http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7165987.stm
The new Labor government wants internet service providers to filter content
to ensure households and schools do not receive "inappropriate" material.

Hmm interesting turn of events. I'm sure the EU will watch closely and if it
works will start to impose the same standards across Europe. Of course the
stated goals could be achieved in simple practical ways which would work.
They won't, because the stated goals are not the real goals.

It seems to me the real target is to eventually undo the freedom of
expression and exchange of information and ideas that the interwebby kicked
off. Get the mass population reading off the proscribed menu again as it
were.
Anyone agree?

--

"Hog" <hogSPAM@freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5tseqsF1ekajfU1@mid.individual.net...
Yes I do. I have felt for some time that we will look back on this time as a
Golden Age of freedom.

Orwell wasn't wrong, just 30 years too early.


--

Graham

%Profound_observation%

Hog wrote:

I wouldn't trust ANY government to decide for me what's 'imapproriate' or
otherwise. What a bloody nerve !

These jerks are becoming more Stalinist by the second.

Graham

"Hog" <hogSPAM@freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5tseqsF1ekajfU1@mid.individual.net...
It should be the household or the school who sets up filtering (if required)
not the bloody ISP.

Tony wrote:

Surely you mean not the government ? I can't see any ISP wanting to do this.

Unfortunately, when you elect Socialists, they think they know better than you
and do this kind of shit.

Graham

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:477912B8.64B84275@hotmail.com...
scary stuff, can't see it working though, filters can stop casual users and
kids accidentally accessing dodgy sites, but those who access on purpose
will find ways round filters an about 3 minutes, so it just goes deeper
underground. by keeping access open clampdowns like operation ore are
possible, and the true deviants can be tracked.
doubtless 'community and church' leaders would help assemble the lists,
probably the people that i'd least like in charge.

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:477912B8.64B84275@hotmail.com...
Well of course I mean government, but if the government tells the ISP they
have to do it, it is then the ISP, is it not?

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:50:28 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> mangled uncounted
electrons thus:

Or McCarthy-ite. There's no practical difference between the
extreme Right and the extreme Left although each would claim an
exactly opposite ideological POV...

Martin D. Pay
Fortunately HMG is far too disorganised and inefficient to impose
this sort of BS effectively. Besides which I'd certainly hope
that our own courts, or those of last resort in the EU, would
throw out any such measure

Eeyore wrote:

Are the comments on this thread aware that the original article is about an
***Australian*** government proposal ?




--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:08:11 UTC, "Nigel Cliffe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I didn't read the article (should have guessed from the URL) but the
spelling of 'Labor' is a bit of a giveaway too...

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:05:27 -0000, "Hog" <hogSPAM@freenetCHIPS.co.uk>
wrote:

How will they decide what is "inappropriate"?

I can see websites abour Scunthorpe suffering again!
--
Cheers

Peter

"PeterT" <peter.thomas8899@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:4dain3hij1tjgqp236126c0uoumasco5oq@4ax.com...
Who put the *unt in Scunthorpe? )

"PeterT" <peter.thomas8899@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:4dain3hij1tjgqp236126c0uoumasco5oq@4ax.com...
There will be a committee of church dignitaries, ideally celibate and with
no practical experience whatsoever except possibly with children.

Most people would want these filtered anyway...

Cockermouth also does pretty badly, as does any page with the word
"kangeroo" in it.

There would be a sort of score so

Roger - 2/10
Peter - 3/10
Thomas - 3/10
Percy - 4/10
Willie - 5/10
Fanny - 5/10
John Thomas - 6/10
etc.

and so on.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:42:08 -0000, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Ah yes, the baby-buggerers in frocks.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

Hog wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Clue in URL

....in Australia, for the benefit of those not willing to follow the link.

Regardless of the location, it is yet another attempt at a government
attempting to be popular with non-users, by removing the parents
responsibility towards their children. If parents want ISP-based
filtering, they should subscribe to an ISP who offers (and charges for)
that service.

The vast majority of real users out there do not want every packet they
send and receive inspected for dubious material because their internet
connection is slow enough already.

Besides, those who want to get around such restrictions can easily to
do, using SSL'd anonymising proxies, onion routing, and any number of
other buzzwords.

In article <bl7in3ld65m8h848lg008uuok2j8sefjj8@4ax.com>, Martin D. Pay
<martin@starship-excalibur.co.uk> writes
It wasn't called the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party for
nothing, a certain Austrian corporal would be wetting himself if he was
alive in Britain today, as would Stalin.

We really are on the downward slide to authoritarian rule, the sad thing
is nobody seems to care, I'd even place a bet that this control freak
government will get in again when the pension thief finally decides to
hold an election.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

Jim Howes wrote:
silently be extended to 'terrorism', and the silently to 'crimes
against the state', including criticism of the government...

Happy 12008

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
I got a posting in a US website deleted because I said 'The law is an ass'

I pointed out the Jesus also rode into Jerusalem on an ass, and got it
reinstated.


I tell you, I was grinding my fags' butts out with some ferocity that day.

It was a seminal experience.

I saw another post headlined 'Sod farmers in Utah'

I couldn't agree more, frankly.


Why is it always apostles that get banned?

PeterC wrote:
Just feel the love of Jesus..praise the Lord..

I am sure Jesus said something like "Suffer, little children", so that
makes it all OK.

Michael Swift wrote:

I share your concerns. The big problem is that I don't see ANY of the major
parties being much different. They're all into imposing all manner of
restrictions on us for a host of very dubious and ill-considred reasons.

I'd like to see 'direct democracy' here as practiced in Switzerland. That
way the damn politicans can no longer be the 'bosses' and are actually
required to be answerable to the public. Get rid of 'sleaze' and the gravy
train of politically inspired appointments for their chums too (see the
bloody Olympics for a good example).

Graham