[AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter

[Mark Smith]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:22:30 +1000
"Curtis Bayne" <curtis at bayne.com.au> wrote:

> Exactly right, but what's the worst that can happen? Government is steamrolling ahead with filtering anyway, so we may as well play the card while we've got the opportunity.
> 
> As I mentioned before, this is not a facts-based argument and people will quickly overlook hypocrisy when there is outrage to be had.
> 
> 

I'm reminded of a song, possibly before you're time ...

"Hypocrisy Is the Greatest Luxury"
(Raise the Double Standard)

by The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy


It seems to me that at a certain point, you need to take a stand,
regardless of the cost. 

I won't feel this way when I read my letters, and I won't feel this way
when I answer my phone - so why should I (under a Controy régime) feel
this way then I access the Internet?

"... The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound
that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be
picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of
vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as
heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being
watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought
Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even
conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate
they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live —
did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that
every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every
movement scrutinized."

"Nineteen Eighty-four" by George Orwell
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Edwards [mailto:john at netniche.com.au]
> Sent: Thu 7/1/2010 10:22 AM
> To: Curtis Bayne
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter
>  
> 
> On 01/07/2010, at 8:51 AM, Curtis Bayne wrote:
> 
> > Do what we (SONET) do: actively refuse to carry pro-filter content on your network. If every one of us actively deny proponents to spread their FUD, they'll get irksome and start telling everybody that we're pedophiles. Outrage = airtime and I'll be happy to tell the Today Tonight reporter what's REALLY going on.
> 
> You're suggesting that we setup an alternative filtering regime demonstrating that not only is filtering is technically possible while saving the government millions in R&D costs and trials, but also sending the message that we're ok with filtering if the moral argument suits our own interests?
> 
> John
> 
>