[AusNOG] Australian Censorship program to go ahead - Gillard supports a the great firewall

[Andrew Oskam]

I fully agree, filtering the content simply does not rid the world of 
the sicko's and doesn't provide any form of punishment/correction.

If they know enough about what to look for and where - then they should 
issue take-downs and arrest those responsible.

Their 'cookie-style' approach which I explained in my previous email 
basically says to to me that in some way or another that they are giving 
me a "get out of jail free" card and that they really don't want me 
doing anything illegal but they won't stop me from using other means to 
do so.


Andrew Oskam

E  percy at th3interw3bs.net


NOTICE:

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 1:10 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> The issue, as I understand it is this the filter will block more than 
> one category of content:
>
> Content that is illegal to view/own/transmit (eg. Child Porn).
> Content that is "Refused Classification" which is not illegal to own 
> or view, only to sell (eg.  some kinds of Pornography, may include 
> some things related to euthanasia, abortion etc).
> Content that is incites criminal activity (terrorism, how to break 
> into locks, computer systems,may include some things related to 
> euthanasia, abortion etc).
>
> The first one is illegal.  Doesn't matter how or what, you've broken 
> the law.  No ifs or buts.  The police will come and put you in Jail.   
> And hopefully you'd rot there.   This is the case now and into the 
> future.   If the government knows about it enough to filter then WHY 
> THE **** are they not getting rid of it?? (*)
>
> The second is not an illegal activity to view.
> The third is probably not illegal, some of it relates to political 
> debate and so is very concerning about preventing people seeing it.   
> I'm also personally concerned about it as the security side of things 
> I WANT TO KNOW so I can protect my network and data centres etc (stuff 
> govt has decided is critical infrastructure).
>
> (*) I think a valid point is to suggest that the filter is the 
> government going soft on Child Pornography and abuse.   If all they 
> want to do is filter it and not use the money to find and hunt down 
> the perpetrators then that's just shoving your head into the sand.
>
> MMC
>
>
> On 08/07/2010, at 12:31 PM, Andrew Oskam wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> Andrew Oskam
>>
>> E percy at th3interw3bs.net
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100708/a060c87e/attachment.html>