Not just china and the middle east then.

[XabbaRus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8413377.stm

So Australia is joining in. UK next I bet.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think filters are ok and do protect the younger crowd who sometimes type in the wrong words and hit enter only to have some crackhead site pop up. In short, the net does require some policing. How much I do not know. We have to start somewhere.

[Schroeder]

Just one more step towards big brother and thought control.
Nothing really new, we have been on that road for about a decade.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Just one more step towards big brother and thought control.
Nothing really new, we have been on that road for about a decade.

I'm thinking earlier that that.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I'm thinking earlier that that.

Much earlier than that.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I think filters are ok and do protect the younger crowd who sometimes type in the wrong words and hit enter only to have some crackhead site pop up. In short, the net does require some policing. How much I do not know. We have to start somewhere.

Our children are more tech savvy than we are. They're figure out the net faster and better than us. The line to protect our children is bogus.. Its about protecting business.. The Big money.. no our children.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

Our children are more tech savvy than we are. They're figure out the net faster and better than us. The line to protect our children is bogus.. Its about protecting business.. The Big money.. no our children.

You are more than likely correct and it is probably a ploy to impose some type of tax to monitor this. Just as our children are tech savvy our politicians are tax savvy in creating new things to tax.

The internet is the last major highway for the free flow of information.
For the most part TV, papers, radio, and even musik, are controlled by a handful of powerful people.

Why bother yourself with THINKING about what information is good or harmful?
Government will be more than happy to do it for you!
Something to THINK about, while INDEPENDENT THINKING and CRITICAL ANALYSIS is still allowed.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

The internet is the last major highway for the free flow of information.
For the most part TV, papers, radio, and even musik, are controlled by a handful of powerful people.

Why bother yourself with THINKING about what information is good or harmful?
Government will be more than happy to do it for you!
Something to THINK about, while INDEPENDENT THINKING and CRITICAL ANALYSIS is still allowed.

Yes this too...

[Skybird]

It's a dilemma.

You actively assist criminal energy by keeping the internet unregulated.

Regulating it a bit to battle crime, opens a range of options political opportunists may find all too tempting to abuse.

Well, we do not have total freedom on the street, too. There are laws, and policemen, and rules saying what you may do, and what not. There are even sanctions if you do not comply.

So far, the internet is a truly anarchic space. That it cannot stay that way, is clear.

Total, unlimited freedom, is an illusions. You need to balance individual freedom versus communal interests, and security concerns.

the dilemma is: where to set that balance, and who should decide? In the end, not this is the dilemma, but those mkaing decisons - politicians - being so deeply corrupted.

So in the end this is more about the failed poltical culture of the present, and the corruption of democracies, then about freedom and internet.

In Germany, an initiative of banning child porn sites and replace access to them with a warning shield, is under fire. the call to reduce chances for internet censorship - actively allows criminals to spread child pronography. On the othe rhand we have just seen a pltical intirgue around one of the two public Tv broadcasting stations, ZDF, whose director has been prevented by CDU-minister presidents sitting in the board of directors (why do poltiicians sit in the board of directors for Tv broadcasters...?) to get reelected into office, becausue he was known to be too indepedent and asking too critical questions. these two examples show that both camps in the dispute have valid, justified concerns.

I personally would prohibit members of political parties to become members of federal or national parliaments, I would prohibit political parties to constituate as organised parties, I would prohibit political mandate-holders from serving in private economy or business control boards at the same time, and I would set every economical lobbying agency on fire. This would eventually lead to a political culture again where the risk of regulating the internet a bit is less likely to be abused for political censorship as well.

Also, candidates for political offices would be needed to successfully conduct an IQ test and a long-termed character and personality observation and assessment program.

Those who surrender Freedom for Security are destined to loose both.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It's a dilemma.

You actively assist criminal energy by keeping the internet unregulated.

Regulating it a bit to battle crime, opens a range of options political opportunists may find all too tempting to abuse.

Well, we do not have total freedom on the street, too. There are laws, and policemen, and rules saying what you may do, and what not. There are even sanctions if you do not comply.

So far, the internet is a truly anarchic space. That it cannot stay that way, is clear.

Total, unlimited freedom, is an illusions. You need to balance individual freedom versus communal interests, and security concerns.

the dilemma is: where to set that balance, and who should decide? In the end, not this is the dilemma, but those mkaing decisons - politicians - being so deeply corrupted.

So in the end this is more about the failed poltical culture of the present, and the corruption of democracies, then about freedom and internet.

In Germany, an initiative of banning child porn sites and replace access to them with a warning shield, is under fire. the call to reduce chances for internet censorship - actively allows criminals to spread child pronography. On the othe rhand we have just seen a pltical intirgue around one of the two public Tv broadcasting stations, ZDF, whose director has been prevented by CDU-minister presidents sitting in the board of directors (why do poltiicians sit in the board of directors for Tv broadcasters...?) to get reelected into office, becausue he was known to be too indepedent and asking too critical questions. these two examples show that both camps in the dispute have valid, justified concerns.

I personally would prohibit members of political parties to become members of federal or national parliaments, I would prohibit political parties to constituate as organised parties, I would prohibit political mandate-holders from serving in private economy or business control boards at the same time, and I would set every economical lobbying agency on fire. This would eventually lead to a political culture again where the risk of regulating the internet a bit is less likely to be abused for political censorship as well.

Also, candidates for political offices would be needed to successfully conduct an IQ test and a long-termed character and personality observation and assessment program.

But I like Anarchy..

Very interesting read.

"The filter laws will be introduced to Parliament in august 2010 and will take a year to implement."
The writer of this article would have people believe that this is a done deal when in fact the law has not yet been passed. If he/she were to replace the word "will" with "would" it would make a huge difference.

What says the Australian Constitution?