[AusNOG] Australian Censorship program to go ahead - Gillard supports a the great firewall
Darren.Moss at em3.com.au
Thu Jul 8 13:09:43 EST 2010
Whilst the organisation is peddling their own products and services, they make an interesting point regarding the filter and a "superior" alternative to the Govt. proposed internet filter.
Australia and New Zealand
[p] 1300 131 083 [f] 03 9017 2287
[e] Darren.Moss at em3.com.au<mailto:Darren.Moss at em3.com.au> [w] www.em3.com.au<http://www.em3.com.au/>
em3 People and Technology | Managed Technology Experts
postal: PO Box 2333, Moorabbin VIC 3189
New Zealand Airedale Street, Auckland City
postal: PO Box 39573, Howick 2045
[p] 09 887 0550 [f] 09 887 0273
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Oskam
Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2010 1:01 PM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Australian Censorship program to go ahead - Gillard supports a the great firewall
I think I already know the answer and the response that will be received..but I'll say it anyways.
Let's say that I access a blacklisted website by bypassing the filter by whatever means.
As the filter is supposed to be my safeguard against this content - Does this mean that if the filter, in one way or another, is ineffective in protecting me that I am not capable or being held criminally accountable?
Further to this, If I choose to bypass the filter (which Conroy has indicated will not be considered an illegal activity) am I still free from being held criminally accountable?
I guess what I am trying to say is, Who is meant to be held accountable for viewing such content? How is the filter really meant to be considered a safeguard if they are not intending to police the full extend of its effectiveness.
As a citizen, I would think that if this holy grail of filters is meant to protect me - why is the government not prohibiting me from bypassing it?
And if I am caught viewing such content and pulled to the side my the AFP - Then I would say to them that I assumed that I would be free to view the content because they did not specifically say that I couldn't bypass the system.
To me (I'm going to use an analogy here), It seems as though the government is saying:
"Well good sir, I don't want you to eat this cookie - but if you decide to ignore me and break the padlock I won't say anything :)"
Food for thought?
E percy at th3interw3bs.net<mailto:percy at th3interw3bs.net>
These comments are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or their affiliates. All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal experiences. You should conduct independent tests to verify the validity of any statements made in this email before basing any decisions upon those statements.
On 8/07/10 11:28 AM, Jacob Gardiner wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that this blacklist of websites, will not be kept secret.
I would assume that support staff and network operators at ISP's would have some sort of access to this list, which I have no doubt will be constantly leaked and updated.
Doesn't the govt. realise that this will actually be counter-productive to their argument? Instead of blocking websites, they'll in turn be publicly giving the rest of the world (and everybody who can get around the filter) an all you can eat buffet of websites containing child porn and restricted content.
This will without a doubt, cause a sudden increase in this type of material being distributed in the exact same way it is now - Online.
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the AusNOG