MedVision ad

Mandatory Internet Censorship in Australia (3 Viewers)

Garygaz

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
1,827
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Anyone who thinks this filter will make any noticeable drop in child pornography is fucking retarded and needs to L2 internet. P2P cannot be filtered. Holy fucking shit.

What we get: A filter which ISPs have shown can slow traffic by up to 60% and doesn't even achieve its goals.
 

Schroedinger

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
22
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
By your own admission this filter is completely ineffective because it does not seek to directly reduce the quantity of child pornography online, but rather limit the exposure of Australian internet users to it. So for starters you're a moron.
Pot-ay-to, pot-ar-to. The filter will decrease the amount of available child pornography in Australia.

Secondly, stop trying to justify this ridiculous waste of money and time. Any reasonable human being (with the exception of lauchlan) should be able to come to the conclusion that there is an overwhelming number of websites on the internet to the point in which it is physically impossible to accurately count them. You cannot therefore filter them all. What does get filtered will inevitably get replaced, therefore rendering the filter useless.
You don't need to filter them all - just the ones with child pornography on them. And the amount of child pornography on the internet, unlike regular pornography which probably does fit your description of the internet, is a very limited resource. I read something the other week about 60 new images per day pop up.

If kids in primary schools are getting around their school filters to lookup shit like facebook and youtube, what makes you think something as sick and desperate as a paedophile wouldn't go to greater lengths?
Once more, this doesn't serve your argument. Instead, it serves to advocate further filtering of the internet. Perhaps complete and utter surveillance.

If you're really naive enough to think nobody in the government will abuse a list of secret websites the public are not allowed to visit, you need a massive reality check.
Evidence needed.

SnowFox said:
Prove it otherwise.
Internet censorship in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is at least one filter available which doesn't even approach 60%. And I doubt wikipedia is a non biased source in this case - its biased towards your side, which would skew the actual figures further toward my side.
 

Jazuzi

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
99
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Schroedinger can you please prove that there are child porn websites out there that both the government and the majority of australian pedophiles know about.

I mean if the government has a list of public child porn websites do you honestly think that the only option is to spend a massive amount of money on this heavy handed filter just to block out a few websites instead of just arresting the pedophiles who are accessing the websites?
 

SnowFox

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
5,455
Location
gone
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
Or you know, handing the websites to the AFP so they can monitor them?
 

Jazuzi

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
99
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Conroy said that wasn't the real blacklist and I don't remember seeing any child porn sites on it
 

Schroedinger

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
22
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
just because the majority of child pornography trading occurs elsewhere does not supply a sufficient reason for not being rid of the minority that occurs on the internet.

"Most domestic abuse goes unnoticed, so we should stop prosecuting domestic abuse all together!"

Classic misconception. It will not decrease availability of C.P in Australia.
If it filters at least one child pornography website, it will have decreased the amount of child pornography available in Australia. That's pure and rather obvious logic.

The studies indicate this flter will not work, and is a threat to our online freedom.
The studies indicate that some filters are a bit coarse and should hence not be adopted, The same studies found some of the filters worked and didn't have much of an impact on speed. The threat to online freedom is a slippery slope fallacy.

This is what the ISPs are supporting, what Google is behind and what the Obama administration has expressed concern about.
Appeal to [false] authority. With the exception of the Obama Administration, the other ones have a vested financial interest in not seeing the filter go ahead. As for the Obama Administration, I believe it was only the US Ambassador who came out in defense of your position, and one can hardly count him in the "Obama Administration"

Don't try to make your position seem better than it actually is please.

When did I say it needs to filter them all?
"it is physically impossible to accurately count them. You cannot therefore filter them all."

It needs to sort through what doesn't and what does have C.P, which at this time cannot be effectively done without comprising our internet speeds and having a shit error rate.
It just matches it to the blacklist which is compiled by public suggestion and government research. Nothing too complex.

Not really.
Please explain.

It serves the argument that money should be handed to the AFP so that they can directly tackle the problem rather than masking it through an ineffective and easily bypassing internet filter.
No. It serves the argument that if there is something illegal available for viewing on the internet, it should be shut down. Be it peer-to-peer, chat rooms, virtual private networks and so on.
 

scarybunny

Rocket Queen
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
3,820
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Child porn enthusiasts will have noticed all the talk about the filter, they'll already have their own plan to get around it and keep accessing the same sites.

So it won't make any difference whatsoever. The porn is STILL AVAILABLE.
 

Schroedinger

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
22
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
but there will be less of it

what part of this do you not understand?
 

scarybunny

Rocket Queen
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
3,820
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Yeah I really don't see how there will be less of it.

They're not shutting sites down, they're blocking them. They still exist. They're still easily accessible. There will still be the same number of people looking at the same number of sites with ever increasing amounts of material.

As far as CP goes, things will be very much the same.
 

Lauchlan

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
671
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
what parts do u not understand?

the filter will not effect the distribution of child porn at all period
hypothetically it will stop children from getting access to these websites should they get curious and type something "naughty" in. if thats not good enough for you then too bad.
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
hypothetically it will stop children from getting access to these websites should they get curious and type something "naughty" in. if thats not good enough for you then too bad.
CHILD PORN.

IS NOT.

HOSTED.

ON.

WEBSITES.

How HARD is it to get that? Fuck you're just pulling shit out of your ass now.
 

scarybunny

Rocket Queen
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
3,820
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
And there are loads of internet safety things for kids already available to parents.

Even basic IE has parental control options that moderate the content children can access.
 

Lauchlan

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
671
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
CHILD PORN.

IS NOT.

HOSTED.

ON.

WEBSITES.

How HARD is it to get that? Fuck you're just pulling shit out of your ass now.
never said that, your just inventing shit. "naughty" websites is what i said.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
3,411
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Uni Grad
2013
Lauchlan seems to be the most effective troll on bos these days, I find this to be rather sad.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top