CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Hey, I'm doing that same topic for my school's competition!
C-grade! E-hi5! Anyways, I think this debate is kind of one sided and I would hope that you're not on the affirmative. So, the main point that you want to push is about restricting child pornography. But that's only one argument so good luck thinking of more. Also, you might consider bringing up the example of China's internet filter and all the good points about it (if there are any). Good luck in you competition! I've probably been no help anyway -___-
Yeps, I'm from Victoria University Secondary College Brimbank Campus (formerly know as Brimbank College before a stupid merge with other crappy school around the district) and in the Essendon region doing C-Grade as well. I don't know what side I'm on yet because they haven't released the Essendon draw yet. SMC? I'm guessing that's your school and I'm going to take a punt and say that's St. Michael's College. Correct me if I'm wrong. Which I probably am.
Child pornography? Geez I thought that was the government's approach LOL.
Ok, try and argue this and you might stand a chance at your competitions:
Child porn can be censored simply enough at home with the installation of a censoring software by your parents. This will encourage parents to be responsible parents and not just rely on the government to look after their kids for them!
Spending millions on a censorship system that can be simply circumvented by running a software is just wasteful and naive! What's more, it encourages parents to be lazy and have a false sense of security.
Have you heard of UltraSurf by the way? That's how people circumvent China's Great Fire Wall, chaps! And they spent BILLIONS on that GFW!
Yes, but only sealing it off to children wouldn't help at all. I'm going to make a generalisation here and say that they're all on Facebook or their preferred method of social networking. Adults are free to do anything on the internet so what's to stop them from looking at it? That's right, nothing!
So we're not just talking about protecting the little children? Ok, if adults like that kinda stuff, then that's where the police comes in. It's easier to detect and catch those accessing child porn when they do it openly. If you put a system in there which makes them all go sneaking around to access that stuff, it'll be a lot harder to detect them and catch them.
I'm just being a good samaritan and helping you kids out with your homework! I'd take some notes if I was you.
It has been refuted by many experts that the filter will not affect childporn much. This is because they are generally shared via peer-to-peer downloading and from chatrooms, which is outside the scope of the filter.
I'm all for a filter that will do its job of reducing crimes and cleaning up the internet a bit, but it has to do this without affecting our rights to freedom of speech. The government needs to be a lot more transparent about the whole thing if they still want to be the government in the next federal election.
"It has been refuted by many experts that the filter will not affect childporn much."
I'd like to hear some names if you don't mind.
You are right, an Internet filter needs to do its job effectively. So, why are we talking about an Internet filter that blocks automatically without question? Of course, the government can do whatever they think is right, but at the end of the day, they merely represent us, and if we want change, it happens, or the government do not last long.
The system can work, we just need patience and a voiced opinion.
Governments are going to block all the sites which has violence and that has illegal things that horrifies other epeople, so just because you are adult doesn't means that you can do everything you want to do. As you are an adult, you are a rolemodel to the children. Since you are a rolemodel to the children, you shouldn't go in any of violent and illegal sites. That will teach children how to be violent and it will make more crimes and I think no one wants more violence and there won't be any peace in Australia. To put Australia in peace and to have less people who makes crimes, we shouldhave internet filter to block all the horrifying pictures, languages and terrible things in the internet, so no one get affected by the internet.
Australia should adopt a National internet Filter, because there are certain pages that has illegal materials that you should not see. I know that no one can tell you what to do, but as long as you are living in Australia, you should follow what government is suggesting you. they made you live here to make your happy life, so can't you just trust them on this? It actually gives lots of benefit... no one will learn bad languages from internet and also the child pornography won't be created anymore, because it will be blocked to see it. The certain pages with violence will be blocked by this filter and you won't see what you don't want to see and also no one will become violently after using internet which makes less murdering and makes less crime in Australia.
We strongly should adopt a National Internet Filter to make Australia, the better place, with better people to make Australia, the most happiest country in the world.
Until I know the exact answers to the above 3 questions, I'm not going to vote my right to freedom of speech away. And if you're a responsible citizen of a democratic country, you would not vote for something the government has been quite secretive about! The whole thing is shrouded in mystery. Be responsible and vote NO!
Yes, I know what exactly will be blocked. The government will be blocking illegal sites that you shouldn't be going on, so when it is blocking than it means they are not good for you and you won't go in there, because even though you try it twice, you could never get in there.. and since government made this, they will be the one who will decide which one is good for Australians. they have rights to do that, because they are oing that, because they care about their people. We elected them. We all elected them, because they gave us lots of help in our society.
They will decided which sites that everyone likes to go in, which sites that everyone doesn't really like to go in.. and they will blocked all the sites that is unwelcome to the people in Australia. I guess that answer all of your three questions:)
How can you know what will be blocked when the list of what is being blocked has itself been censored by the government, after it got leaked for a few hours?
Because the list of sites is unavailable to the public, for all we know it could contain anti-Rudd Government information that they just don't want people to hear about, should we ever get a mind of our own and vote against them in the next election. As for ALL OF US electing them, what happened to those that voted Liberal at the last election? If the government so cares about us, why aren't they even listening for our opinion on the matter and censoring the list of things that they will be censoring us from? I almost forgot to mention the pointlessness of the other internet scheme they have, which is to implement national broadband to make the net faster, but then they'll put in this massive pointless filter which will slow it right down again. All we can do is say goodbye to the billions of our tax-payers dollars going down the drain.
Can I also ask, julie603, what age demographic are you in? As I believe that there is a bias among the older generations who don't use the internet very often and believe that us younger generations should be "put in place".
Ok, please define illegal sites. Do they include instructions on civil disobedience methods? That's how detailed you'll need to get.
Does the system stop emails from one criminal to another? If it doesn't, how will it help us?
Can't the internet police just track down criminals who access illegal websites and arrest them? Why do we need to spend a huge amount of money on a system to filter the illegal material when criminals can just use UltraSurf software to circumvent it?
We elected our government, and once they're in power they find ways to restrict our freedom so they can exert more control over our lives, they will find ways to stop us freely communicating with each other (free and powerful democratic societies need this), then eventually the government controls us instead of us controlling the government! That's what is happening in China right now! I don't care about your broken English, but when you're debating, I care about your ability to be logical and convincing, and you're not very logical nor convincing: Your sentences run all over the place and so I still don't know:
exactly what will be banned,
who gets to decide, and
how they decide?
and how is this better for us then having internet police?
I told you.. since we elected those governemnts, we need to put a faith in them..
They said those internet filter will block all those sites which will unwelcome you. How do they know which sites will unwelcome you? because other people will unwelcome the sites that you dislike as well.. and I told you.. it is a governement who is deciding this. Don't you understand English?
HOw are they deciding? I can't believe.. I need to say the whole thing again.. I am really sorry, but I can't believe that you are just making me repeat everything I sadi before. The government is going to decide which sites is bad by getting votes in each state, so everyone will choose which sites will be band and I think that is fair thing to do, because that way, It is showing that they respect us for who we are. It is also showing that they are not just trying to take our money. They are trying to help us.
This is way better for us then having internet police, because for internet police, you need to call them and they might be far away and they won't really help you if you have issues in your internet, unlike internet filtering, they will blockall the sites that will horrify and makes you violent. In that way, you won't have much problem so instead of going to the police, you can just leave it, because it will be blocked by the internet filter and as soon as when you are relaxed, you can't even see that site anymore which is great:)
Ok, this time your sentences are marginally better constructed!
I understand that we need to trust our governments, but they are also capable of making wrong decisions, no? I can give you quite a few examples where governments have made wrong decisions before! They're not gods!!!
1 - So you say that they decide on the "bad" sites by votes. How many votes? 50%??? Do you know? I mean if that's the case, every site that gets banned is almost like an election?
Here's something you should consider:
What if myself and 10,000 other people think that we should ban a particular website showing instructions on how to purchase a gun and operate that gun effectively to hunt. We recommend the government ban this site because it may teach people how to commit murders.
Will the government ban that website?
What if 10,000 people find that website useful for their research on their hunting hobby and they don't want that banned?
Ok, about the internet police, they're not like the normal police my dear. They work with computers, they trace your connections to sites that are deemed illegal and they track down your address to arrest you. They do all this without your knowing anything about their actions.
How does blocking websites get rid of criminals? Criminals exist even if those websites are blocked and they can find a way to circumvent the blocking system like I told you before...
Good luck with your research, but I think I've helped you enough. If you can't be convincing on this debate, then I doubt you'll be able to win it at school... Take my advice and try to be more logically convincing and provide some evidence of your research by quoting some official numbers or something relevant to your arguments... but don't make up numbers, that's going to make you look stupid when you can't provide the source of the data.
"Yes, I know what exactly will be blocked. The government will be blocking illegal sites that you shouldn't be going on, so when it is blocking than it means they are not good for you and you won't go in there, "
And who are you (or the government) to decide what is and is not good for me to look at. And i will be going in there anyway, filter or no filter, since it's so easy to circumvent.
"and since government made this, they will be the one who will decide which one is good for Australians"
Again, what gives the government the right to decide what is good for Australians to view.
"They will decided which sites that everyone likes to go in, which sites that everyone doesn't really like to go in.. and they will blocked all the sites that is unwelcome to the people in Australia."
Every poll and survey conducted has shown that the people in Australia overwhelmingly oppose the introduction of the filter. I guess that means we won't have a filter? Or are they going to ignore public opinion and push their own interests .. hmmmm
It simply isn't true that the government will be blocking illegal sites. As the proposal has currently been described by Senator Conroy, the majority of content that would be eligible for blocking is legal.
In any case, since the blacklist will ostensibly be secret, there is no way for you to know what the government is blocking - unless of course you work for the government. ;-)
Wow, I was wrong in my last comment. You're just blissfully ignorant of how governments work.
Governments exist to keep order. A good government is actively monitored by its citizens so that it cannot mistreat them, it is transparent in its legislation, and benevolent in its policies.
But all governments must maintain their authority, and the best way to do this is to prevent sedition, and keep citizens from accessing information that will rouse them, or show them the corruption in their government's underbelly.
Allowing a national internet filter is effectively allowing your government to tell you what you can read, what you can listen to, what opinions you can be exposed to. It amazes me that people as unknowingly harmful to free society like you exist.
My name is Aaron Keeling from Heathdale also competeing in the DAV. I'm in C grade and am doing this topic. i'm affirmative and my main idea is that australia needs to adopt a national internet filter (as aposed to an international filter such as a windows microsoft filter) to help grow australia's local economy and community. The filter could also be more relevant for Australia's culture and needs that could be different from other countries. i would apprieciate any more good ideas but i think it would be wise to steer away from decribing what we should filter because other international filters already filter it.
1 - Because in the long run, after several thousands of dollars going towards the whole Filtration System, we will find that the Government will be wasting little more dollars in areas such as Internet Police work. I know your immediate response, and that is that 'criminals can work around this'. My point is not aimed at criminals, but towards problems such as cyber bullying. If we continuously need to set up investigations based on this offensive site and that offensive site, then we are just pouring our money into a quick-fix solution that doesn't help in the long run. At least with a National Internet Filter, we would, as I have said in a previous debate, 'hit the problem on the head.' We will also see a decrease in the creation of unnecessary websites that would not even meet the requirements, pouring that money, instead, back into the economy, and not into the bank account of an online nerd. Finally, there will also be a higher and more appropriate use of Internet resources for educational use, which benefits the child, which helps in the long run, etc, etc. Piece it together, its not that hard.
2. A community comes together based on social or cultural similarities (how they can relate to one another), and this may very well assist in that category. If one man finds pornography highly offensive and so does another man, then perhaps they can find a sense of similarity. If one man finds that online gaming is fun and should be kept, and so does another, then again, they share in the joy of similarity, and probably play games together for a long time. OK, immediate response (prediction) would be the question of 'how could they possibly know that they share this similarity?' The answer isn't simple, it actually involves this ability that most people have, I'm sure you've heard of it; it's called talking! People see a percentage of 'agreed-upon' with decisions, they share, compare, and move on with their lives. People will make friends; people will make enemies. the important thing is that it will draw in a community like never before.
3. This is similar to 2, mainly due to the fact that people may see beyond mere cultural similarities and towards social similarities. Australia can define itself as a country that understands what its people want, and can act upon these understandings in further benefit to the nation. Racial hate will drop in one figure or another, and then the progress picks up again. Australia branches out the Filtration choices, decides even further how they will want a National Filter to work in Schools, Homes, Workplaces, etc, etc.
"If we continuously need to set up investigations based on this offensive site and that offensive site, then we are just pouring our money into a quick-fix solution that doesn't help in the long run.'
What if "Joe elected official" decides Create Debate is offensive because of one particular post? and its blocked forever? you are going down the slippery slope turn around now before its to late and all you get is propaganda on the web.
But they are just "investigations". These investigations could result in the blockage of a whole website, or more commonly just a section of the website which is considered to be offensive. And most of these blockages are only blocked temporarily until suitable changes are made. For example, the government won't block U tube just because of one indecent video. they will just block the video in question or, more commonly, just edit it. they do that with a lot of songs already, like Lily Allen's song "the fear" where some inappropriate words were sung. A national Internet filter system's purpose is not to block a whole lot of websites but to create a safer environment on the Internet by modifying inappropriate sites and establishing a higher standard of Internet sites that Australians should expect when using the Internet. Blocking a certain website for good would be the very last result
'A national Internet filter system's purpose is not to block a whole lot of websites but to create a safer environment on the Internet by modifying inappropriate sites'
How would you know this is the case. Do you work for the government? Because the last I heard - they have not even spoke about what they're going to block and whether they're going to just 'edit' things out. If websites are taken away for good, there could be a lot of reasons why, not just that it is inappropriate.
'And most of these blockages are only blocked temporarily until suitable changes are made.'
What happens if the web maker decides not to change the 'offensive' material on the site? What is the government classifying 'offensive' as?
Do you honestly believe that a politicion is going to look at a debating website as offensive, merely due to one post? Sorry, but I can't help but laugh. You assume that our political system is corrupt and incredibly biased when it comes to the internet. You show no evidence that it is a possibility... and expect us to believe it?
Now, if you are making comparisons between Create Debate and other social interaction sites (i.e blogs, chatspaces, etc), then you should again rethink your argument. The whole concept of a debating site is to argue a point, and bad blood is going to flow between users sooner or later. The single fact here on the site which differs us from other sites is that we are able to deal with effective users will show any politician that the site is in fact not offensive towards users, and in rare instances, can quickly deal with anything of the sort that may arise, correct me if I am wrong.
"Because in the long run, after several thousands of dollars going towards the whole Filtration System, we will find that the Government will be wasting little more dollars in areas such as Internet Police work."
Here's a thought: maybe you should be focusing your efforts on decommissioning internet police, if their job is to simply hunt down offensive web content then they are effectively internet nannies paid to take care of you. If it's about illegal web content, you're just giving an excuse for your government to tell you what is and is not alright for you to see. That's how it starts you know, innocuous policies like illegal website filtering, child pornography, etc. then soon it becomes dissident political websites, websites that question certain policies. Don't believe me? Lookup the leaked ISP internet filter lists and the legitimate content they block.
"We will also see a decrease in the creation of unnecessary websites that would not even meet the requirements, pouring that money, instead, back into the economy, and not into the bank account of an online nerd"
Which isn't the job of government in the first place. Government isn't supposed to deny its citizens the right or ability to use a technology like a website creation tool based on its content being too trivial.
"Australia can define itself as a country that understands what its people want, and can act upon these understandings in further benefit to the nation. Racial hate will drop in one figure or another, and then the progress picks up again. Australia branches out the Filtration choices, decides even further how they will want a National Filter to work in Schools, Homes, Workplaces, etc, etc."
Again, not the role of government. YOU can do that on YOUR computer, but it isn't a government's job to legislate the majority's tastes onto you a la censorship. You realise that China proudly spins its censorship much like you are doing, touting its filter as a means to achieve social harmony and prevent low-quality trash that threatens peace.
By the way, if this "for side" is representative of Australians' attitudes as a whole, I really feel sorry for you guys. You're just begging for a government that does everything for you, including your thinking. I guess sheep really can bring about a regime.
1 - Cyber bullying? Offensive sites = internet bullying? You've lost me I'm afraid...
About money being shifted over to a better use: I'm not convinced that a filter will all of a sudden increase the number of "good" websites. Think about it, I'm Joe Paedophile and I want to create a website for childporn, but because of the filter I can no longer do that... so instead I will create a website for educational purposes?! That's kinda funny... you give bad people too much credit there my friend :)
2 - Without the filter, the community will still come together for online games and those who hate porn will still band together and reject it. The only reason the community will come together more than they already have is to reject this national filter the way it's been presented to them.
So... I hope you have better responses in your actual school debate... or hope to God that your opponents can't think of this obvious rebuttal... oh wait a minute you don't believe in God! ;)
3 - The argument for the system being relevant to Australia's culture and needs is pretty easy, but you've made a mess of it... Sigh... You should think about how it will be different to other filters in other countries and how it will respond to Australia's needs specifically, how is Australian culture different to Chinese culture for example...
Again, you are asking from me what I already know, I just haven't made an effort to state it.
The whole concept of our Internet filter being different to those of China's has already been mentioned; next time make an effort to look. I will actually explore that in more depth in my debate (which happens to be 6 days away).
What is it with you and personally consulting me? First it is my sense of logic and now it is my religious beliefs? Are you a debater or a Wannabe-Parent? Actually, never mind, I really don't want to go there...
"...those who hate porn will still band together and reject it."
Incredible, I'm actually going to assume that you are American or from another distant country. In case you didn't know, here in Australia neighbours don't just band together and say "let's suddenly try and ban pornography," because that just doesn't happen here pal. It takes BIG things for things to happen, and unless pornography has killed a few children recently I don't think that is going to cut it. The concept of a National Internet Filter has been spoken of quietly in not just parliemant. Some of us actually know that we can make it work, despite what anyone says.
The word is not "consulting". It's "insulting". And no, I'm not insulting you. I'm trying to make fun of you, there's a difference, but maybe it's not working... :]
I actually wouldn't waste my time debating with kids (unless they're mine) but I've simply got too much time on my hands at the moment so I can afford to sit here and actually debate with 15 year-old you. I still don't know what you're saying half the time though, so good luck with the debate anyways.
If you are, then I'll ask nicely for you to stop, so that you can remain here on the debate.
Also, please keep posts relevant, I'm actually taking notes, as I am sure that what you say isn't BS, and may actually arrise in the debate. If so, I'll be ready for it. If not, well, it is less for me to rebut.
If you really think that I am unconvincing, then perhaps that relates to the fact that I am not trying to convince you. You are practice to me, not an audience. I'm not afraid to test out a few theories and watch you personally "make fun" of me, following with threats to ban me from debates, calling me an "unworthy debater."
So, keeping it short and sweet, don't reply, and I won't ban you from the debate (see, I can do that, after all, it is my debate), just throw something at the wall and get over it.
Ofcoarse! our children are being exploited in this country not only by our government but also by the media, our tv, our advertising, it's all corrupt. No wonder we have violent children who end up in jail. Australia has the highest suicide rate. We have an alcohol problem, we have a divorce problem, we have confused children Why ? Because this government has created its own Monsters>>.
I'm also in the aforementioned C grade debating competition, from the same school and team as SMCdeBater. I just got back from my debate and , just to let everyone know, we won. We were affirmative and our main arguments were that we need a national internet filter for protection of young people, and that an Australian national internet filter doesn't have to be like China's one because we are a democracy, while in China, the government is in charge of everything. The other team said we would become like china, but I, being second speaker, reinforced the argument that we ae a democracy; if we became the slightest bit like china, we wouldn't elect that government again.
Okay, starting off, I won my debate, and claimed best speaker, so people like NVYN can take this proof as an example that I actually can debate.
Now, getting on topic, I am going to redirect my arguments to better suit some of the ones that my team used at the debate: we should adopt a national internet filter, though it should differ from that of the governments choice. It should be a national internet filter that promotes the right of choice, and therfore, allows for users to not only be granted a warning for particular sites that shouldn't be completely blocked, but to also leave power in the hands of the Australian citizens.
well,, I am here to say in my debate competition we won.My side was Australia should adopt a National Internet Filter.
We won the debate and we really should for everyone's sake. if there is less people who will watch bad things in the internet because of the filter, there will be less people who will commites crimes such as taking Child pornography.. and if there is less crimes.. we will have more peace.. n I think everyone in here, agrees about that we are talkng and arguing about this to have peace and I say if you want peace in Australia, we have to asopt a national internet filter for sure.
People should be able to look at whatever they want. The government shouldn't have to create a filter, the citizens are old enough to choose what they want to look at.
Because it shouldn't be the governments job to raise children. All computers have parental control. The parents can block sites they feel are inappropriate and are over a certain level
"People should be able to look at whatever they want." Then people are "children" nothing stops children when parents are not home. We are being exploited as we speak every day every hour. If you run a country you are acting as an adult as a parent the government is responsible in every way. Why do you think Muslim countries ban all abusive media and books? So not to corrupt people. So not to create Monsters and confuse our children. Pedophiles love you to choose what you want to watch on the Internet. How do you think a pedophile became a pedophile he was also exploited as a child. Think about it even before computers came about our governments allowed pornographic magazines on the shelf.
"Then people are "children" nothing stops children when parents are not home"
On the contrary. The parents have the option of disabling the internet/computer when they are not home. The parents have the options of installing a PC-based filter on their pc, which will be far more effective, reliable and won't force their views onto the entire population.
"Why do you think Muslim countries ban all abusive media and books?"
For the same reason they ban women from showing any skin and women who are raped are stoned because they invited it. Oppression.
"How do you think a pedophile became a pedophile he was also exploited as a child."
Exactly, he was exploited as a child, it has nothing to do with the internet. Unless you're suggesting the internet caused his computer to grow arms and beat him.
plus: An adult pedophile today, would not have had the internet in his house when he was a child. It's a relatively new thing in homes. If he did, it would have been 33.6k/56k dialup.
" So not to corrupt people"
Some of us are capable of making our own morale choices. We're not lemmings who are corrupted by everything we see. When was the last time you saw a porn video and immediately walked outside and thought "boy, i should rape that women". When was the last time you played a first person shooter video game, walked outside and thought "man, it would be cool if i shot that guy in the head".
"We are being exploited as we speak every day every hour. "
Yes, we are being exploited by our government and by fringe lobby groups who are trying to force their morale views onto the entire country.
"If you run a country you are acting as an adult as a parent the government is responsible in every way."
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the government. They're there to run the country on our behalf, the create policies and laws that reflect the will of the public (which has proven to be overwhelmingly against the censor, just fyi). Not to run our lives. If you must compare the government to something, they're the caretaker of the property, not the parent. Hired to serve us and maintain our country, not control us.
The government is not my parent. My parents are 2 people who i call mom and dad. They decided how they wanted to raise me and they raised me to be a well rounded individual who can decide for himself the difference between right and wrong without being told what to think by the government.
The governments have rights to create a filter for us. They are the ones who we elected them for our benefits. They are actually helping us by doing this. We choose them. We elected them so they can help us to make Australia, a better country with better people. We all needs to put a faith on our government.they are not locking all the sites. They are only blocking the ites, which might horrify other people and to know that they are going to put a vote of which internet sites are good for all of Australians and the sites that everyone hates will be banned to look so there will be less people who will make crimes or get affected by the internet.
Don't look at sites you believe aren't good, parents can put parental controls on the computers for kids, and people should have the choice to know what sites are out there. If they don't want to see the site, don't go to it.
What about young kids who shouldn't be exposed to inappropriate sites filled with content such as pornography, and are exposing themselves to it? Are they going to willingly to just not go to it? It is wrong to say that parents do all they can, because if they did, then maybe we wouldn't have as many (or any) adolescent suicides based from cyber bullying, etc.
It has been proven that parental controls do not work, as many bypasses have been found for parental controls. Also, these controls are not directly monitored.
With a National Internet Filter, people are continuously watching for ANYTHING out of the ordinary, and if something happens, then they will know about it!
So you're proposing that parents don't have to be responsible for what their children do on the internet and that the government is responsible for it? Some parents are already irresponsible enough, this filter will make parents even more irresponsible thinking that everything is taken care of by the government and they no longer need to worry. That's a false sense of security that will destroy a country inside out one day.
Suppose that a website was found to be "bad", how many people need to vote for it to be removed by the filter?
"So you're proposing that parent's don't have to be responsible for what their children do on the Internet and that the government is responsible for it?
You assume very wrongly.
I am stating that parents can always do more for their children in terms of responsibility, they just don't have the time (or in many cases the discipline) to do it, and effectively. With an Internet filter, parents who are actually trying to make an effort, but are lacking the time, can find themselves more relaxed and therefore, reassured. As for those parents who are already irresponsible, then I suppose that they're the ones who need to be regulated, though this could not be easily achieved, nor can this simply be "found" by the government. If you're talking about security, then that involves security, and therefore, parental rights should be taken and moved to a more responsible adult. We cannot blame an Internet filter for a parent's lack of responsibility, that is just the wrong way to turn.
Voting? I am assuming that by that you refer to electing which sites stay and which don't. One word: categorization. Good or bad, the public will know, and at the end of the day, majority rules doesn't it? Now, this is different in some cases; the cause of public outburst cannot be without fair reason, and it will also depend on the opinions of those who are against that reason. If all seems fair on one end of the scale, and proves to have a fair and reasonable number, then why shouldn't it be done?
Not bad! Parents who care but don't have the time! Not bad at all...
Ok, how about the voting system? Can you be 100% certain on the voting mechanism? I don't think the government has told anyone how it works yet... You say "majority rules" and "fair and reasonable number" but what exactly does that mean? Majority of Catholics? Majority of people in 1 state? Majority in the whole country? Majority of people who spend most of their time online at night? Don't assert something and leave yourself open for mockery when you don't know for sure!
You shouldn't support a system you don't know about very well that and has the potential to restrict your freedom. Your opposition team is going to play this card well, so if you can't beat it, you might be staring at a defeat come 5 day's time.
True, I could stare at defeat come 5 days time; anything is possible.
As for the term "majority," you would have to consider several different cases: The Type of Site, The people that have a problem with the site, what kind of people they are, how many of these people there are, the type of people who oppose the concept of a problem, who those kind of people are, and how many of them there are.
This "voting" concept is complex, and should be handled with care by the government.
Now, let's pull out an example, just to make things easier:
200 people of African background find the Internet site createdebate.com offensive, because there have been racial topics posted that have insulted their community. This issue was drawn to the communities attention by only 10 young boys who use the site for half an hour every weekday. The community looks carefully at the post and suggest that due to this post the entire site should be shut down to prevent any similar topics from being posted. The government then announce that to the entire nation that createdebate.com has been found as possibly offensive, and ask for a count on how many people disagree with the problem. 10,000 people come forward, all suggesting that the site is not offensive. These people have all been noted to be regular users of the site, using it for one hour each weekday. The government then consider that higher numbers rest with the people opposing, and that the problem only exists in one particular part of the site. The government recommend to the community of those with African background that it is best not to filter the site, and suggest that the community simply leave the issue at rest.
This is what I refer to by "majority rules." Not just a number count, but a consideration of many aspects, both with the people and the site (from the one problem to the entire site in general).
Really? This is how the system really works? I must have missed the memo about it... What if the community of people of African background number in the 20,000? That's twice as many people who want it filtered than those who want it to stay... I dunno joe, I mean I know you're not trying to convince and I'm only practice to you and everything like that or whatever, but dude, are you sure about this system? I mean it could really stink... y'know? I don't wanna smelly system... definitely not... I mean I'm not even a tax payer but golly gosh macintosh, it's a bit an expensive toy for the government that the taxpayers are paying for isn't it?
So, the only argument you are left with is the cost? Well, since you're banned, I really shouldn't be bothering since you cannot reply, but I need the rebuttal practice, so I'll go ahead.
It is a great expense in the beginning; that is a given, but this is going to save us money in the long run.
1) Online Law Enforcement is no longer a major requirement, and therefore, no longer requires major funding.
2) Unnecessary websites are no longer needed, and therefore are not wasted upon or created.
3) Taxpayers are paying for their online protection, and the protection of the entire Nation. It will draw harm, but it will create far more good.
"1) Online Law Enforcement is no longer a major requirement, and therefore, no longer requires major funding."
An online filter will not replace law enforcement. That's like saying because we have speed cameras we no longer need police cars on the streets. Because we have alarm systems, we no longer need security guards. The filter actually does nothing to prevent online crime, it blocks a few pages selected by the government because they contain controversial information.
"2) Unnecessary websites are no longer needed, and therefore are not wasted upon or created."
I'm confused, do you understand how the internet works? The government has absolutely no control over the creation of websites whatsoever. Bocking a few webpages doesn't stop webpages being made, and why would we want it to? Stopping webpages being made wouldn't save the government any money either. Just to put things into perspective. There are several trillion unique webpages out there, increasing drastically every year. The current blacklist contains 1,000. Compare those 2 figures. And tell me just how much of an impact do you think this censor is going to have.
"3) Taxpayers are paying for their online protection, and the protection of the entire Nation. It will draw harm, but it will create far more good."
The censor provides no online protection from anything. It does not block child pornography, child pornography is destroyed by the federal police long before the ACMA can blacklist the webpage its on. In fact, its not even actually traded on webpages, most traders of child pornography use private networks and the like. It does not successfully block other webpages either. Anyone and everyone can circumvent it at will. And no-one was even forcing them to go to a "harmful" webpage to begin with.
"Well, since you're banned, I really shouldn't be bothering since you cannot reply,"
That's the spirit, way to encourage a good debate, ban dissenting opinions.
"The governments have rights to create a filter for us."
The government has the right the introduce law, They also have the obligation to introduce laws that reflect the will of the public. The entire purpose of the government is to serve the public. We tell the government what we want to have in Australia, the government doesn't tell us what they want us to have in Australia.
"They are the ones who we elected them for our benefits. We choose them. We elected them so they can help us to make Australia, a better country"
We elected them to deliver the policies that they outlined in their election campaign. The internet censor is not one of them. The internet filter was introduced at the last minute of the last hour right before the election. Most people don't even know it exists, so how can you claim that we elected them to do this.
"We all needs to put a faith on our government"
No, we do not. This is the purpose of transparency and accountability. So that we, the people who elected the government can see how they are handling the policies that we elected them for and make a decision about whether we want to elect them again. Simply putting 'faith' in the government and taking it for granted that everything they do is for our own good belies the purpose of a democracy.
"to know that they are going to put a vote of which internet sites are good for all of Australians and the sites that everyone hates will be banned"
This policy involves no voting on what material is banned. In fact, the list of banned materials will not even be available and will be kept secret with no accountability.
"will be banned to look so there will be less people who will make crimes or get affected by the internet."
There has never been any link proven between the viewing of violent, sexual or controversial materials and the perpetration of criminal offences. Forgetting that for a moment, the censor will not even stop people from looking at these materials. Most 12 year olds posses the technical knowledge to circumvent these filters.
Home PC based filters have always proven to be a far more reliable and effective method for screening out unwanted materials in a household and do not require infringing on the liberties of those who do not want their information censored.
The government has done the same thing for the Chinese. Yet when you hear about the citizens they can't even type in 'freedom'. Australia is known as a country to be a free for all to have a say in what they believe in. If the government begins something like this, it will show they distrust us and most off all they will take our freedom away. Even this website could be taken away because of some of the issues brought up in it.
Anyway, we have the choice of going on these sites -a choice - is when someone makes a decision about something. So if they choose to go on a website, they are entitled to see and read what ever is there and suffer any consequences that may arise.
We are on a school team that will be debating this subject tomorrow and we are obviously on the negative team :D
The Rudd government's Censorship regime will attempt to prevent access to web pages that have been Refused Classification.
If it was about illegal material, they'd say it was about illegal material. But they don't: they say "Refused Classification."
Refused Classification does not mean "illegal." It just means that the material does not fit into the MA15+, R18+ or X18+ shoeboxes. Again, if it were truly illegal, they wouldn't be mincing words; they'd just come out and say "illegal." Most Refused Classification material is perfectly legal to possess, and to read/view in the privacy of one's own home, in most parts of Australia.
Child pornography? Sure, that's illegal. In every country in the world. So why in your right mind would you approve of a system whereby our government says "Here's a list of child pornography on the World Wide Web. Let's give that list to ISPs and tell them to prevent people from accessing it."
I'd prefer them to give that list to the police, who can liaise with their international counterparts and have the filth deleted, and the distributors/perpetrators hunted down and brought to justice.
This Rabbit-Proof Firewall will not prevent one single child from being raped.
This Rabbit-Proof Firewall will not bring one single paedophile one single step closer to a gaol cell.
It should be scrapped once and for all, and the money sent to the Australian Federal Police's High-Technology Crime Unit.
I'm all for law and order, but by George, I'm also for freedom of speech and personal responsibility. So as a responsible member of a democratic nation, I'd like to say that I ain't voting for nothing until I:
1 - know exactly what it is,
2 - how it works and
3 - how it affects our lives.
Voting for anything before you know the answers to these questions is proof that you're not using your brains and so you should give it away and go join a flock of sheep somewhere in China...
The Australian government has been keeping quite a tight lid on the whole thing, so noone knows much about how it works or what exactly will be filltered. Shame on them! I thought Australia was a democracy, oh wait a minute, it is!!! I suggest its citizens use their voting powers and force the government to be transparent about the whole thing and if they refuse, to vote them the hell out of parliament!!!
To know exactly which sites will be band... you need to vote... Don't you get it, sir? that everyone is going to vote to say which site is good and which site is bad for them.. and the sites that has not much votes will be banned to look at it... How it works.. Okay.. when you go to the illegal site,, It will suddenly go black and you are not even allow to clik anything on that site.. and you need to click going back, because you can't do anything to put the blocking away.
Also I think it is rude to say that I don't have a brain.. what would you say if I said to you that you don't have a brain, sir? You won't be happy, won't you? exactly.. we all have feelings..and in debating.. I don't want to go cross the line of the manners that we should have in debating.
This will help us keeping out from those horrifying sites and we won't get affect by those sites, which means, we can finally trust the internet and find lots of good things, instead of being afriad of which site that we might see... :)
Dear oh dear, when did I say you don't have a brain?
Firstly, I didn't address you directly, so just relax about it because it was not said to you personally.
Secondly, my actual words were "...not using your brains...", it's very different from not having a brain.
And none of what you wrote here is convincing... I mean if sites can be horrible, just switch to another site! Don't look at it! Nobody makes you sit there and look at horrible sites!
You'll still need to explain the details of the voting mechanism, don't explain to me how the blocking effects work. I already know how it works, you simply can't access blocked sites! But like I said I can use a software to circumvent the whole system!
In regards to how the filter will work, here is my understanding:
The public will complain about a site they deem to contain illegal content, but they will NOT get to vote. The Australian Communication Media Authority (ACMA) will decide whether it goes on the 'black list' or not. The black list will be a list of banned sites. The public however, will not be aware of what is on the black list. People from ACMA will decide if a site should on the black list, and we won't even know there was a trial.
The sites to be banned will contain illegal content, not necessarily horryifying sites. The problem is that mistakes can be made. A trial blacklist that was leaked, included a dentist's site and a school canteen website.
If you don't like a website, dont visit it. For people who want to visit an illegal site, they can easily bypass the filter. Is it worth spending tens of millions of dollars on? I think not.
Fair enough, however, what of those sites which contain harmful software (I.E Viruses) that could potentially destroy an entire hardrive and it's contents? You cannot simply say that "I know that this site contains that software, so I won't go there," because the majority of the time you won't even know about it. Have a good, long think about how this would benefit the webmail system, the online blogging and chatting community, and, especially, those people who regularly download software online.
The problem is that mistakes can be made.
That is a given, regardless of what the case it may be. An example of this was the governments latest scheme involving home insulation. The person responsible - Environmental Minister Peter Garrett - did not plan things out effectively, and, as a result, four workers died because they were not 'experienced' enough. On top of that, each house now has to have all these new insulations removed, because they have been classified as "unsafe." What you need to understand is that mistakes can potentially happen anywhere, anytime, and therefore can often not be avoided. A National Internet Filter will probably have it's mistakes, but as a democratic nation, we as Australians will be able to work hard alongside the government in order to provide a Filter that will work, and that will make a positive difference.
As for the concept of pointlessly costing Australia $10,000,000, that is not entirely so. If you believe otherwise, then answer these questions:
1) Why won't this save money in the long run?
2) Why don't we support Internet protection?
3) Can you put a price on the safety of innocent individuals online?
We didn't get a choice in this. We don't get a say on what material gets blocked. And the info they've given us suggests that they are even going to block things that aren't illegal here, but are merely things that someone decides are distasteful.
I have had a look at all those sites, and clearly, they make strong points. The government can only get away with things for so long, before Australia becomes louder to the point where they are literally screaming in their faces.
You cannot deny that the Government represents the people, after all, we are a democracy. The difference between Australia and China is that the people do get a say in how things are done in Australia, while in China, things are politically handled without consent from the country and its people. If we want something changed, and we prove how it benefits (or helps) a situation, to further boost our economy and/or help save and secure Australian life, then things get changed. If they are not changed, parliament doesn't last in office for long.
By distasteful, I'm sure that you don't openly refer to simply pornography, but rather, say racial or even other age-appropriate content. I could be here all day and night naming the many different things that people find distasteful. At the end of the day, there are inappropriate things on the Internet, and the whole purpose of a National Internet Filter is to ensure that these key 'things' are not accessible to the nation. If anyone were to think otherwise, then that is just pathetic, because they are basically crying out for content such as pornography to not be taken away. "Oh no, now I can't see topless women anymore." Sounds pathetic doesn't it?
Like I said, bad things don't last forever; if the government goes too far, Australia can call for a change, but when it comes to content such as pornography, well, sometimes its just better to leave things out of reach.
"We're saying we don't want our Internet censored."
Define "we." Don't speak for Australia, speak for yourself.
"Every poll/study/survey has shown people overwhelmingly against the censor."
It would be pretty easy for that to happen seeing as we don't know a lot about it just yet. But when we do, Australia will get the picture, and can then decide whether or not we should make appropriate changes to the Filter, or better yet, to the government.
"We have had no say in this policy."
Not yet anyway.
"We've had no say in what gets censored."
In time Australia can make a statement as to whether or not certain sites can be censored or 'warned of.' We cannot simply say no to a system when we haven't actually given ourselves the chance to make it work!
"Are we?"
Are you Australian? Do you believe that our voting system proves that Australia believes in a democratic nation which upholds the right to freedom of speech and opinion? Voting proves that we not only get a say, but our say will impact the nation. We tick the boxes and the government responds after ensuring that Australia will agree. If not, well, we may as well not call them the "government" come next election.
Our tax money is getting wasted on a crappy scheme. If anyone who really thinks this filter is a good idea then please download and install your own PC filter and block out on what you want.
What the government wants is pure censorship don't let our country go down the toilet even more by supporting such a wasteful embarrassing and expensive scheme say NO to the filter "censorship".
Australia should not implement national internet censorship because it will not achieve any of the things that the supporters claim it will achieve while at the same time it will cost Australia dearly, both in monetary terms and in non-monetary terms.
It will not protect anyone, adult or child, from accidental exposure to adult material.
It will not prevent anyone, adult or child, from deliberately accessing adult material.
It will not protect children from online predators or online bullying.
It will not protect children by preventing people from sharing images of actual child sex abuse.
The money would be better spent on educating parents and educating children, and on subsidised home-based internet filters for those who really want it.
Most sensible parents understand that technology is not a substitute for locating a PC in a "public" part of the house and supervising children while they are online and educating children about online safety.
The proposed filter will only filter normal web-surfing activity more commonly known as "HTTP" websites. Not only will it be completely simple to get around the filter for anyone who wants to, but it won’t be able to stop the distribution of illegal child abuse material on private underground networks, where that sort of material is traded. Filtering this is not an option, instead we could spend the money on possible police investigations that are able to penetrate the secretive groups charge those who are creating and sharing this illegal material.
This policy will not protect Australian families; in fact, it may put parents into a false sense of security. This could possibly lower their caution when it comes to supervising their children's on-line activities. Parents will begin to think there children are safe. The list of pages that will be blocked is only a tiny fraction of the material on the internet that may be thought harmful to children. Now with no careful monitoring and no watchful eyes. Children will be at more of a risk, especially with not all explicit sites being caught in the filter.
What is even more worrying is the fact the biggest risks that children face online are not exposure to inappropriate content, but inappropriate contact with others.
In order to properly protect children online, filtration is no competition against proper education. We need more education for parents about options for voluntary filtering for their computers, that can be tailored to allow a household to control their Internet content and more education for parents and children about the risks that children might face online, and what to do about them. This would be a more radical elimination to child exposure on the internet.
Exactly. It's plain censorship. And I don't remember the Australian public getting a say before the Government sent the bill to be passes, but correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not sure, after all. So there's the "democracy card" played. This would also have serious economical problems. The Australian branch of Google would be put completely out of business and would be shut down. Putting a blanket censor over our Internet is taking away our freedom of choice, and is the beginnings of an Orwellian disaster.
Economical problems as in computer gurus hacking the filter and then selling their services online, which proves that the whole internet barrier was a waste of money? I agree.
It's censoring out materials. It includes politically controversial material that people wish to have access to. Please explain to me in what way it does not meet the definition of 'censorship'. Until then, i'll keep calling it censorship.
"You define an Internet Filter as something that just blocks out whatever it wants."
It blocks out whatever materials the politicians who legislate it want it to block and the materials that special interest lobby groups want it to block. Both of which have boundless limits to be modified and expanded and they see fit, with no accountability.
"it is a protective software that recommends before it acts!"
Recommends? I'm not sure you understand what the censor is. It's a piece of software/hardware that will block all materials that somebody else thought was inappropriate for me to see, without giving me any say in the process.
"If you believe that it is a potential disaster, then please demonstrate how so. I would like to see how far you will go with that argument."
Millions of wasted dollars.
Funds diverted away from law enforcement agencies that actually make a difference in preventing child abuse.
Potentially damages the reliability/effectiveness of the internet, a critical tool for our progress.
Provides an opening for increasing censorship.
Validates the censorship being utilized by countries such as Iran and China.
In Internet Filter is basically a system that it categorizing specific sites in order to act in accordance to how it has been programed to do so. It does not necessarily "censor" all sites that have been categorized within the filter, but makes decisions based upon how it has been programmed. If the government chose to provide clear, bold warnings for certain sites, rather than block them altogether, that would not be an act of "censoring," but rather a recommendation, hence, it recommends before it acts.
"Millions of wasted dollars."
Incorrect; millions of paid dollars.
We are putting our money into a system that actually saves a lot of time and effort when it comes to online law enforcement. Child safety is the big example here, because it is a problem that has existed since the beginning of online activities. If we began to filter out specific sites that do not handle cyber bullying, then we begin to send a clear message to online predators; things are changing, so make the change.
Now, the other major point would be directed at dangerous online software that is instantly downloaded from certain sites online. We can never know 100% if a site contains harmful software or not, because it is often disguised in the programs, games, etc, that we download, and therefore, cannot always be detected at an earlier stage. An online Internet filter will aid in the fight to protect our computers, because through the method of "categorization," we can easily "censor" these harmful sites, and give strong warnings to those sites that may contain harmful software.
"Validates the censorship being utilized by countries such as Iran and China"
Validates? I would think not. Australia is a Democracy, countries such as Iran and China are not. Here in Australia we look towards our government for representation, not rule. Voting is what gives Australians the right to have their say, and this is exactly what we look at when we define which sites are "censored," and which are given a warning. This gives Australians more awareness about the entire issue, and therefore, mistakes by the government will not go without a voice of opinion from the Nation.
"In Internet Filter is basically a system that it categorizing specific sites in order to act in accordance to how it has been programed to do so. It does not necessarily "censor" all sites that have been categorized within the filter, but makes decisions based upon how it has been programmed. If the government chose to provide clear, bold warnings for certain sites, rather than block them altogether, that would not be an act of "censoring," but rather a recommendation, hence, it recommends before it acts."
Except, thats not what the national filter is for. You need to do more research before you give your presentation thingy. The filter is specifically being put in place to BLOCK all sites on the blacklist, not give warning pages for them. It doesn't categorize, the government puts into a list of all websites it doesn't want seen, this is called the blacklist. All sites on this list are blocked.
"We are putting our money into a system that actually saves a lot of time and effort when it comes to online law enforcement. Child safety is the big example here,"
The federal police divison responsible for such materials have already come out and said that the internet censor will make it more difficult to do their jobs.
"Now, the other major point would be directed at dangerous online software that is instantly downloaded from certain sites online."
What are you talking about, this has nothing to do with the internet filter. This isn't even what most internet filters do. This is an antivirus program, something every single competent internet user already has. Something that is also far more effective on the end-machine rather than the isp. If you think we can install some magic filter that will remove virus's from the internet, you don't understand how the technology works.
Forgetting for a moment, that virus's arn't even looked at by filter software, ignoring for a moment that it's got nothing to do with the censor policy:
"and give strong warnings to those sites that may contain harmful software."
When clicking through to a site that is known to contain virus's from google, it already gives you a warning box to inform you of that.
"Now, the other major point would be directed at dangerous online software that is instantly downloaded from certain sites online. We can never know 100% if a site contains harmful software or not"
If you can never know if a site is going to contain harmful software than how can you produce a blacklist of those sites to block?
" mistakes by the government will not go without a voice of opinion from the Nation."
The blacklist is completely and entirely kept secret. 0 accountability.
""Validates the censorship being utilized by countries such as Iran and China"
Validates? I would think not. Australia is a Democracy, countries such as Iran and China are not."
And we're putting in censorship technologies being used by countries such as Iran and china. Validating their use in those countries.
"Voting is what gives Australians the right to have their say, "
No-one voted for this censorship policy. It was introduced at the last minute of the last hour before the election. Most people don't even know such a policy exists.
You're right in the sense that most Australians do not know that such a plan to implement a filter exists, because after all, the government have indeed said nothing. BUT, you gave mention to the fact that conferences have been called with the minister in charge in regard to public questions; this proves that people know, and soon enough the entire country will know.
Now, the government can "try" and be a cunning and quiet as they can, but as a democracy, they need to accept that Australians will get a say soon enough as to what happens with the Internet and the Internet Filter. I cannot stress this point enough, and yet, I feel as if everyone has been circling it. If you need me to be more specific, then I would have to say that Australia has the power to vote a government in or out of parliament, and that sooner or later a change is going to be made if Australia is unhappy.
Also, my point on dangerous software is that most people may already have anti-virus software installed on their computer; this doesn't stop everything from getting in. Adding the protection of an Internet filter, we can instantly cut out the majority of sites which do and may contain harmful software. See the relevance yet? And no, I don't believe in some "magic filter" that removes viruses from the Internet. That concept is complete and utter BS and I have no idea where on Earth you got that from.
I would suggest to the government that a blacklist is the wrong way to turn, and that a 'categorization' method would work more effectively. Blacklisting would still be an option, but at least we can trim the fat and then begin to work on the core, if you get my meaning.
The concept of validating the Internet filters of China and Iran, if existent, would be only temporary. Like... I... Have... Said... Many... Times... Australia needs to voice an opinion towards the government should things turn for the worst. After all, we are a democracy, and if the system fails, we elect a government that can make it work. If that government cannot do the job, then we should deny the system, but we shouldn't just jump out straight away and say "no," when we haven't even given ourselves a chance to make it work!
I probably won't get back to this for a while, I have my actual debate to worry about. Don't get the wrong idea; I appreciate the input, but when people like that NVYN guy get personal, then I just don't have the patience.
" BUT, you gave mention to the fact that conferences have been called with the minister in charge in regard to public questions; this proves that people know, and soon enough the entire country will know."
On the contrary, it proves that a few people in the media know about it, that is all. They are constantly cancelled, hence their viewers/listeners never get the information.
"Now, the government can "try" and be a cunning and quiet as they can, but as a democracy, they need to accept that Australians will get a say soon enough as to what happens with the Internet and the Internet Filter."
Have you heard the government offering to hold a referendum on whether or not we get the internet censor? We don't get a direct say. It goes: House of representatives -> Senate -> LAW. People play no part in this role. All we can do is write letters to labour senators, which get a token form letter reply, and ignored as labour senators lose their position if they vote against the party policy. Where's the democracy in that. They're supposed to represent their electorate, not their party agenda.
Yes, we voted in the kRudd government. We voted in a KRudd government who at the time had no plans to introduce a mandatory censor. They threw in something about an optional filter at the list minute before the election, that was it. Then changed it to be a mandatory censor as soon as they got in.
"Then I would have to say that Australia has the power to vote a government in or out of parliament, and that sooner or later a change is going to be made if Australia is unhappy."
Yep, just like what we did to Howard over workchoices. You'll also notice that KRudd is taking a real beating in the opinion polls. He may just have the 1st government in a LONG time to fail to secure a second term. Unfortunately, we don't vote on individual policies, we vote for a party in general. No-one voted for kRudd to introduce a censor, people voted for him to get workchoices removed. No-one knows the censor exists, probably won't . So how can they make an informed vote at the next election.
"I would suggest to the government that a blacklist is the wrong way to turn, and that a 'categorization' method would work more effectively. Blacklisting would still be an option, but at least we can trim the fat and then begin to work on the core, if you get my meaning."
The government has taken no public input on the policy. They have also ignored any and all technical input from the industry. They don't care what you suggest. If you had seen the input, reccomendations and reports yourself, you would know that a categorization system for the internet is technically impossible.
You cannot classify 1 trillion + webpages. Even china with tens of thousands of censor staff working around the clock can't keep up with the new webpages being made every day, never mind the trillion that are already there.
Software cannot dynamically classify webpages fast enough to keep up with access without destroying internet connections and pretty much brining down the internet in Australia.
The handpicked blacklist of 1,000 pages is the only approach that will even come close to being technically feasible and even with that it's not properly feasible, as the (poorly conducted and biased) government trial showed.
"Australia needs to voice an opinion towards the government should things turn for the worst. After all, we are a democracy, and if the system fails, we elect a government that can make it work. If that government cannot do the job, then we should deny the system, but we shouldn't just jump out straight away and say "no," when we haven't even given ourselves a chance to make it work!"
Numerous industry experts, several trials and demonstrations have all come out to show that a web based filter based on the proposed technology will fail on technical grounds.
The federal police body responsible for combating the materials that the filters stated goal is to block have come out and said that such materials are not even traded on web pages and in the few cases that they are can be destroyed by the AFP in less time that it takes to have the page reviewed by the ACMA and blacklisted.
There are numerous concerns about expanding censorship later.
"we shouldn't just jump out straight away and say "no,""
Tell me. WHY should we introduce this policy, KNOWING all along, based on sound evidence, that it will not work, and would not achieve it's goal and damage our internet even if it did somehow work.
"most people may already have anti-virus software installed on their computer; this doesn't stop everything from getting in. Adding the protection of an Internet filter, we can instantly cut out the majority of sites which do and may contain harmful software. See the relevance yet?"
No, i don't. A web filter doesn't affect virus's, most are spread by email and file sharing, not looking at a webpage. Even if it did, virus carrying websites are beyond the scope of the policy. Again, get anti-virus software, keep it up to date. Virus's have nothing to do with a national web filter. and as i already said, most search engines already warn you when you click through to a site believed to contain virus's.
"If we began to filter out specific sites that do not handle cyber bullying, then we begin to send a clear message to online predators; things are changing, so make the change."
So if anyone doesn't handle things the way the government thinks they should, they just block them? Awesome. I think that sums up one of the major points against the censor.
The filter does not succesfuly block child pornography, since such material is illegal and is removed and destroyed by the federal police long before the acma can process a complain and block a site.
The filter does not successfuly block anything, a 12 year old has the technical know-how to get around it.
The filter makes it more difficult for the AFP to fight child porn, as they have said several times now.
The filter uses up funds that could have been given to the AFP to expand their efforts against child pornography.
The filter is taking funds away from the previous governments pc-based filter program, which gave everyone who wanted on a pc-based filter which was actually effective.
We as Australia are very different from other countries, such as China, who work unproductively with their Internet (or even political) systems.
If we work hard and as a nation, we can make this a working system. Like all things, this will take time, but with time comes progress, and we as a democracy will make progress.
Are you joking or just really naive? China has enacted a filter too, under the guise of "protecting its people" with the intent being to control information that they are allowed to see.
It might be more helpful if you actually offered some kind of argument. Rather than simply saying "we're right, they're wrong" to get a +1 point for your side. It defeats the purpose of a debate.
"I support you. You are right.. The National Internet Filter is here to help us. They are not here to prison us or anything..:)"
I oppose you, You are wrong. The national internet filter is here to infringe on our personal freedoms and push the moral interests of a fringe minority group on the entire population.
"The national internet filter is here to infringe on our personal freedoms and push moral interests of a fringe minority group on the entire population."
Do you seriously believe that? Do you seriously believe that the government what to push Australian rights away? If you believe in a country where no rights exist for its citizens and all actions are made as a result of a lone decision made by the government, then perhaps you should consider moving to China or Iran. You may be happier there...
"Do you seriously believe that the government what to push Australian rights away?"
In general? No. In this instance? Possibly, it's hard to say if it's deliberate or due to incompetence. Regardless of whether they want to, are they? Yes.
"If you believe in a country where no rights exist for its citizens"
We don't have a bill of rights, if thats what you mean. You have no right of free speech in Australia. Which is why the government (more specifically, sen Conroy and pm Rudd) can push through policies like this that in any country with a proper constitution would have been stopped (America and France have already rejected internet censors based on their constitutional right to free speech).
"then perhaps you should consider moving to China or Iran. You may be happier there..."
If you want your internet censord to only show you what the government feels is appropriate for you, maybe YOU should consider moving to China or Iran. You may be happier there..."
I clearly don't want my Internet censored, nor will it be entirely censored. If you didn't figure that out, or were just too lazy to notice it or mention it, then that's just incompetent.
The Australian government want power, to be sure, but they are not going to strip Australia of all rights just for the sake of power. Even if they were, they wouldn't be the government for long...
We aren't America or France, we are a democracy, if they reject an Internet filter based on rights of speech, then let's create an Internet filter here in Australia which promotes choice, not necessarily the one that the government intends to create.
Okay, I'm no expert on the subject (I doubt anyone here is) but here is my understanding:
The filter will be used to block anything illegal. If you can't see it at the movies or buy it in a store legally - it'll be blocked. This means that it won't be used to block horrifying or distasteful content as 'Julie603' suggested, unless it is illegal (and a lot of it isn't). Ofcourse there's always the possibility that the government will secretely scrap this idea and block whatever they want. As it currently stands, the main things targeted will be child abuse, bestiality, SOME violence and drugs, instructions on eauthansia and exploitative sexual fetishes.
If the filter were to stick to those, then it would be a brilliant idea in theory. The problem is it won't work. As 'NYVN' pointed out, the filter can be circumvented. There will be numerous ways of easily bypassing the filter.
In short, tens of millions of dollars will be spent on a filter whose only achievement will be to slow down the internet.
"The filter will be used to block anything illegal. If you can't see it at the movies or buy it in a store legally - it'll be blocked."
On the contrary, much of what the filter will block is not illegal to posses in most of Australia. some of it CAN be purchased in stores.
"If the filter were to stick to those,"
It won't. The initial policy called for all 'prohibited content', which was not limited to any particular classification or law. Pretty much anything they didn't like. It's since been scaled back to "RC" because of pressure and criticism. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from expanding it back to 'prohibited content' after installing it and groups such as the ACL are already trying to push them to ban & block any and all pornographic material of any kind.
"In short, tens of millions of dollars will be spent on a filter whose only achievement will be to slow down the internet."
There are much better reasons to oppose the filter than just the slowdown it will cause.