[LINK] Government not really interested in Stamping out RC content.

Tom Koltai tomk at unwired.com.au
Sat Jul 10 13:47:01 AEST 2010

Last year I blogged about the declining interest on the net for
pornographic content due to the wider interest of multi-media files and
that pornographic traffic on the Internet had reduced from an estimated
87% in 1997 [MaeWest and MaeEast sniffers] to less than 2% [Ipoque
European, Australian data] in 2008. 

Curiously, I am actually a proponent of filtered content for young
people and I do believe that there are some things that young persons
should remain ignorant of until achieving the psychological maturity to
be able to handle the content.  

However, I believe that there are other ways of achieving this result
rather than a nationwide filter.

Enhanced Education and expanded Law Enforcement have been mooted on

Additionally I would propose - possibly a mandatory .sex TLD with all
sexually related content being moved to .sex and therefore filterable,
with twenty year jail terms for non-compliance - which would get my vote
and no doubt satisfy the Christian lobby. 

If the Government were serious about filtering, this would be the
proposal that would be mooted, not just in Australia but on an
international basis.

When RC content [child porn] is distributed via LHARC files renamed as
harmless Very_boring_technical_manual_for_outdated_computer_system.txt
files, then there is no possibility of it being intercepted EXCEPT by
citizens reporting same to Fedpol.

Curiously when I did discover RC content of this nature in April 2009
and reported it to Fedpol, I received the run around. No-one wanted to
know about it. There was no number I could report it to easily - I was
advised to delete it and not bring it up again.

I deleted it and didn't take it any further. Yet for a Government that
is all fired interested in stamping out this kind of activity,  to not
be interested in a citizens report on same, when citizen was running a
Research ED2K server and could have interdicted and supplied Fedpol with
information is rather reprehensible when the Governments official
position is one of apparent determination to implement a Filter for the
purported purpose of stamping out such content.

For Fedpol personnel to be concerned about even talking about such
content brought home to me the double edged sword that content of this
type has within the hallowed halls of Bureaucracy.

Stephen Conroy may have been mooting a nationwide filter, but his policy
enforcers, Fedpol, were too scared to even touch the subject. I was
referred onto a Canberra email address. When I asked for a phone number
and name, I was told that only the email address could be supplied.

I got the message, don't call us, we'll call you.

This to me doesn't seem like the actions of a Government that wants to
stamp out this kind of activity.

Tom, a Citizen

More information about the Link mailing list