Australia scraps mandatory Internet filter plan

[the_scott_meister]

I just saw this article and thought that I'd share with all of my friends down-under.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/11/08/ ... ock-child/

I'm sure most people would agree that child porn (and other types of abuse) is reprehensable and just plain evil, not to mention illegal, so it's laudable that they'd want to find a way to limit access to it. But the thing that concerns me is that they wanted to include "other objectional material" such as "extreme violence as well as detailed instructions in crime, drug use or terrorist acts." My question is who would be the ones to determine what is objectionable, and on what basis are the decisions made?

You can argue that the other things they mentioned are probably things that most people would also find objectionable, however, that would only be the start. All too soon it would expand to include other areas. If a group or gov official had a special issue with something it would eventually end up on the list. This would expand to include everything that could potentially be offensive to someone (such as men in skirts), or something that the government didn't want you to see, like the news. Eventually you'd become like China or Soviet Russia. Those who control the information control the people.

Fortunately it was scrapped in Australia (for now, anyway), but this could end up being brought to an ISP near any one of us unless we stay vigilent. Constant Vigilance, as Mad-Eye Mooney used to say.

[Tor]

Congratulations to the down under folks who were intelligent enough to take a cattle prod - or at least a buzzer - to that camel's nose. So true on all counts.

Tor

P.S. It looks like you've got a typo in the name. s/Mooney/Moody/ A misbehaving spell cheque perhaps?

[Big and Bashful]

You don't often see the people "in power" make a sensible decision, what a pleasant change!