Aussie mandatory net filtering & sexual fetishes

[wintrmute]

Perhaps this will encourage some more of my flist to contact their local MPs..
You already know that the mandatory net filter is intended to block illegal/prohibited material.

But did you know that according to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, this includes content which describes drug use or sexual fetishesI know some of you are on Livejournal

Comments

[ms_maas]

i wrote my letter this morning. It's fun and vicious and I can't wait to print it out and send it.

[wintrmute]

Thank you!

[ms_maas]

Oh you don't need to thank me ... I'm doing this for myself. I still thank my lucky stars we escaped the censor's hammer in 99. I can't believe this is happening again, and I'm not stupid enough to assume that just because it's a dumb, unworkable, illogical, offensive idea, the government wouldn't do it anyway.

I've hit up a Canadian friend for help with setting up offline access if it does go through. Feel like giving me a quick tutorial on how to bypass the filters?

[wintrmute]

If the time comes, I'll be sure to publish some articles on how to bypass filters -- the actual method will vary, depending upon how the filters are eventually set up.
(There are varying degrees of filtering they can impose -- worst-case will be that they block *everything*, every port, every protocol, and then do content analysis of every request to determine if it should be allowed past. With those sorts of firewalls, its hard to sneak through, but still possible.. but it'll KILL the performance either way. If a simpler transparent proxy filter is installed, with no blocking of other ports, then it'll be easier to route your traffic through to a foreign proxy running on a random port. Performance will still suck though.)

[preachermuaddib]

Been reading your LJ and thanks to it reading u on this issue, I am amazed this is happening and kudos to you for publicizing it.
I find this reprehensible and I would happy send many letters if I were in your neck of the woods.

In either way mate wanted to know that I think you're fighting the good fight, little as that may mean, and keep up the good work.

Names

[wintrmute]

Yeah. for some reason, political parties always choose names that cover up their real motivations

Re: Names

[ext_105016]

The "Labor" party don't do any work.

Boom tisk!

Thank you, I'm here all week.

[pond876]

Finally wrote to the Minister and my MP (well the MP for the electorate I'm registered in.. ). Thanks for your continued reminders, I'd been putting that off for some time.

In the process of writing said letter, I came across some fantastically flawed arguments for mandatory Internet filtering, from the Australian Family Association.

http://www.family.org.au/media/sexual_integrity.htm
http://family.org.au/Pornography/filtering.htm

I can't believe the amount of baseless statistics, blanket generalisations and anonymous quotes. [citation needed!]

[wintrmute]

Hang on a mo.. according to that first site, 100% of sex crimes were committed by people who had watched pornography at least once (and imply that the pornography CAUSED the violent sex crime); and it also claims that 84% of all men have seen some pornography once... Isn't that destroying their own argument?
WTF?!

AAARGH! They make no sense yet they are going to fuck up OUR lives. :(

[wintrmute]

Erm, I should clarify that it's not the filtering of pornography that I am concerned about. Rather, I am concerned that these mad people and their obsession with pretending stuff doesn't exist will cause the government to institute something far worse, and:
a) slow down the internet massively,
b) censor all sorts of stuff.

For instance, do you think you'll be able to view charity or news sites talking about child prostitution in asia? How about breast cancer support sites? Sexual health forums? Narcotics Anonymous?
Even photos of your relative's with their new-born naked babies wouldn't be liable for censorship.

And worst of all? We, as taxpayers, are currently FUNDING this!

ARGH!

[pond876]

You may remember that Google AdSense thinks I have a latex fetish (rumours of which are greatly exaggerated!), and posts text links to fetish websites on non-sex related websites.

This is bad enough now, since so many of the websites I view use AdSense -- but if this bill gets through and starts trying to block "fetish" content, I won't be able to view a damn thing online :\

[nervegasattack]

I signed the online petition a little while ago... I will possibly write to MPs. I'm quite nervous about doing so though, because I don't want to sound ignorant about the issue. :S

[wintrmute]

Sadly, online petitions are barely worth the electrons they're written in.. :(

If you write to your MP(s) you really just need to explain that you are against the filtering.. I'm sure they have already heard the reasons for and against from other people. It's just important to stand up and be counted.

[wintrmute]

For a good explanation of the issues, try: http://users.on.net/~newton/ellis-2008-10-20.pdf

[nervegasattack]

Yesss, I'm always very suspicious of how well online petitions work, if at all. I just did a whole semester on this sort of thing, actually. >_>
I shall give the link a read!