[LINK] Labor bid to block net porn
chris at sw.oz.au
Mon Aug 16 20:48:44 EST 2004
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 07:13:27PM +1000, Robin Whittle wrote:
> What use is an opposition which tries to out-rot the rotters in power?
> First the banning of same-sex marriages - on grounds of protecting the
> "family". Second passing the FTA on grounds of not wanting to be seen
> by the unwashed masses as being anti-American. Now Internet censorship
> as if it was possible to make connecting to the Net a child-safe
I'm not an apologist for the idea, but I think I understand the politics.
Anyway, the proposed "ban" is only until you opt-out (for now :-).
> It can't be, as long as children are using "chat" programs
> or email - and it is very difficult to reliably filter ordinary HTTP
> traffic to achieve what any one person might regard as "acceptable for
And any web content that doesn't touch port 80 is also likely to be
unfiltered too. But it will fix the "off-by-one" typos taking you to
explicit sites problem, which may be sufficient for some for a time.
> Adult supervision is required, and adults can choose their own level of
> filtering for their children. It is better, though still not perfect,
> to do it on the computer itself. It would, in principle, be possible to
> restrict a child's access to a very small set of trustworthy websites -
> but that can only be done for the individual computer, not at the ISP,
> unless the ISP is to be driven nuts by personalised and constantly
> changing filtering requirements. Also, the idea that a government
> mandated scheme can be reliably "child-safe" is nuts. There is no
> agreed standard of what this means. It would have to rule out all
> communications of a "chat" nature.
But the problem is one of lack of parental supervision - and the search
for a way to "fail safe" when parents abrogate their responsibility. As
you say, chat and filesharing etc are at least as big a problem, and not
easy to control at the ISP.
> How could they filter email to stop it being non child-friendly? Its
> impossible. Most email is now done by Web-mail anyway - such as
> yahoo.com.au. The page http://www.yahoo.com.au is in Sydney, but
> sending a message from it involves a server (in my test)
> web50108.mail.yahoo.com which is in the USA.
> Besides, if Australia unilaterally blocks "porn" or any such thing,
> won't this be in violation of the FTA?
Good point, porn is IP, and largely owned by US corporations. I suppose
it would be ok to block it as long as we also blocked home-grown porn
in the same way, and paid the compensation to the companies affected
by haphazard government regulation...
More information about the Link