Comments on: Conroy thoroughly tangled in his own Rabbit-Proof Firewall

By: arty

arty — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

If the proposed filtering does not exclude all of Facebook and party-crashing text messages it is pointless.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Yep, good article, good comments. What can we do to stop this idiot moving implementing this terrible plan? I don’t use the word “idiot” lightly - if Conroy is arguing that this filtering technology is ready, economically appropriate and morally acceptable then either he’s an idiot, or is covering up very some insidious undemocratic motivations… or, quite possibly, both.

By: mhawkins1970

mhawkins1970 — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

absolutely spot on sir
maybe we should hit them with the whole - how much will this cost to maintain argument?
this just cannot be feasible on any accounts
technical, moral or economic

full blown jokers

By: Gail

Gail — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Excellent commentary. There is a lot more opposition to this in the commercial media than I’d expected. I’m one of those baby-boomers, but I’ve worked in IT and with computers for 30 odd years and I’m in the grandmotherly age group these days. All communications with local members, senators and Ministers have demonstrated that many politicians are completely technically incompetent. I’m appalled at the ignorance of some of the comments from the elected members responsible for permitting this to occur. Can they not see that it could be them banned next if it suits the powers that be next time?

DPI is not trivial. It’s intrusive and complex hardware and software. Once in place it will be damn near impossible to remove. It becomes part of the infrastructure of your access to the internet. This is one example only of what this equipment can do. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21284471-Deep-Packet-Inspection-Plan-Defeats-Encryption-Compression Then google for Dephormation, nodpi and Phorm to see how the use of DPI can be subverted to far more sinister uses.

A commentary on the members of the Cyber Safety Working Group would be a good move. The membership seems to be restricted to interest groups and public servants. http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/funding_programs__and__support/cyber-safety_plan/consultative_working_group_on_cyber-safety Some of those interest groups may be subsidised by outside sources or government and be operating on the inside. What the hell are Microsoft and Google doing on the panel.

By: Kel

Kel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Well said, it’s disgusting that the politicians in charge have little idea of the technology they are trying to mandate. I wonder of Conroy has ever come across that “illegal” material by accident? We are already behind the rset of the developed world in terms of internet speeds and cost, why do we need a system to make it even slower to stop people looking at material that the overwhelming majority won’t ever look at?

By: Edward James

Edward James — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Censorship is censorship. At the moment we cant be criminalised for thinking. Although there is a view that the crime exist when you form the intention. What government is attempting is not that different to the burning of books. Certainly an attempt to force the views of a minority on the majority. Censorship of the internet in China buried the Melamine contamination story till after the games. Was that a success and by whos standards?