[Lamont Cranston]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
filtering does not stop the use of proxies and tunnels, the filters are put in place for children and idiots.

Will these proxies and tunnels also bypass an '18 (or 78!) per cent reduction in relative performance'?

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
do you think no censorship should occur at all across any media?

Yes.

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
also some parents are fucking useless and fucked up so their kids need someone to protect them.

Child Protective Services.

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
leave all the left and right wing ideologies at the door and just be rational...

You're advocating blanket mandatory all-pervasive censorship with access monitored by a single central authority and you're lecturing other people about rational thought?!
And speaking of right wing ideologies, would that be the right wing ideologies of Family First and the Pentecostal Church that are being appeased by this?

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
or should it be too easy for children to be able to access kiddy porn, animal porn, be targets of paedo's in chat rooms.

Ah, just like Senator Conroy equating defence of freespeech with advocacy of child pornography. However, the ISPs do offer services and parents can buy blocking software and not put the computer in the childs bedroom. Now we're back to that grey area occupied by that mysterious concept some call responsibilities...

As for environment well I was just being sarcastic, takes more than a few days in office before you can say a government has 'done some great things' on any given topic. But if you want to be serious then a good example would be the pretence of signing Kyoto - while still maintaining the same old footdragging.

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by Lamont Cranston

Will these proxies and tunnels also bypass an '18 (or 78!) per cent reduction in relative performance'?

Yes.

There is no conclusive proof that this sort performance reduction will occur, as there has been no generative data for long term studies done over filtering.

Originally Posted by Lamont Cranston

Child Protective Services.

Child protective services can only provide support on reported incidents and mandatroy reporting in not the case in day to day life, particularly in social groups that are closed off fiscally.

Originally Posted by Lamont Cranston

You're advocating blanket mandatory all-pervasive censorship with access monitored by a single central authority and you're lecturing other people about rational thought?!
And speaking of right wing ideologies, would that be the right wing ideologies of Family First and the Pentecostal Church that are being appeased by this?

I am not advocating all pervasive censorship or monitoring, I donot even know where you got that idea from, I am however saying that there are people in our society that need some protections, if you don't believe that then perhaps you need to open your eyes when you walk the streets, or if you are a silver spoon child go and stroll through the lower socio economic area in this country. I also assume you have never worked in an area or discipline where particularly children are at high risk.

Originally Posted by Lamont Cranston

Ah, just like Senator Conroy equating defence of freespeech with advocacy of child pornography. However, the ISPs do offer services and parents can buy blocking software and not put the computer in the childs bedroom. Now we're back to that grey area occupied by that mysterious concept some call responsibilities...

If you are advocating a world of zero censorship then you have to allow something like child pornography to be included under the guise of free speech, otherwise you are already broaching an issue of censorship, we can break this argument down further if you like. Afterall it is an adult argument we are having.

Originally Posted by Lamont Cranston

As for environment well I was just being sarcastic, takes more than a few days in office before you can say a government has 'done some great things' on any given topic. But if you want to be serious then a good example would be the pretence of signing Kyoto - while still maintaining the same old footdragging.

[Lamont Cranston]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
There is no conclusive proof that this sort performance reduction will occur, as there has been no generative data for long term studies done over filtering.

Senator Conroy's predecessor Helen Coonan moved away from insisting internet service providers offer filtering after a 2006 NetAlert study showed the filters were expensive, difficult to set up, frequently inaccurate and drastically slowed the network performance.

Six filters were tested under optimised conditions, but the best responder resulted in an 18 per cent reduction in relative performance, while the worst cut performance by 78 per cent.

"The better-performing filters can process data at between 30-80Mbps, which would still provide sufficient performance for a small ISP," the report said.

"However, for larger ISPs with faster upstream connections, the use of such filters would severely reduce their performance levels."
--http://www.australianit.news.com.au/...-15306,00.html
It includes links, might want to read them too, one of them to a study you say doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
I am not advocating all pervasive censorship or monitoring, I donot even know where you got that idea from

If this filter is to be effective, that is what will be required.

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
If you are advocating a world of zero censorship then you have to allow something like child pornography to be included under the guise of free speech

How do you figure that, do you even know what free speech means? It doesn't cover criminal activity.

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by Lamont Cranston

If this filter is to be effective, that is what will be required.
How do you figure that, do you even know what free speech means? It doesn't cover criminal activity.

Lets not even start on criminal activity when in every state but South Australia recreational drug use is jailable. Under current laws if I was to say I am planning an activity that could be considered an act of terror even jokingly that I can be arrested, held without charge, and questioned in a manner that asis does not need to divulge. There is a difference between the so called legislation of "free speech" and actual free speech. You said yourself that there should be no censorship at all on any media but are willing to condemn things that are deemed illegal whether they are justified or not, such as the sedition laws. Making laws in themselves take away the rights of human beings and animals as sentient beings.

All these issues of censorship are broached with every new transmission medium that appears, the biggest difference with this one is that the ramifications were not thought about prior to releasing such a beast onto the public. All the arguments occured both in the inital era of television, and radio and also books and magazines. I saw the introduction of parental guidance stickers on music and vision and people were having the same argument then. I don't know who or what has you so fearful but I did notice some of those against censoring the internet in the news webs you placed up were scared australia would turn into a complete nanny state like Mianmar. Again these people are illinformed due to the fact we donot live under a dictatorship. All I can say is if it bothers you so much take to the streets and protest ouitside of parliament, you will actually realise how small an issue this really is. You also underestimate the ability of people to create other outlets. Maybe there will be a rennaisance of streetpress and fanzines. All in all, having filters put on the internet is not going to effect my way of living at all.

[Lamont Cranston]

Well on that first topic I think the limit ought to be at direct order to kill, other than that free speech.

Originally Posted by terminally pharmacy
Under current laws if I was to say I am planning an activity that could be considered an act of terror even jokingly that I can be arrested, held without charge, and questioned in a manner that asis does not need to divulge.

Originally Posted by terminally pharmacy
we donot live under a dictatorship.

uh...