@albatross

just because wider society agrees that something is "wrong" doesn't make it wrong for everyone.

**Albatross**

@Orkeo - Well, yes - a chair is a construct, as is the concept of 'a chair'. That's structuralism, babe.

**Wrexasaur**

rubiksnoob wrote:You don't have to respect them. Just don't limit their freedoms, no matter how appalling they may seem to you.

As a side note, child porn seems to be being brought up a lot as an argument for censorship. Child porn would harm the child and therefore would be violating the childs rights. THAT'S why that is wrong and should be against the law. Not because it is appalling and offensive. Just because something is offensive is no reason to censor it.

It has a lot to do with respect. As in, I do not respect a persons 'right' to indulge in such activities as terrorism.

Please go into depth about what those freedoms would involve, and how that would coincide with current laws seen on a universal scale. They have the freedom to not do those things, as well as the other freedoms that society has set out in an organic way.

just because wider society agrees that something is "wrong" doesn't make it wrong for everyone.

Yeah, I really don't understand exactly what you are trying to say here... so far no one has said the OP was a good idea... regardless of how the current laws are working.