Comments on: Blurring the lines

By: tardis_42

tardis_42 — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:38:05 +0000

Steve : If 100% of secondary school children in a British school held up their hands when asked if they had heard of internet proxies, and the UK has optional filtering, at what age will we expect all Australian school children will know about proxies?

Well, they already do, at least in high school. I was only in year 7 when i first bypassed the department of education filters. Every schoolkid either knows how to bypass a filter, or knows who to ask.

By: Colin

Colin — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:01:24 +0000

Indeed, let’s not invoke Godwin’s law just yet.

The list doesn’t include X-rated material – pointing this out shows how silly it is to present it as a cyber-safety measure.

By: Asmodai

Asmodai — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:58:17 +0000

Actually that quote is a misappropriation ; )

http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/

The sentiment is correct though, the whole child protection angle has been a constant red herring.

By: Emile

Emile — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:20:03 +0000

I hate to bring up history’s least favourite politician and mass murderer, but he does have a point:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

— Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Isn’t that very much related to the way the govt is handling this issues and many others?

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:46:05 +0000

I also find it hyperbole and disingenious of Senator Conroy to equate ‘quality journalism’ with “agreeing with my view” which is firmly suggested by the Senator at the start of the Crickey article.

By making this statement the Senator appears as opposed to freedom of the press as he appears through his filtering policy to be opposed to freedom of speech.

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:25:28 +0000

Because it’s pointless, it’s expensive, it’s done in secret, and there are no guarantees the scope will not increase under this or a future government.

= the exact reason why I will not be voting for any individual or party that supports mandatory filtering. At the very, very least, it’s a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

At the very worst, it’ll be used as a weapon against content the government doesn’t want us to see.

“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.” – Lyndon B. Johnson

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:23:16 +0000

If 100% of secondary school children in a British school held up their hands when asked if they had heard of internet proxies, and the UK has optional filtering, at what age will we expect all Australian school children will know about proxies?

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:18:56 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by jonseymour: RT @coljac: A little response to Conroy, just to make myself feel better. http://tr.im/Ionb #nocleanfeed…

By: Tweets that mention Blurring the lines « coljac -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention Blurring the lines « coljac -- Topsy.com — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:12:46 +0000

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Colin Jacobs, Jon Seymour. Jon Seymour said: RT @coljac: A little response to Conroy, just to make myself feel better. http://tr.im/Ionb #nocleanfeed […]