This is big stuff for aussies.
The govt. wants to add a filter that will check against a black list of 10,000 ilegal sites, and "other" unwanted material.

Very very slipperly slope, not only is it technically infesiable, but its also the biggest move towards a maoist censorship regime on our communications sector to come...well...since forever!

>> ^charliem:
This is big stuff for aussies.
The govt. wants to add a filter that will check against a black list of 10,000 ilegal sites, and "other" unwanted material.
Very very slipperly slope, not only is it technically infesiable, but its also the biggest move towards a maoist censorship regime on our communications sector to come...well...since forever!


Poor ignorant peon. It's not infeasible, look at China. And look at the US, it's gonna move towards a police state very quickly with Hussein boy in power, and this crap will come along with that. Besides, Australia doesn't have a lot going for it to begin with. They had to make news or something.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
>> ^charliem:
This is big stuff for aussies.
The govt. wants to add a filter that will check against a black list of 10,000 ilegal sites, and "other" unwanted material.
Very very slipperly slope, not only is it technically infesiable, but its also the biggest move towards a maoist censorship regime on our communications sector to come...well...since forever!

Poor ignorant peon. It's not infeasible, look at China. And look at the US, it's gonna move towards a police state very quickly with Hussein boy in power, and this crap will come along with that. Besides, Australia doesn't have a lot going for it to begin with. They had to make news or something.


China's method of filtering is not the same as proposed in Australia.

The method to be used in Australia, to even reach some modicum of success with no false-negatives or false-positives on filter passes, requires so much CPU time on the routers, that it chokes the connection down by AT LEAST 80%.

The ignorance here is your labeling me ignorant without checking to see how much I know about this.

Not only is it technically infeasible, it is also constitutionally illegal.
Legislation would need to be passed in the upper house, which requires majority vote. The Liberal party do not want it, that leaves 3 senators with the swing power.

Family First, Greens and Minchin.

Neither greens nor minchin want it. Both believe it to be a reprehensible act of big-brother in an otherwise free society.

This wont go ahead. The very notion that it is even being discussed at this point is a joke, and shines a gigantic spotlight on how irresponsible, and under-qualified Sen. Conroy is to handle this portfolio.

Ignorant, I am not.