In a performance punctuated with all the hallmarks of paranoia, Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy laid into internet giant Google earlier this week, suggesting that the approach taken by their chief executive, Eric Schmidt, is a "bit creepy". Google hit back yesterday, saying that Conroy had singled it out as the …
If at first you don't succeed...
First post rejected but I know not why.
The problem with Oz these days is that they are only just embarking upon the nanny state Labour-led journey that other democracies are just finishing up with. To give you a brief overview, I'll restate my previous comment's simple equation...
Tony Blair was a poor-man's Bill Clinton and Kevin Rudd is a poor-man's Tony Blair. You can tell it by the way he acts and the way he Governs. Kev knows best and watch out for the tantrums (well documented) when you don't do as he says. That's what is wrong with the place these days.
I believe Mark Webber also commented on how things had gone downhill in regards to nanny state when he came back for this season's Aussie GP.
"pills Pills piLLS pILls PilLS PILLS I NEED MY PILLS!" --Steve
"not considered to be censorship of free speech"? Of Stephen Conroy I inquire: Not considered by whom, you swinging dick?
I don't care if this man and his lunatic party agree or not: This farce is a fine example of why the internet should be free from the regulation of any government.
Fighting back against the miserable hordes and media whores, bereft of imagination and wit.
Err ..... it should be noted that Australia is the land which was started with convicts so they're bound to get their fair share of chancers and crooks surfacing to try and grab the Harry Limelight.
Crikey, even as recently as last week there was another one with a few screws loose, who thought that it a great idea to entrap a hard up royal tart with the offer of some easy dollars to make up some sleazy tabloid news.*
IT's a crazy world indeed, full of shysters and fools trying to rule the world with their nonsense.**
* And all that did was to let everyone know that Uncle Sam is in dire straits and spoiling for a fight to try and stay relevant and top gun dog today in a world which has moved on to tomorrow.
** And did anyone else hear Hillary's sad and twisted rant inciting hatred and conflict in Korea. Talk about a crap blow job.
Your title is it in a nutshell
And all we can do is vote.
Its only paranoia if they AREN'T out to get you.
90+% of the population is ticked off at him and wants to get him, out of office at least.
So he's not paranoid, just plain out of his %^#$ing mind.
Tux, just because.
Its Fosters Fault
Only in OZ can a politican go batshit insane, appear on TV spouting batshit insanity and not have anyone notice....
Speaks volumes for the country...
I've seen it happen oftentimes in the UK, USA and New Zealand as well.
Fosters' fault? I think not
We only export that shit.
Biggest breeches of privacy are by government
The biggest breeches of privacy are by government spying.
Google, Facebook, they blunder into leaking our private information.
Government illegally or legally goes digging and penetrating, with or without court orders, court orders secret or not, issued with or without what an ordinary citizen would consider reasonable grounds.
Will someone please explain to me
how standing on the street-corner yelling out what your favorite porn sites sill qualifies as "private?"
good lord people use encryption!
Google's "snooping" tool like familiar wi-fi searching software.
Google's snooping tool on its "Street View" cars sounds like the wi-fi searching software many people run on their lap tops.
it would be funny BUT ...
It would be funny but Conroy is serious about the filter...and so is the government.
The driver is not "protecting children" etc but rather the money and votes in marginal electorates of a tiny but wealthy and well organised religious minority.
It happens to coalesce with the feminist view within the Labor party that all pornography demeans women.
Combine this with a strong conservative religious group within the Labor party and suddenly you have the 'net filter.
It does NOT represent mainstream Australia. It is antagonistic to democracy and freedom of speech.
This policy is plain scary..... http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/stop_32.png
that Conroy is a fundamentalist young-Earth-creationist Christian. His boss, Kevin Rudd, doesn't say much about his own brand of Christianity, but I wouldn't be surprised if he shared Conroy's position.
Tony Abbott, his potential replacement, is a failed Catholic priest.
Some 50% of Australian politicians on both sides are self-described church-going Christians as opposed to <20% of the populace at large.
Is it any wonder that they want to impose this lunacy on us? We get the government we deserve.
I pray to The Lord that the Australian Sex Party romps in at the next election.
Australia, the next theocracy after Iran?
I've never thought of Autstralians as growing the sort of right wing religious zealots that Merkinland has in such abundance but it looks like I'm going to have to revise my opinions.
I'd always figured the folks of Aus had better detectors for this sort of BS than their UK counterparts.
We are very stupid, invade us NOW
Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, heck even Bangladesh; you are all welcome to come and invade Australia NOW! Life under any of your rulers couldn't be much worse.
The time is ripe: we have a completely inept, bonkers government so out of touch with reality it really, really isn't funny.
You should just be able to walk right in, our government has it's head up it's arse.
Just leave your pr0n at the door.
BTW Anyone heard of the Passports Affair?
You know, the one where Mossad were using the identities of Australian citizens as covers for counter-"terrrrsssmm" activities?
Resulting in said Australian citizens being put on the watch-lists of just about every government everywhere?
And the passports, it turns out, were supplied by (drum roll please) the Australian Security Intelligence Office (also known as Aussies Serving International Overlords) ... which must be just a *slight* breach of privacy? Eh, mate? Maaaaaaayyte? (as pronounced down 'ere)
Ok, so Google might be a small dark-coloured teapot, our government is the fucking huge carbon-encrusted Bessemer converter over there in the corner.
*knock* *knock* SHIT! It's the STAUSSIE!
"pornography demeans women"
only if it is done properley
...think of the children!
If you diagree with me then you're a pedo or just a nasty person. We'll figure this out by holding you under water and if you die we were wrong if on the otherhand you survie then you're evil and we'll burn you!
Esc...becuase sometime I wish I could escape this planet!
In this interview Conroy seems to me a very unstable man. He is also evasive, glib and makes liberal use of non sequitur arguments. Anyone who abuses the process of question and answer or any other conversation in such an abusive manner is untrustworthy.
I am ashamed to be Australian when I read articles about this.
Children + porn has 2 meanings
And they are totally confused about them. One is children seeing porn, the other is porn containing children.
One aim of the proposal is to prevent children from SEEING porn, for their own good. As only "refused classification" porn is to be filtered, this still leaves substantial amounts of "18+" some of which is quite horrendous. (And no way to know if someone's lying when the click the "I am over 18" button). These sites are NOT easy to come across by accident, but are VERY easy to find if a kid is curious, as many are around puberty. The filters will do NOTHING to stop young people seeing some quite disturbing porn, if they want to.
Another aim, and the one that gets opponents of this BS idea labelled as pedos, is to prevent the dissemination of pornography containing children. As this is illegal almost everywhere, and carries high penalties for anyone caught with it, the purveyors of it don't have top-page results in Google.....they pass knowledge around through secret groups,. and download the videos by peer to peer methods. Is the filter going to look at peer-to-peer? OF COURSE NOT.
So, (1) kids won't come across porn by accident, as they already don't (2) those who look for it will still find it, except for the worst 5% which is already not on the open public internet (3) the private nets containing the worst will not be filtered.
What a great system!
Of course, for obvious reasons, they can not publish the list of banned sites. Which conveniently means they can put anything else they like onto the list, and no-one will ever be the wiser. Some very innocent (and innocently named) sites have already been blocked by mistake.
A job at Filter Headquarters would be Pedo's Paradise.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?