Comments on: Can Labor implement "clean feed" without legislation?

By: brad

brad — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:46:00 +0000

KEVIN RUDD IS A TRAITOR, he is selling us out quicker than you can say, “where’s the Australia we loved.” How dare he sell us out to the New World Order, using porn as an excuse to sensor. How dare he swagger around while people are getting kicked out of their homes.

It’s not rocket science they use a good cause like ridding porn to pass the bill, then you cant get rid of the stupid thing...It is for censorship anyone the government doesn’t like...its plain and simple.

Wake up Australia it was a big mistake putting this guy in, get this traitor out in the next election.

This censorship is going to happen in Canada and The Uk. It is the global elite stamping their New World Order authority on the world.

Watch out because it is documented they are going to phase internet 1 out and bring in internet 2 a totally controlled and censored internet where you will be paying for a lot more.

http://www.illuminatiinvestigator.com.au

By: Sharon Wilson

Sharon Wilson — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:05:22 +0000

The whole concept of this is disgusting in the extreme. How dare they, the Rudd Labour goverment attempt to decide what information I can and can't see. Are we going to have to learn Mandarin as well? Kevin Rudd you are an idiot and I'm proud to say I did not vote for you. Stay out of our lives.

By: Elth

Elth — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:28:24 +0000

I'm ashamed that our govt is this stupid. labor has been in power not even 1 year and they spend all the surplus and talk censorship of the people. Equilibrium or Utopia? censorships like iran and china have in place are abominations that cause alot of death and suffering for those that don't conform. The fact that our government has considered this sickens me

By: Tom, Adelaide

Tom, Adelaide — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:59:40 +0000

I doubt the IIA will support this diabolical (and annoyingly, practically unheard of to the public) act, but lord help us if they do

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:23:18 +0000

It comes as a real surprise to me that a Labor government would do such a thing!! I stumbled across an article on Farmonline, probably the whole thing will be soon forgotten, if I remember correctly, the coalition tried something similar under the guise of "save the children" spin. It will end up the same way as the tax on pre-mix.... lots of spin to start with "keep the teenagers safe" but at the end Rudd came clean "massive revenues lost"..... Government will never tell the truth unless it's convenient!!!! Best socialist state I ever lived in............

By: Greg in Brisbane

Greg in Brisbane — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:21:54 +0000

The trial report said they had the capability of filtering https but if they don't kids on facebook etc will learn about https in 5 minutes and then access anonymous web proxies in 6. Trying to block all those would be massive and dynamic.

Also I have been following a development with skype and social networks where voip is carried along with normal web pages and messaging. Now voip is covered by the Telecommunications Interception Act and needs a approval on a case by case basis. How on earth are they going to separate out this or are we moving to an era of universal phone tapping.

I have worked for Govt and this sounds like the time a few years ago when a State Minister wanted to ban all cookies. I had a difficult time convincing him that it would effectively kill the Internet - these days the bureaucracy wont say anything but "Yes Minister"

By: Capn P

Capn P — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 03:46:02 +0000

@ Greg:
Thats probably true, I doubt they would attempt to filter https. But to use https it must be enabled on both ends of a conversation, and I doubt many sites on the blacklist would use https for anything other than login/cash transactions.

By: Greg in Brisbane

Greg in Brisbane — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:50:46 +0000

I still can't see how they "content filter" https. and if they can, isn't that a hack. Wont that be illegal in a number of countries even if made legal here?
eg USA and EU.
i.e will an ISP intercepting offshore traffic be liable? EU privacy laws? and US "terrorism" laws. (then the the US FTA)

By: Syd Walker

Syd Walker — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:17:16 +0000

First compliments to Dale Clapperton for the excellent work you have done
so far on the Clean Feed issue.

I've published a short article pointing out that Conroy's policy seems
more akin to contemporary Turkey than America under an Obama Presidency.
To quote a Turkish academic: "Turkish politicians haven’t had any real vision
on how to develop the Internet. There are more people working on censoring
it than developing it"

Obama's policy is a pleasant contrast:

"Obama values our First Amendment freedoms and our right to artistic expression
and does not view regulation as the answer to these concerns. Instead, an Obama
administration will give parents the tools and information they need to control what
their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the
First Amendment."

Australia's international competitiveness is needlessly at risk. Outrageous!

See http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/04/conroys-tilt-towards-ankara/

By: Nemesis12

Nemesis12 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:27:23 +0000

I am slowly getting sick of this governments intense need to nanny state this country.

I am 47 years old and I will damned well decide for myself what is appropriate and what is not.

NO CLEAN FEED
NO Government censorship.

This is an assault on free speech.