62 posts • joined Friday 7th January 2011 08:16 GMT
Re: Is porn a problem?
@Mycho: Porn is not the problem - you are.
Don't confuse the argument with facts. This has nothing to do with facts.
These people don't like porn. It's a simple thing. Logic, reality or reasoning has nothing to do with it. Porn is bad. They want you to just accept it with without thinking. Can't blame them really, as it's a bit like my attitude to Brussels sprouts.
The nasty bit is they don't care what you think have to because they have the reigns of power now, so they will do what's good for you even if you don't like it. You'll be better off for it, they swear.
Don't worry, just be patient. if you are the same as them, you will get to have your revenge when the pendulum swings the other way.
The sooner the better
Introducing this legislation won't change anything, any more than introducing legislation allowing the NSA to put mass taps into AT&T's exchanges didn't change anything. They were already doing it.
Likewise anybody who thinks communications that passes through a central choke point (Microsoft, I'm looking at you with Skype traffic) that can decrypt it won't be decrypted is living on a different planet to me.
To put it another way, Companies that advertise snake oil like secure communications will have a new road block in their path. If this legislation passes they effectively have to claim they are breaking the law. Hopefully that will make a debacle like Hushmail a lot less likely.
That's got to be good, surely.
Oh, if you really want secure communications, it isn't hard. You just need end to end encryption implemented in open source software. That's another thing this legislation will make plain - at least to those who think about it.
Other things it would be nice to know
If this stuff approaches the price of paint, then they have a winner.
Alternatively, it has to last for a long time. Organics typically don't, and nowhere I've seen mentions it. Silicon is already at $1/Watt, and it lasts for 25 years or so. Regardless of how easy it is to apply, if this stuff only lasts 5 years and costs the same as Silicon, maintenance costs will kill it.
Re: Define your units please
Sorry FlyingPhil, I didn't realise there were people here who didn't know SI units, didn't know how to use google, and didn't know that they didn't know.
So here, let me help you out. Since theregister sets "nofollow" you will have to copy & paste this link into your browser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule#Megajoule
I trust you know how to copy & paste. If not report back. I sure there will be sure to many willing helpers if you don't.
We are all saved!!
Well, it's either that or there is a typo. 46 KW*hr per kilo corresponds to specific energy of around 165 MJ / kg, which is extraordinary. Diesel is only manages 46 MJ / kg.
If it is true I predict electric cars and renewables will be running the world by the end of the decade, and global warming is henceforth a non-issue.
That's what the beer is for: Here's hoping!
Re: As vague as the last post on this subject....
It's a cpanel vulnerability. It has nothing whatsoever to do with apache other than this particular virus replaces the apache daemon with its own version after it has exploited the vulnerability.
How does this work?
One of the patents listed in the licence agreement, 8,032,656, was filed in 2007. The SIP RFC is dated 2002. How does that work? In fact about 1/2 the patents were filed after the first SIP RFC was published in 1999.
BT - Brittan's Troll.
@Thomas 4: if Microsoft allowed its hardware developers a little more flexibility when it comes to designing the phones, they'd be a lot more successful.
WP achieves some remarkable things. It is crisp and fast, and gets good battery life, and achieves that on cheap hardware. In fact, out of Android, iOS and WP, WP achieves the best results with the least hardware. And it is also very stable for a newly released OS.
But this comes at a price. The API's are so locked down it's hard to achieve anything that Microsoft plan for you to do. Yeah, it means the app writers have far less opportunities to drain the battery or compromise the system, but it also means if you want to write the some unusual app that needs to do stuff in the background - you are out of luck.
All old the WinCE stuff I've used was about as stable as jelly in an oven. Yet WP7, which was WinCE based, is solid as a rock. The reason WinCE was so bad is it isn't open source, so when your driver or hardware went wrong it disappeared up into it's own digital arse into a binary blob Microsoft never allowed you to see, leaving the OEM without a clue what happened. With WP7 Microsoft fixed that by ensuring no one but them was allowed to design the electronics or write a drivers for it. So that means there will be no Samsung style double sensor touch screens, or any other hardware device until Microsoft has put it into one of their reference designs and written drivers to support it.
So you end up with a fast, stable, power sipping OS & hardware combination that does what it's designers planned and nothing more. For people who like their things stable and familiar I'm sure it works a treat.
What happens to the current POTS system?
1. One of the big changes the NBN is going to bring about is abandonment of the Plain Old Telephone System (POTS). The replacement is going to be SIP (VOIP) everywhere. This is a profound architectural change. When everything becomes SIP a phone number no longer has to terminate at the end of a wire. Suddenly your Smartphone with a SIP stack can also be your home phone - and while you are at work. And SIP doesn't just support voice, it supports video as well. Does the NBN plan continue with this?
2. Another change is the NBN was going to deliver several ports to the house. This meant pay TV could be on one, your ISP could be on another, and your work's VPN could be on a third. The major effect of this is to break the cable companies monopoly on the delivery of pay TV. Does the new Libs NBN have an equivalent?
3. Telstra has disabled multicast on their fibre rollout in South Brisbane, presumably to shield FoxTel (which they own part of) from competition from the Internet. Will the Libs NBN include provisions to ensure specialised IP routing like multicast and anycast are available to all ISP's?
NZ shows the way ...
Being an Ozzie I don't normally go looking at NZ posts web site, but today I did so for a friend. And bugger me, one of the products listed is a USA Shipping address:
Those Kiwi's are sneaky bastards. And yes, in this case bastard is an Ozzie term of endearment.
Spin, spin, spin
I'd lay odds piracy is only a minor concern, and here is being used as a foil for what their real problem is: competition.
They have an effective monopoly on terrestrial pay TV because of their tie in with the owners of that cable. With the NBN anyone can set up a pay TV network, and undoubtedly quite a few will try their had at it.
There goes the cosy monopoly. Now that's really going to hurt.
Copy & Paste from /. ?
The exact same post appeared on /., earlier:
It looks to me like some kind soul copy and pasted it to Panic's blog.
Maybe they could try selling something...
Observation: from Seven West Media's 2011 annual report, Channel 7's revenues was $225 million last year. They are by far the most profitable, so if you combined Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10, and Foxtel, I doubt their yearly revenues would hit $1B/year.
Put your hands up if you would be willing to pay $20/month for 150 hours of video content (ie 5 hours/day), without ads. If every house the NBN passes did that, the total would be $1.4 Billion - ie more than they are making now, and being legit would be far easier than pirating it! See - it doesn't take much imagination to fix the problem and make money.
PS: Where did Kim pull that $1.37 Billion figure from? (That is purely a rhetorical question - I have a fair idea where it was pulled from.) He appears to be claiming TV's would be more than double what they do now if only piracy was stopped. Yeah, right.
And thanks to Richard ...
For bring this torch out of whatever dark hole it was hiding in so we can all see it. It's nice to have numbers to quantify things.
And Dell joins the club.
Take the Dell Precision 4700 laptop, in the one default configuration offered www.dell.com.au:
From www.dell.com: $1549.
From www.dell.com.au: $3599.
That's a 232% increase. I wish it was a joke, but I think they are serious.
@Matt Ryan: "Actually, the Samsung additions aren't too bad. The email client for example is better than stock."
Are we talking about the same Samsung - you know the Korean company that dominates the Android smartphone landscape? Because I have a Galaxy Nexus, and my wife has a Samsung phone, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, Samsung's customisations are shit.
Since you pick out the email client, I'll tell you a thing or two about it. Samsung decided to add a feature to the email client - push email. Sounds reasonable. So how did they do it? What they do is ask you for all your login details, and them store them in some server in Korea. That server then downloads all your emails, and then pushes them to phone. Maybe you think that is OK. Well bear these two facts in mind: the IMAP protocol already supports push email, and in order to support this feature they got rid of every other feature IMAP supports. Like server side searches, or viewing any folder other than the Inbox.
Maybe you don't mind having your cleartext email being copied to a remote country without your knowledge, along with your credentials. But what you will mind is they have a bug. The system occasionally deletes emails it doesn't like. They aren't copied to the trash. They just vanish.
How do I know all this? Well I run my own email server as a hobby. My wife complained of a missing email, which I of course blamed on her "girling" it. But then I tracked it down (because I archive every email that passes through my server), resent it, watched it hit the IMAP inbox folder on disk, then watched to my amazement as it disappeared. It was an IMAP client deleting it, whose domain name turned out to be apac007-egress-a.fra.samsungsocialhub.com.
Clam down people
The surface is based on the same OS as WinPhone. Why are they panicking? No one is going to buy the thing anyway.
just to correct a few miss understandings
Australia's carbon tax indeed isn't revenue neutral. The nett effect on the treasury was to reduce(!) the governments tax income to the tune of 4 billion over a few years. It could even be described as a tax cut.
And tes there must indeed be an overhead for collecting the tax, but in this case it is probably negligible as it only effects 300 corporations.
The first audit of the carbon tax appeared in the news today, and the effects on prices were less than predicted by treasury. There is some speculation this is because the utility bill's (it mostly effects electricity) haven't hit businesses yet. The more likely explanation in my is it is having bugger all effect because it does bugger all. It planned to transition to a European like trading scheme in the future, and like the European scheme it is supposed to get some real teeth in the future too, but that will require more legislation.
For the most appropriate description on the carbon tax is it is more an attempt at income redistribution. The poor have been overcompensated, and those earning above $90k (average wage is $60k and the mode is lower again of course) will end up paying more. This probably isn't a bad thing. It isn't welfare (as you only pay tax if you are earning something) and Australia's GINI index has been going up over the past decade.
As for the long tailpipe argument going on here, yes electric cars won't make much difference is you get the electricity from fossil fuels but that misses the point. They are one of the few things ideally suited to the intermittent power produced by renewables, and when you power them with renewables there emissions are close to 0. Still, they aren't useful while batteries suck, and it looks like batteries will be sucking for decades yet.
Finally blaming the fortunes on the Gillard government on the carbon tax is a bit of a stretch. Gillard is a lousy politician (after all she gave most people a tax reduction and yet _she_ labelled it a tax) and she has the charisma of a lamp shade. It's a pity people judge her on that, because she has puledl the budget back into balance during a period of declining tax revenue due to a world wide downturn. To me she looks like a dull but effective administrator.
Surely we will get rid of CNP transactions one day?
With most cards being smartcards now, surely one day the vendors will insist they can actually talk to the card even during an online transaction. It's not exactly rocket science.
> You couldn't make this up.
Actually, it gets better. The government contractor that lost the DVD was our very own AusCERT.
Pot calling the kettle black
Here we have a company that sold a signing cert berating individuals for sloppy password management? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/14/trustwave_analysis/
Well I guess they would know a thing or two about sloppy management of secrets.
CEO of firm tells region they must spend $1.1 trillion on products his firm manufactures.
Clearly El Reg went to some lengths to find a completely unbiased source for this article.
> However I'm sure this could have been gathered by simple scanning for broadcasting SSIDs, without slurping all traffic on any unencrypted WiFi network within radio range.
They were after mac addresses, not SSID's. That aside, you only get one shot at this. If you WiFi sniffing doesn't work sending the Street View car on another trip around the world isn't really possible, is it? Engineering wise if you want something to be reliable you make it as simple as possible. In this case the simplest thing to do is write all captured WiFi frames to disk. You then analyse it offline. That way if there is a bug in your analysis code you only notice a days or weeks later nothing is lost - you just re-run it.
It is a pretty simple design decision, and privacy law aside the Google engineer got it right.
Ye Gods, how many ways can a hair be split
Jeezz, technology is straining things to breaking point.
Their Honours have jumped through some heroic loops to put this little train of logic together. I can't help but think is because they know in their heart the drafters of the law did not intend it to wipe out commercial sporting codes, and so they have tried to interpret in a way that doesn't.
All they've done is delay the inevitable. Anyone with a decent DVR can record these shows now - I do. Surely with the advent of the NBN device as simple as a toaster that can record it and play it to your phone can't be more than a decade away.
> These sports are funded in part by the broadcast rights they sell. Optus were not paying for this.
No, but the entity that broadcast the data and have gave it to Optus for free did pay for it. As @P.Lee said, Telstra paid for diddly squat. I am not sure how they managed to convince themselves the footage was worth something after it has been broadcast on free to air.
Surely there is no argument DMCA was always intended to cover hosting companies and the like. This isn't a surprise, it is how it's designers intended it.
NZ$15,000 for downloading songs that sell for $1? I thought the Kiwi's had lost lost all sense of proportion when they starts jailing parents for smacking their kids, but clearly not. There was still some left to lose.
Amazing how they consistently get it wrong
Blind freddy can see Nokia's WinPhone experiment has been a total failure (with even the N9 outselling the WP7 models), Elop's judgement calls in the smartphone area a complete train wreck, and yes Google's 20 man Android dev team leaves Microsoft's WinPhone team eating it's dust. I assume even Nokia now realises their smartphone platform is dead.
However this does not mean Nokia is dead. Nokia is primarily a feature phone maker. They make most of their revenue from feature phones (obviously, since they don't sell significant numbers smartphones any more). Nokia's survival hangs on whether they continue to do this. They are fighting tooth and nail in this area. (As one wag pointed out in another forum, Nokia's feature phones actually do more than their smartphones do now.)
So this "analyst" has it completely arse about. Nokia's survival doesn't depend on WinPhone 7. It depends on Meltemi, which is what the next generation of Nokia's feature phones will running. It is a Maemo / Meego derivative, ie Linux. It never ceases to amaze me how these people manage to get it completely wrong, and still manage to make the news headlines. Brickbats to ElReg for putting them there.
You know the game is up ...
It's been a great scam while it lasted, but you know the game is up when even the pollies have caught on.
I recall many years ago our federal Government enthusiastically supported the creation of these dirty little back room cartels by clamping down on "grey marketing". I think that was back in the Frazer years, but while Hawk & Keating tore down most of it, the most recent example of it was the Labor governments continued support of the ban on parallel import of books.
Retail is in for a rough ride as these cosy little back room relationships are torn apart by competition. We will all be better off because of it.
Phones? What phones?
I remember mobile phones. They were quaint little things. You could fit 5 of them in your pocket, they lasted 2 weeks on a single charge, and you could leave them on the car roof, watch them bounce down the street, pick them up and they would still work. If people wanted phones they would still be buying those things. I hear some people still do.
The rest of us are buying mini computer than allows us to browse the web, read emails, draw pictures, take and edit videos, play movies, navigate down a street, be a wifi access point, yada, yada, yada. Oh yeah, you also make phone calls on them but compare those old mobile phones they aren't too good at that - too big, too power hungry, too fragile.
Turns out for most of the things you do with these newfangled things big is good. People get over their shock at the Galaxy Note by using the thing to browse the web and read emails, and rapidly come to the realisation that it is really, really good at doing those things. And it does actually fit into a pocket or handbag and is light enough to carry around all day without noticing. Yes it sucks at making phone calls - holding something that big up to your ear looks funny and feels awkward. But then again, if making phone calls was the priority, you would have bought a yesteryear mobile phone, and you didn't.
Ah, another reason for the NBN
If it survives the NBN will eliminate this problem. It replaces the current switch fabric with VOIP - ie the internet. The circuits in the exchanges that clogged will become land fill. And the volume of traffic that caused them choke will barely be noticed on the internet backbone, as it already carries orders magnitude more traffic now.
Bravo again Richard
Yet again you have produced an exemplary piece of science reporting.
Re: Bluetooth 4.0 though
> Bluetooth low-power, which I understand is positioning itself as an alternative NFC technology/standard
One of the more bizarre assertions to come from "industry commentators". At bit like some of the claims made in this article, actually.
NFC stands for Near Field Communications. Near, as in under 1cm, usually. As in "you have to be within 1cm of my phone in order to remove $10 from my account". Bluetooth 4.0 still operates at 10m, even the low power versions.
@scottf007: I think the first guy is wrong
*shrug* What can I say? There will be no law banning competition on the local loop. They are all gone. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. The proposed bill is online.
@scottf007: One company owning all access, this means one company will set prices with no other companies to compete(I think the first guy is wrong).
Firstly a gentle reminder: this is what we have now. One company, Telstra owns almost all the access. The one exception is the Optus HFC network which is dying a slow agonised death as we speak.
You talk about how wonderful competition is, but ignore the fact no country on the planet have managed to produce a competitive local loop delivery. The reason is plain as the nose on your face: no one in their right mind will roll out multiple cables to your house. It would be like running two water mains, or two selects of electricity poles. Just insane. That short period were we did take a short trip on the other side of sanity lead to the two HFC networks being rolled down the one street, and now the eventual death of one of them.
So local loop competition won't happen. You are demanding the impossible. Forget the fantasy, and just accept the idea that one company will own the sole land line connection to your house. If they are a private company they will charge you as much as they think you can bear. Of course no one can stomach that, so Telstra is regulated and charges whatever the government determines. The NBN will be a government owned company and so in that case the government sets the price. Can you spot the difference? Neither can I.
But there is one difference. Telstra used it local loop monopoly to keep a tight grasp all the rest of the communications infrastructure. Most of the back haul in the country is owned by Telstra. It is by far the biggest mobile operator. When you own the key piece of the puzzle, the local loop, that everyone must connect to it is easy to make it difficult and expensive for competitors. Thus we ended up with a one near monopoly operator who controls all of Australia telecommunications infrastructure.
The NBN will fix that. In return for being allowed to own the natural monopoly, it must stay out of all other areas. So in the long term we should see lots more competition in back haul and retail.
Did you get that - because I think you are missing the big picture. In fact you've got it 180 degrees arse about - just like Turnbull. Here you are saying the NBN will squash all competition, whereas in fact the new regulations separate the industry into multiple segments so there will be more competition.
In fact it is no different to what happened in Electricity. It used to be your local generator owned everything from the power station, to the transmission lines, to the suburban poles, to the meter box in your house, and you paid whatever they said. Then they broke it up. So now you have generators, who bid in a market to sell to retailers, who in turn sell to you. And so you have a choice. In fact everyone has choices and there is competition everywhere where they used to be none. But did you notice there is one area there is no competition? That would be the suburban poles and wires. They are still owned by a monopoly. The government usually. How odd - with the NBN we end up with the same situation in telecommunications.
@scottf007: We are getting bent over.
Maybe we are. But again you are making no sense. You are saying that with the current situation we being ripped off. Fair enough. But now the government proposes to change that situation in a way that might fix it, you are using that argument that we are being ripped off now to oppose it?!? Weird.
NBN ending competition
Turnbull is promoting a fantasy here. He claims, repeatedly that the NBN is a monopoly guaranteed by law. It is complete bs. Even those supposed "anti-cherry picking" provisions were some journalists invention.
The new laws do insist the industry is split into segments - local loop and the rest (retail and back haul), but that's it. Any and every one is free to build a competitor to the NBN, and what's more do so only in the most profitable, densely populated areas (ie, cherry pick). The _only_ restriction is you must be a wholesaler who sells access to every retailer on the same terms. So, you think wireless is going to kill fibre - well then go for it. Maybe put fixed wireless into apartment blocks were you can get 100's of customers per antenna, and undercut the NBN. No one is stopping you.
So unlike the Telstra monopoly of old, competition is allowed. I expect in the back haul business there will be more competition, because unlike Telstra the NBN is banned from providing back haul. Telstra on the the other hand gave itself very preferential access to its own exchanges. If the NBN succeeds, it will be because it can wholesale the sort of local loop product people want cheaper than anyone else can. Most people would call that open slather competition.
It's almost a 180 difference from the picture Turnbull is trying to spin. Yet articles like this one just repeat his claims without question. Maybe your could actually try doing some journalism for a change, putting the claims of our pollies in context rather than just allowing yourself to be treated as a copy & paste megaphone.
GPLv3 - a curates egg
Yes the anti patent clauses and all sorts of other things the FSF is noisily pointing to are very nice. In those areas the GPL V3 is much better than GPL V2.
But they neglect to mention it is incompatible with one aspect of modern platforms - the App Store. You can't bring a piece of GPL V3 code near the Android or iOS app stores, even if you had a "press this button to download the source" on them. Without an app store controlling what can and can not run on the phone, the reality is many carriers simply won't allow those phones on their network. Unlike what the clause is aimed at, TiVo, this isn't driven by some attempt to control the customer, it is to shield them from malware. It is the classic case of good intentions causing huge amounts of collateral damage.
There are other licenses out there that as good as the GPL V3 on the patent front, but don't have that problematic anti tivo'ation clause in them. The Eclipse Public License is one. Unfortunately it isn't compatible with the GPL, so the world remains full of compromises.
In the mean time, the FSF saying the GPL V3 is a saviour of modern software eco-systems like Android is a lie. It is not a saviour. It is fundamentally incompatible with them. If you want to release free software that can be used by your average person on them, you must NOT use the GPL V3.
Richard Chirgwin - you're my hero
I get more objective reporting from the daily articles by Richard here then I do from the rest of the internet combined. I know, I know, Richard is just presenting boring facts rather and honest assessment rather than searching for the most titillating angle and speculating about it endlessly. He even has the temerity to include to include links to back up his claims. Since when has any serious money making journalist even done that?
It can't possibly last. I am making a point of enjoying it while it is around.
What am I missing here?
I am having trouble reconciling:
> would be tasked with getting a minimum 12 Mbps to as many Australians as possible, “ideally within twelve months”. This would be followed by a rapid upgrade to 24 Mbps “within forty-eight months”.
> a model which would leave high-density, economically-viable locations served by market competition, unsupported by government
Most people in these economically-viable areas do not have 24 Mbps. Most don't have 12 Mbps. So how are these people going to be upgraded to those speed without support from the government? Presumably if it was economically-viable, it would already have been done.
And how do you propose to force the split up a private company like Telstra? Turnbull blandly asserts that "more valuable to shareholders in the long term". Surely if the shareholders actually believed that it would have been done by now.
There is also the minor issue of this approach of paying the local oligopoly to upgrade the copper why leaving the open having been tried, and failed. I guess its possible that since we have said adois to Saul and Phil, attitudes have changed.
All in all, this seems like putting up something different form what the government is doing that will survive the cursory inspection it will get at election time. Ahh well. I guess it is better than the hopeless plan they floated at the last election, although I am lending it more dignity than it deserves by calling it a plan.
And this is the bit that makes no sense
> Because of this, each wireless user can use “the full data rate of shared spectrum simultaneously with all other users”, and therefore, “Shannon’s law does not apply”.
Either the spectrum isn't literally shared, or Shannon-Hartley theorem does indeed apply. There are a whole pile of tricks you can use to avoid sharing spectrum: create small cells that don't overlap, use highly directional antenna's, use phase array antenna's to create a virtual directional antenna, bump up the signal strength to raise the signal to noise ration, figure out a way to reduce the noise by say running your signal through very thin glass wave guides. If Steve Perlman hasn't invented a new one of these it is snake oil. Given the way the paper is written, I'm betting on snake oil.
Notice that Shannon-Hartley is called a theorem, not a law. That is because isn't one of physics model's validated through repeated observation. It is actually something stronger - a mathematical fact. Saying it is wrong is like saying 1+1=3.
All well and good, but LiFePO4 last a minimum of 2000 cycles, and a decade, and are shipping now.
To justify their enormous cost batteries have to last decades. The means somewhere around to 10,000 cycle mark. 1,000 just doesn't cut it.
And the sheep take off
After reading the comments, it stuck me that like a flock of sheep you are all leaping to conclusions. Nowhere in the article does it say the data was extracted using the internet. Nowhere does it say the computers were even connected to the internet.
For all we know, this might be like Stuxnet - computers not attached to the internet were attacked via a USB virus. Or move likely someone trusted simply connected a phone to the corporate LAN, and walked out the door with 30 Gb of state secrets on a micro SD card smaller than a finger nail.
Paris because on a site supposedly dedicated to IT, the comments here are simply sad.
And what's wrong with the utilitarian argument?
I came to pretty much the same conclusions as the article when we have the mandatory filtering debate here in Australia. (We are currently going through the "optional filtering" debate, which roughly translates to the ISP's voluntarily implementing filtering on all their customers (who don't have a choice), because the government is beating them over the head. The government announced during the last couple of weeks when the largest ISP's verbally agreed to come on board. The only problem being now that push has come to shove and the media heat is increasing, the ISP's seem to be realising this move may not popular with their customers and are wavering. We will see.)
Returning to the topic. I see we have one here saying the fact that the publishing of the abuse of child saves several is not sufficient justification for allowing the publishing. I guess they must be one of those anti-vaccination nutters as well. The argument is the same. Vaccination does undeniably kill some kids, in return for saving many more. The anti utilitarian's argue the greater good is no justification if one kid dies.
The interesting thing about pedo photo's is there a 1/2 way house. There aren't many crimes where the perpetrator willingly sells photo's of them committing the deed, for the obvious reason they are creating a picture and money trail that leads straight back to them. But this creates an opportunity, for those who are truly interested in the kids welfare, as opposed to just forcing everybody to conform to their own idea of utopia. Rather than crack down so hard on picture trading you force it to become well neigh invisible, you semi-tolerate it - rather in the same manner music piracy is now semi tolerated. It's still a crime, but if you get caught the primary interest is in having legal access to all your records, so you can follow the money trail to a child abuser.
Now the amazing thing to me was the people in Australia pushing the internet filter, dumb as thick planks they might be, seemed to get this. Towards the twilight of the proposal its primary political proponent actually said rather than begin filtering new child porn sites immediately, they would leave them open for a while so the police could track who was accessing them. It was a tiny, tiny blow for common sense, and a wholly unexpected one.
Thanks for the article Richard. It's nice to have something counterbalancing the spin from Abbott's side, although spin is probably a generous description of probably should be called outright lies. It's disappointing to see them coming from Turnbull.