Save the Internet - The Clean Feed

[Moses]

A part of the requirement for schools receiving this money is to invite Gillard to the opening and put a propaganda plaque on the buildings.

Super policy this, build a big shiny building for people to vote in, then erect a large sign up telling them who to vote for.

 

[Aussie D]

The biggest thing with KRudd I can't work out is how he is still so popular? Where are they doing the polls in and around labour party meetings?

The populace is starting to wake up to this government but it will be too late as the next election is only 9 months away.

 

[Pfitzy]

Polls are an absolute dud way to get any kind of direction from the sheeple. Ask yourself another question: How does the absolute paragon of turdosity known as the NSW Labor party keep getting back into power? Apathy, that's how!

 

[Scotty]

I have no problem with the school website thingy. I think people SHOULD be able to see where the best benefits are for their kids, provided they go and actually see those schools for themselves. Stats are one thing; experience another entirely.

I think its a good way to give the whole education system a kick up the arse. If schools are in socially disadvantaged areas then its up to the government to take a whole-of-society approach to improving it.

Great in theory, but in practice you will have the parents that care moving their kids out of the lower performing schools. Those same kids are likely to do better or already be better than others due to a work ethic from their parents. You are then left with the apathetic and poorly performing students in the worst schools, serving to make them worse. Then you will have parents wanting to live in the catchment area of the good schools, driving property prices up in those areas, and conversely down in the poorly performing school areas. This already occurs in England, and has done so for years. As far as I know their system is not seen as a success.

If the government and individual schools don't take drastic action for the poorly performing schools, then this policy and website has the potential to damage whole communities. And why do we need a public website of this kind for the government and individual schools to do something? They obviously already have all the information at hand regarding school performance - surely they should already be doing something about making these particular schools better? Do we really think that a few unhappy parents are going to be able to change the way an individual school operates and performs?

 

[Scotty]

I'm outraged by the internet filter. But I'm far too lazy & apathetic to do anything about it.

There is a line in a Mumford & Sons song that goes something like:

'If only I had an enemy greater than my apathy, I could have won'

I'm off to see these guys plus Florence and the Machine among others at the Laneway Festival in Brisbane this afternoon. There is some fantastic music coming out of the south of England at the moment.

 

[cyclopath]

I think this school thing is bollocks - I'm with Scotty. I note in the paper today (SMH) they list a few schools and various categories on the front page. 2 of the prominent primary schools are in Paddington and Woollahra. Now call me a cynic, but I suspect there is a higher chance that one or both parents of many of these kids are professionals with tertiary education, as compared to a public primary school west of Penrith for example. I also know many kids in this neck of the woods are being tutored from early ages outside of school (and yes, from age 5 onwards, believe me) because, strangely enough, their parents have more coin and can afford it. Not to mention the handy donations they might make. Hence the "raw material" is quite different from place to place. Simple things like this skew the data, and I think the whole thrust of Julia Gillard's statement the other day about parents "having a go" at deficient teachers is a very dangerous premise.
On a side note, I watched that 7 pm report the other day on Ch 10, and had to change channels - hard to watch an entire panel of guests all trying to fawn all over a politician (Gillard) at the same time with nary a difficult question anywhere to be seen. Kind of like one of naza's "thrashwanks"!! When does the honeymoon end for Rudd and Gillard, and someone from the media actually actually puts the heat on them?

 

[Pfitzy]

Yep, so socially underprivileged areas get the shitty end of the stick. That has been happening for quite a while now, and the schools in such areas aren't going to differ much, sad to say.

The comparisons listed on the website might be pointless for all we know - I haven't even looked at it because it was decided very early on that my son would go to the local Catholic school (my wife is a tyke) and the diocese has rules about where your kid will go. Easy decision.

There are much deeper social problems to address before a website proves to anyone that one school is "better" than the other. Especially in these poorer areas where the parents perpetuate the cycle of social welfare and take-take-take.

 

[Scarfman]

Judging schools is tough. It's like judging rugby coaches. You sort of have to go on results - not just academic results but also the kind of kids coming out of it.

I found the MySchools site interesting, but I have no intention of just going on testing scores alone. But I suppose some people will.

 

[Pfitzy]

Another point is that its completely useless for parents in rural areas because your choices are often very limited.

 

[MrTimms]

This issue has dropped off the radar a little, but it is still there...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322957

Justice Arnold ruled that BT must use its blocking technology CleanFeed - which is currently used to prevent access to websites featuring child sexual abuse - to block Newzbin 2.

In an email interview before the verdict, Newzbin 2 threatened to break BT's filters.

"We would be appalled if any group were to try to sabotage this technology as it helps to protect the innocent from highly offensive and illegal content," said a spokesman for BT.

The Internet Service Providers' Association has been a fierce critic of web blocking.

It said that using blocking technology designed to protect the public from images of child abuse, was inappropriate.

"Currently CleanFeed is dealing with a small, rural road in Scotland," ISPA council member James Blessing told BBC Radio 4's PM programme.

"Trying to put Newzbin and other sites into the same blocking technology would be a bit like shutting down the M1. It is not designed to do that."

Digital rights organisation the Open Rights Group said the result could set a "dangerous" precedent.

All the nuffies who think the governments clean feed is just to stop the kiddie pr0n, this should serve as a wake-up call. Once they have the ability, they WILL use it. Surprise surprise, it hasn't stopped any kiddie pr0n either...

 

[Scotty]

We have another thread where I am critical of GetUp!, however this is one thing that they have done well. Their campaigning against the filter was likely one of the main reasons why Conroy backed down. I am hoping it will go away all together, as it is one of those things that sounds good in theory however is expensive, doesn't end up working all that well, drives the likes of kiddy porn dealers further underground (less likelihood of getting caught) and worst of all is open to abuse by the government of the time.

Not sure if they are truly spending more time working out what 'restricted classification' should be, or that was just an excuse to stop a unpopular policy. It will only come back if Labor win the next election or the polls experience a massive turnaround.

 

[chief]

This issue has dropped off the radar a little, but it is still there...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322957



All the nuffies who think the governments clean feed is just to stop the kiddie pr0n, this should serve as a wake-up call. Once they have the ability, they WILL use it. Surprise surprise, it hasn't stopped any kiddie pr0n either...

I happen to be one of those "nuffies" that you allude to. I show you respect in this argument, I would expect the same. There are a lot of people who in theory would support a filter on what can be accessed on the internet. A lot of people. I am not an expert/never have claimed to be one on internet speeds and broadband. To be honest the NBN won't even effect me, as I get fast Internet speeds at a competitive price at the moment (I have however done a bit more research on the NBN, and speeds since we last engaged in this discussion, and I cannot believe that the NBN has been allowed the go ahead without a Productivity Commission report, nor a Cost Benefit Analysis.) However I digress, I in theory support a filter for child pornography. I'm ambivalent towards one within the NBN as it will slow the speeds down, but could also have adverse effects on how the dealers of child pornography distribute it as Scotty mentioned in his post. I remain in theory a supporter of a filter however I understand that in the digital age it remains largely impossible to create a strong, effective filter to censor the internet. I also don't remain as cynical as you do towards what else the government will filter.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I'm sure everyone here wants illegal websites to be taken down. The disagreement seems to be how to take them down. Censoring them wont do much, and we currently have no filter technology that will actually stop people visiting these websites (ie: The fitler can be circumvented easily). So instead of just implementing a filter which effectively does nothing and gives us the illusion that we are doing something to stop these illegal websites. We could try a number of things, handing out heavy fines/criminal sentences to anyone financially supporting these websites. Then using any information gained in a joint effort with international governments to find the people involved to take them and their websites down. The only effective way to stop these websites is at the roots.

In theory a perfect filter would work in stopping the industry. But it just isn't a reality. Also, the government will no-doubt abuse their censorship power if a filter was introduced.

 

[Moses]

I'm sure everyone here wants illegal websites to be taken down. The disagreement seems to be how to take them down. Censoring them wont do much, and we currently have no filter technology that will actually stop people visiting these websites (ie: The fitler can be circumvented easily). So instead of just implementing a filter which effectively does nothing and gives us the illusion that we are doing something to stop these illegal websites. We could try a number of things, handing out heavy fines/criminal sentences to anyone financially supporting these websites. Then using any information gained in a joint effort with international governments to find the people involved to take them and their websites down. The only effective way to stop these websites is at the roots.

In theory a perfect filter would work in stopping the industry. But it just isn't a reality. Also, the government will no-doubt abuse their censorship power if a filter was introduced.

Depends on what you mean by "illegal websites".

If you are referring to child abuse material, then absolutely no question I'd like to see them obliterated along with those who build them.

If you're referring to some of the stuff on the (leaked) "blacklist", then no, I don't see a reason to block "RC rated material which will include blocking access to web pages of banned films, books, hardcore pornography and video games that do not meet the MA 15+ standard."

If you're referring to newsgroups such as the one the UK government are now shoehorning into the child abuse legislation, then again, absolutely not. If this content is illegal then those hosting it should be prosecuted under piracy laws.

The whole concept of "refused classification" confuses me, and I've read a lot about it. Perhaps this material should actually be classified, then the stuff that is bad can be blocked.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Yea referring to Child pornography, but the same logic could also apply to stuff like internet scams/cons. I don't like the crusade against piracy, obviously websites illegally selling pirated material should be stopped but they cross the line when trying to take down websites that simply link to other websites hosting this material.

And yea, "refused classification" is a joke. It appears the government wouldn't hesitate to list blacklist anything they find 'offensive'.

 

[Karl]

If the Government, any Government, gets the power to regulate what we access in the way a theoretical Cleanfeed Filter would, it will ineveitably, INEVITABLY, get hijacked by minority and special interest groups and its scope and reach would become far wider than any of them will admit.

It will never work, but that won't necessarily stop them trying.

And remember the immortal words of Bertrand Russell:

There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.

 

[spooony]

What happened to online privacy? Whats more important. Trying to stop me watching porn or trying to stop a pervert on the internet hitting on 10 year old girl. If they wasted all that effort at informing that girl how to protect yourself and your identity online there wouldn't be so much stuff to filter on the net.

Btw did you guys know that apart from Nigeria, that Australia has the biggest amount of users that get caught out by Nigerian scams? They can try and block you seeing the dirty stuff but what about the dirty stuff coming to see you?

 

[Moses]

What happened to online privacy? Whats more important. Trying to stop me watching porn or trying to stop a pervert on the internet hitting on 10 year old girl. If they wasted all that effort at informing that girl how to protect yourself and your identity online there wouldn't be so much stuff to filter on the net.

Btw did you guys know that apart from Nigeria, that Australia has the biggest amount of users that get caught out by Nigerian scams? They can try and block you seeing the dirty stuff but what about the dirty stuff coming to see you?

I don't really understand your first sentence despite having read it four times. I guess the plan of this bill was the government could decide what's important, block whatever they want (in a way that is trivial to bypass) and then not tell anyone what they block or why.

Do you have a source for the second? I find it extremely unlikely given out small population.

 

[spooony]

I don't really understand your first sentence despite having read it four times. I guess the plan of this bill was the government could decide what's important, block whatever they want (in a way that is trivial to bypass) and then not tell anyone what they block or why.

Do you have a source for the second? I find it extremely unlikely given out small population.

So basically they already got you onto one network for all the countries stuff. So just install Narus

Now they can monitor all your internet traffic. From Email to VOIP everything. Its like the little black boxes you use to get in old days but just 100 times more advance. So you have absolute no privacy. Whatever you do they can see it.

The 2nd one I read in a mag about these scams. Nigeria was no. 1 and Australia no 2 falling for it. Probably the woman over there.

 

[Moses]

Whatever you do they can see it.

Including SSH, https, VPN etc?

The 2nd one I read in a mag about these scams. Nigeria was no. 1 and Australia no 2 falling for it. Probably the woman over there.

Still not convinced, maybe per head of population but even still I'd be surprised.