[clug] OT: Protesting the proposed clean feed?

[Grant Baldwin]

> > ... including
> > free/open-source technical solutions, as well as social/active
> > parenting
> > solutions (which don't really help the educator that has a
> > classroom of
> > kids to supervise) and others.
> 
> I'll just refer you to the post from Steve Walsh: http://
> lists.samba.org/archive/linux/2008-October/021010.html
> 
> There's the entire argument in a nutshell: a filter will have to
> cater to the lowest common denominator in terms of offensiveness.
> Most people will find this frustrating (no pictures of people
> kissing, or women's faces, or alcohol), and if it is implemented, the
> people responsible will get away scott free blaming the ISPs for
> messing up the implementation.

Hyperbole.

A filter based on government standards wont adhere to sharia law standards,
simply community standards in the same way as TV, radio & print media
(etc.). While it hasn't been articulated at what level 'we' want our
internet filtered (G? PG?), it will be in accordance with the standards laid
out therein.

Certainly, with any filtering we wont see Wikipedia style censorship
preventing pictures of pigs on arbitrary pages.

IMHO, a vital point that needs to be made abundantly clear to the Minister
and Australian parents is that any such filter wont stop people from
accessing kiddie porn (or whatever) if they want to. This is a criminal &
social problem which does not admit a technical solution, especially given
the average level of technical sophistication displayed by such criminals,
as reported in the press.

The other issue, of 'protecting' children from porn, is a social problem
stemming from Australian attitudes to censorship.

</$0.02>

Grant Baldwin