Campaign countdown: praying for salvation

Luke says:

07:53am | 22/06/10

You wrote that wrong.

Do any politicians care about Australians? Do any politicians believe in this country?

Rudd’s just one of the worse choices available.

Andrew says:

07:53am | 22/06/10

Good question. I have no idea what Kevin Rudd stands for and worse still I don’t think he does either. I think he thinks he knows what people want him to stand for but he just doesn’t have the credibility to convince people anymore. Once the faith is gone it is nigh on impossible to get it back.

dovif says:

08:59am | 22/06/10

What does Rudd stand for…. give him the next poll and see what he say

tell him: I am worry about grocery prices Rudd: I will do something about it

Tell him: I am worry about aborigines housing, Rudd: I will make big announcements and end up building 3 houses in 3 years

Tell him: I am worry about the environment Rudd: it is the biggest moral challenge facing mankind

Tell him: you worry about the amount of toilets in Sydney and if Rudd think there is votes in it, he will promise more toilets

When you want to be popular and stand for everything, you end up standing for nothing

Steve_of_Cornubia says:

09:09am | 22/06/10

Kevin Rudd is the Minister for Kevin Rudd and will do anything to protect his ‘portfolio’.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:13am | 22/06/10

Against the Man :  i think the P.M. does honestly care about Australians
and this country , but his failure lies within his inability to carry out what is required from a Prime Minister. Labor’s record , to date , is abysmal ,
and Kevin Rudd has been at the core of their problems from the beginning. When you compare the euphoric start , those heady days of great expectation and excitement to what we have reached today , you know that it has largely been Rudd’s loss of credibility that has brought us all back to reality.  Talk about a parallel with the Whitlam govt. !
There is no escaping the clear indications coming from regional and provincial marginals , that Rudd is on the nose and those electorates have decided to dump him .
Rudd and Labor have themselves to blame for there spectacular turnaround in fortunes.

I like Kev,,all of them says:

11:30am | 22/06/10

We are witnessing the attempted reinvention of Kevvy,Public Relations and advertising companies who specialise in selling people things they dont need or want sponsored the public purse and trade unions along with
Lindsey Tanner and Mark Habbiby are deeply concerned that the public have seen the real Kev,the old Kev, the kev we have come to know and stop listening to,the man who says one thing and does nothing
The New Kev,A god fearing kev A baby kissing kev,A soft kevvy wevvy who is both cuddily and nice,a Kev that is photographed walking into church on sundays,but looks more worried leaving his temple of media opportunity,A Kev that gives his Media Minders and Speech writers something to gain traction with,A caring Kev   all of which of course is Bulls t,but even the well versed in politics,from either side are roundly in agreeance that now matter how you spin it,Kevvy in any Guise is Finished,.,,So be it

acker says:

08:17am | 22/06/10

I might be in the minority but I actualy like leaders who try and do something to stop child pornography and peadophile chat clubs. If that involves upsetting the art world, gamers association and internet freedom groups..I will accept that

Kordez says:

08:45am | 22/06/10

@acker, Labours proposed internet filter will do absolutely nothing to prevent child pornography or remove the risk to children in chat forums.
It is this very reason our public needs to be educated about proposed legislation, rather then the tactics currently being used “roll out now and answer questions later.”
The groups that you are happy to see upset are the folk with an opposing voice, because they have the knowledge required to understand Conroy’s filter is a big fat fail.
I suggest you read some of the opposing opinions and facts at http://nocleanfeed.com/

BJ says:

08:52am | 22/06/10

Acker:

1. CP is not traded and exchanged on your run of the mill webpage. You can’t just go to google and type in CP, click the first search result and start saving images to your PC. Want to prove me wrong? I dare you to actually go out there and try and find some. You won’t be successful. I have never encountered it in all my years on the internet.

2. CP is traded via email and Peer to peer. Not blocked by the filter.

3. Before you get into it, the filter also isn’t blocking pornography. Just “RC” content (another can of worms…).

The money would be better invested in catching these criminals.

acker says:

09:09am | 22/06/10

@kordez..I’m not trying to get into the technical beat-up’s of if it is or if it’s not. But I am saying the primary motivation for the net filter is “to try and stop child porn” and I think that is an honorable cause that is often getting overlooked in this debate.

Confused Fuddy Duddy says:

09:19am | 22/06/10

Acker

Great logic! Let’s have a bit of fun and take it a bit further.
It is reasonable to assume that peadophiles use snail mail to communicate as well - Why don’t we sensor that?

Peadophile has been proven to take place in schools - Why don’t we close them?

Some men of the cloth have been convicted as peadophiles - Let’s ban that profession.

Some parents have been found to be peadophile - let’s get rid of ............ Oh dear see how silly this logic can be.

Peadophilia is vile and we all wish it could be eradicated now,

However these people use peer to peer for electronic communications which I understand that the filter will not stop. (Even if it did the participants would find another communication method). but to quote an unknown poster on this site some time ago (to the best of my memory an apologies to the poster). “Filtering the internet is akin to viewing a peadophilic act occurring outside of your window, pulling the blind down so you cannot see it, then claiming your’ve done something positive.”

Luke says:

09:19am | 22/06/10

@acker, “to try and stop child porn”......as Yoda said…“Do or do not…there is NO try.” And this internet filter certainly DOES NOT…..

persephone says:

09:20am | 22/06/10

The internet filter imposes the same censorship restrictions on the internet as apply to other forms of media.

Of course you can get around the filter, just as you can get around most legal restrictions (we have laws against murder, but we don’t think they’re a waste of time and money because people still get murdered).

Taking action to get around the filter demonstrates an intent to flout the law - you can’t say the illegal material ended up on your computer accidentally, or that you accessed a site unintentionally.

I don’t mind people arguing against the filter because it slows the net down, or because they are opposed to all forms of censorship, but if the latter, people should have the courage to also promote the free and unfettered sale of all material, not just on the net.

If you think that certain magazines and videos should not be available to anyone to view, no matter their age, then you should also be advocating for censorship on the net.

dovif says:

09:49am | 22/06/10

Acker

If peadophiles were on the net today and using normal websites, they would be caught by police already

They have ways to hide on the internet and make sure people does not know what they are doing

The filter have no way of stopping them

Kordez says:

09:50am | 22/06/10

@acker, what pisses me off, is people believe that!
The intention of the internet filter is to start regulation of the internet, it was never to block child porn or pedos from picking up children in chat rooms, these were used to hide the real reasoning behind the filter. What better way then to classify whatever you want as RC material and hide the URL list from the public? It is a dangerous path and everyone should be cautious.

Do you know something says:

10:39am | 22/06/10

Kevvy is being reinvented by Public Relation Companies
Union bosses such as Lindsey Tanner are worried we may have seen the real Kev,so cynically they reinvent him,A caring God fearing man who does not have a vile mouth,an explosive temper,a complete disregard for colleagues and the public generally, A deep reflective man who cuddles babies,A man from a Working Family,a man who really wants to be popular and loved,by a particular movie actress
This of course will be bleated on social networking sites like Facetwat and Blurter to the knuckle scrapers and airheaded shoppers who like free money to win their hearts
Julia Dullard is of course his companion and comrade,a well Rounded type who despite her rampant Communist beliefs is prepared to stay away from baby kissing and gets a saloon passage and exemption from any responsibility
Well the new kevvy is just marvellous,just like Obammy,and Julia is the very model of Angela Merkl, What a lucky Country we are

Kordez says:

11:02am | 22/06/10

@persephone, Sexpo has been running for approximately 4-5 years now, each year that I’ve worked there or visited, advocates for the removal of a law prohibiting the sale of X Rated pornography within Queensland have been obtaining signatures. It is ignorant of you to insinuate these groups don’t exist. Your interests may lay elsewhere, but some people are perverted, and they should be allowed to be. Forunately for them they are able to find out what is allowed for sale or banned, the internet filter doesn’t allow that luxuary and nor will it classify anything.
In order for these citizens to obtain the goods they seek, they criminalise themselves by shipping the goods from America, Russia or The Netherlands (to name a few) to their homes. The internet has always served porn, nothing the Australian Government implements will prevent this billion dollar p/a industry from serving it to Australians. Terrorist/Criminal education related URL’s are planned to be blocked, these should be available to view by all, especially for the educational value. Blocking a site which details how to break into a vehicle will not reduce or prevent vehicle theft. Viewing material created by terrorists will not encourage those with Australian values to join gangs or terrorist groups.
It’s extremely stupid that the Labour Government continues to push this as being in the best interest of our country. To criminalise their own peeps in their own homes.
But of course, anyone opposed to the filter wants to or downloads child porn.

acker says:

11:09am | 22/06/10

@confused fuddy duddy, etc, etc..yes the scumbuckets probably are using snail mail, but the they will also be happier crims if any internet policing and filtering is removed or not put in place..and you can argue against that point until the cows come home

persephone says:

11:33am | 22/06/10

Kordez

you misunderstood me.

I am arguing that it is contradictory for people to argue that the internet should not be censored and not also argue that other forms of media should also go uncensored.

People who argue both - that censorship shouldn’t exist, in any medium - exist, and I’m quite interested in exploring that argument, as it may have merit.

A lot of arguments against the filter are based on this contradictory view.

Filter opponents argue, for example, that a filter shouldn’t be needed, because parents should supervise their children on the net.

OK, it’s much easier for parents to supervise their children’s reading material, the TV they watch and the DVDs they take out. Yet all of these are ‘filtered’ by censorship laws.

So if someone’s arguing that a filter isn’t necessary, because parents should be taking control, then they also should be arguing that porn magazines should be freely displayed, that DVDs should go uncensored and that TV stations should be able to show whatever programs they want to.

Otherwise, they need to explain why viewing material over the net is different to obtaining it through these other forms of media.

If

Keith hammersmith says:

12:21pm | 22/06/10

well then, lets just look at all the other countries that filter/censor the internet as much as will happen here…  China,  North Korea, Burma, Iran…

how can this be deemed a good thing.
it isnt, end of story

and I really like the pulling the blinds down analogy,  makes perfect sense,  this isnt about crime, its about control.

keith Hammersmith says:

12:26pm | 22/06/10

Persephone, your agument it seems is
“if one thing is censored, and you are ok with that, then eveything can be censored’

thats rediculous,  its going to far.  And your argument lacks all merit.

Sure I say dont put porn on tv at 3pm when i know a lot of kids are watching,  thats censorship I am ok with,  that does not mean for a second i think that all nudity should be removed from tv at any hour - thats censorship that I am not ok with as an adult.

there are levels, and the internet filter crosses a big level, and the majority of the population are not ok with it,

government should maybe listen to the people everyonce in a while, they may do a little better in the polls

Cameron Price-Austin says:

01:09pm | 22/06/10

Good lord @persephone and @acker, I don’t know where to begin…

@acker

Preventing the production and distribution of child pornography is a noble goal—no-one is arguing that.

But please listen to the technical experts on this—this filter won’t achieve that aim. Child pornography is not traded over the web - it’s distributed over P2P networks and other protocols, all of which are outside the scope of the proposed filter.

At best, the proposal is a misallocation of resources (the money should instead be used to further boost the number of AFP officers tracking and prosecuting offenders).

@persephone

The proposed filter is fundamentally different to other forms of censorship.

When a film or book is reviewed by Classification Australia, the full justification of their decision is published on their website. The public are informed which materials have been reviewed, their classification and how the board reached that decision.

There is no such transparency in the proposed filter. The government will not (and should not) publish a list of materials which have been banned, because this will produce a directory of undesirable content. As such, Australians will have no oversight of which sites were blocked or why.

This is clearly dangerous. This government (or future governments) could therefore, in theory, block materials on politically sensitive topics such as abortion, assisted suicide etc and we (the public) would have no idea they had done so.

There is nothing to stop this from going further. Need Fielding’s vote? Block some X18+ material. Need support from Xenaphon? Block some online gambling sites.

Plus, as you mentioned @persephone, there remain some concerns regarding the performance of the filter.

antiperspirant says:

01:46pm | 22/06/10

Who censors the censors?

acker says:

02:26pm | 22/06/10

I’ve said in this thread I’m not an expert, are any of the respondents pointing out how I’m wrong experts in computer engineering or just preaching negatives from what they have seen or read about the webfilter like a new religion.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

02:38pm | 22/06/10

@acker

I have a degree in Computer Science.

No-one is attacking you for not being an expert. We just want you to understand why we’re so opposed to the filter.

acker says:

03:11pm | 22/06/10

@Cameron..I’m a father of teenagers and I want them protected, our community puts speed limits on cars, bans automatic firearms, fireworks, poisons..I just cant see a huge issue in a bit of control on the web.
And I find the argument of we will put anything on it protect your computer your self, about as useful as me buying a machine gun to shoot vermin in the streets and warning the community to wear bullet proof vests and helmuts before they step outside their house in case I’m shooting in the direction of their house.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

03:57pm | 22/06/10

@Acker,

Fair enough. If all this filter did was remove child pornography, there wouldn’t be much opposition.

But it doesn’t. It will block a range of materials, some legal and some illegal, and we as citizens will have no oversight of what has been blocked.

You like commenting on The Punch, so I’ll assume you enjoy engaging in political debate. What if the government decided to block pages which debated politically sensitive issues? Or views and opinions which dissent from their own? This filter provides them with the infrastructure to do that without our knowledge and, frankly, it’s frightening.

I know it’s tempting to look at the Internet like any other regulated behaviour or substance. But the truth is the Internet is unlike anything we’ve ever attempted to regulate before. It isn’t like a speed limit, or a poison or a film. Regulation for those items can be achieved while balancing public protection with the very important role of transparency. We, as a public, are free to debate the merits of what speed limits should be applied to what roads, or whether Film X should be MA or R, or whether a particular poison should be controlled or banned. Under this proposed filter, we’re not afforded the right to know what has been banned.

If the government cannot achieve regulation with appropriate oversight and transparency, it should not attempt to do so at all.

As for your first sentence, if you want to protect your teenagers the best way to do so is with additional AFP officers and optional client-side filters.

acker says:

08:53pm | 22/06/10

@Cameron 3.57pm..I said there is an issue a lot of Australian’s are concerned about relating to internet porn and peadophilia. I stated I am no expert, you stated you are…now make a decent argument or crawl back under your rock cobber

Cameron Price-Austin says:

09:08am | 23/06/10

@acker

Please see my response to @OldGirl where I have outlined what I believe to be the major problems with this proposal.

Mikeymike says:

06:42pm | 23/06/10

@ acker.
I see I’m late to the party.
The internet filter works on web pages.  Child porn is not distributed over web pages.  There is more than one way to communicate over the internet.  Email is not a web page.  A web page is not peer to peer.  Peer to peer is not VoIP.  All of these are different technologies. 

And fair enough you want your kids protected.  That’s why you make your kids wear helmets when they ride their bikes.  You make them wear their seat belts when driving.  You keep alcohol out of their reach.  All of those decisions and actions are done by you because you’re a responsible parent.

Since you have turned on the internet connection in your house, it is your responsibility to police it.  I know you mentioned that you have no tech skills and that’s no crime, but how about making sure that the computer is used in an open area of the house?  Because as a parent, the things that you’re worried about aren’t going to be covered by an internet filter.

An Internet filter is not going to stop your kids from viewing freely available adult pornography.  It is not going to stop your kids being contacted by a pedophile in an online chat room.  Nor will it stop your kids (or anyone) from downloading or uploading child pornography from file sharing applications.

So let’s forget that the about what the filter may or may block in the future (although that is a relevant discussion).  You’re going to rely on this technology to do a job that it simply can’t do.  If you want technology that will do the job, get yourself Net Nanny (http://www.netnanny.com/).  I strongly recommend you educate yourself further, not about the filter, but about online dangers to kids.  Start with thinkyouknow.co.uk, then http://www.microsoft.com/protect/parents/childsafety/steps.aspx, and also http://www.kidprotect.org.

Good luck.
For the record, I’m an IT Trainer and Lecturer…

Brendan says:

02:42pm | 22/06/10

Eyes wide open,

I am also in the seat of Flynn and i can say i get the exact same tingly sensation when i hear about the 12% swing against him.
It’s good to see that there are people in Flynn who are not the usual Union fanboys endlessly regurgitating Labor party rhetoric.

BJ says:

08:55am | 22/06/10

Holly, people are against it because it will not work (but still have detrimental effects to Australia’s internet and ISPs), not because it will actually block anything.

If someone wanted to look at a blocked page, they absolutely can via a proxy (google it). It is incredibly simple to get around - almost as simple as installing a filter on your own PC and tailoring it so that it meets your own needs for you and your family.

acker says:

11:18am | 22/06/10

@BJ..most people like me and possibly you would probably not be well educated enough in computer engineering to have any friggin clue if a net filter would work or not. But we do know society has a problem with child pornography and steps should be looked at including net filters to stop it or make it harder to obtain.
I used to like going shooting with a semi-automatic rifle, but I have accepted that because they can be mis-used in the wrong hands, they got banned.

Adam Diver says:

11:51am | 22/06/10

@ acker: BJ points out a link to educate you on what you need to know to get around the filter. You don’t need a degree in computer engineering, just 5 minutes and a google search.

Your complete naivity and ignorance is why you should not comment on things you do not understand, and are unwilling to research. For the last time this filter has nothing to do with child porn, that is already illegal and will not even be covered by restricted classification (as its classified as illegal…get it) and its not even hosted on static web pages that the filter will filter.

If we ever have a restriction on freedoms I hope that ignorant people like yourself no longer get to vote.

MatLon says:

01:27pm | 22/06/10

@ Holly & Acker

Wake up. This is not about child porn, it is about ‘Refused Classification’ material.

So, how about these?:

A social worker looking for information on safe injecting information? Sorry, that is Detailed Instruction in Crime - censored

A reporter doing a story on the methods of Graffiti gangs? Sorry, censored.

A student doing an essay on hate speech and looking for direct reference? Sorry, censored

A medical student researching detailed information on euthanasia methods? Sorry, censored

The list could go on and on and on.

Whether you agree with the above issues is irrelevant, they have every right to be debated and researched in an open and confident democracy AND are completely legal to consume. So why filtered???

THIS filter is an attack on our democracy and the thin edge of the wedge, if you cannot see that, I feel sorry for you.

Most opponents to THIS filter would not be complaining if it was just about child porn, but it is not.

Rob says:

02:08pm | 22/06/10

“I have never quite understood why people are so against something which will stop access to such things. “

And this is why Conroy will cost Labor the election. Rudd and co don’t consider it to be a big issue, so they treat the public with contempt: Details are kept secret. Lies are told. Opponents are attacked and derided. They may have shelved introducing the legislation for now… but to quote the Prime Minister… we have a very long memory.

Sally says:

12:03pm | 22/06/10

@Talon,

Rudd launched the book.  It was written by David Uren and Lenore Taylor, and published by Melbourne University Press.  He will therefore not receive proceeds as it is not his book, merely about him.

Your failure to read and understand this makes me question your analytical comprehension skills.  How many other strong views do you hold based on no understanding of what you’ve read?

Talon says:

02:05pm | 22/06/10

@ Sally.

Thanks.  Got distracted at work at the end of the story so only skimmed the last dozen lines.  I recant the last paragraph of my comment but stand by the first.  It is true that we may not realise just how much the GFC would have affected us but you can not just focus on one of the few good things you have done and ignore the rest.

There are so many more issues that he has failed on then those submitted here by people going off topic.

Well phrased attach by the way.  Was that your only comment today?  I hope I did not offend any Sciento…..I mean Christians out there.

acker says:

12:34pm | 22/06/10

@Grant..wouldn’t an independent classification type board (like those that clasify film & television) be able to moderate and review what is filtered ? ..even this forum is moderated

Cameron Price-Austin says:

01:13pm | 22/06/10

@acker

No, under the proposed filter the decision of what materials to block will be made by ACMA and those decisions will not be published.

The public will not be kept informed of what sites have been banned and why.

Conroy has floated the idea of having the list reviewed periodically by a retired judge or similar, but we’ve seen no detail on this. Also, the size of the list may make this prohibitive.

MatLon says:

01:38pm | 22/06/10

acker,

Conroy has suggested the list could be given to a retired judge every six months. Some estimates suggest that Google index up to a billion web pages every day.

Do the math. Even if only a tiny portion of these newly indexed pages are Refused Classification, it is still going to dwarf Conroy’s pathetic list of 10,000 websites every day…forget every six months.

A good analogy would be that this filter will be like trying to filter a cities water supply with a tea bag. IT WILL NOT WORK.

iansand says:

10:29am | 22/06/10

If your enemy is shooting himself in the foot a wise man does not interfere.

luke09 says:

01:48pm | 22/06/10

nosthow, i hate to dampen your optimism but the release today of polls indicating a wipeout for labor in marginal seats should be a real concern as Abbott would be PM if an election had been held.

Labor are on the nose at state and federal level. Liberal support at state level is very strong and a swing to federal politics is being felt.

WayneT says:

03:13pm | 22/06/10

Get Rudd to call the election date, then you will see the policies.  The Liberals are up to Rudds dirty tricks brigade and the Unions and won’t be falling for that crap again as per last election.  Besides which, they don’t have to do anything, their not in power they’re the opposition.  The Governments the only one that has to prove anything or justify anthing.

nosthow says:

05:06pm | 22/06/10

@Luke09 - no election at present Luke - can be held as late as April 16 next year. Good to see Abbott calling himself across the line already - will make his defeat all that more pleasurable !

Kate says:

11:43am | 22/06/10

Yes, because you happen to not like those websites. But if you don’t like them, you don’t have to access them. The great thing about freedom of speech and freedom of expression is that you have the choice of what to access.
If you don’t want to view content that is refused classification, you are not being forced to. But why deprive other people of exactly the same rights that you enjoy?
I for one will never vote for a party that advocates any form of internet censorship. It is completely obvious that the proposed internet filter will not stop the distribution of child pornography - this distribution can only be tackled by the combined efforts of the Federal Police and internet service providers (who have the power to report users who are detected accessing child porn).
If for some inexplicable reason this idiotic idea does come in, I hope those with good internet skills are out there posting ways to get around it ASAP. I don’t necessarily want to access refused classification sites, but I oppose them being banned on principle.

Adam Diver says:

11:55am | 22/06/10

@ Kate, wikileaks has already leaked a copy of the banned list of urls, all you need to do to get around this filter is use an overseas proxy. Simpply go to google and type in UK proxy or US proxy etc and then type in any URL you want into the proxy. I just wasted millions of taxpayers dollars. Sorry to everyone who pays taxes so the government can keep ingnorant people more ignorant

MatLon says:

01:46pm | 22/06/10

Holly,

It is none of your business if people want to look at those things, it is completely legal.

You remind me of our paternalistic friends in the ACL dictating what the rest of us should or should not be doing.

I feel sorry for you, you have very little love for the democracy that so many Australians have gone to war and died for. Yet, I bet you are very proud of our ANZAC tradition right?

Kate says:

02:59pm | 22/06/10

@Adam Diver - thank you for the tip! I thought I’d read something about using overseas proxies as a bypass but didn’t know it was as easy as googling it.

Wayne Thomas says:

03:42pm | 22/06/10

With more people leaving the church and more people getting informed about what is really going on in the world with instantaneous news services, bloggs and websites, the State and the Church can feel their control of the masses slowly slipping away.  No longer are they able to control us through fear and misinformation, as people start to get more savvy about what is going on around them and can read what other people are thinking and feeling.  Why can’t the Government publish the censored list if the internet filter is supposedly so effective at blocking those URL’s.  Redirect the money towards the experts in the Federal Police and Interpol to catch these paedophiles.  The more you push them underground the harder the authorities will find in catching them.  Making it harder for pedo’s won’t stop them being pedo’s.

Grant says:

04:10pm | 22/06/10

1.  My point is? 

You asked me in your response “What is it that people wish to access that they wont be able to see.” I obliged and identified websites that would be captured by the filter.

2.  What would be lost? 

Free expression, information, awareness…  When the public loses access to political information, for example: Wikileaks, or a UNI student who is studying Middle Eastern relations who can not access a website that details ideologies about terrorist organisations, or the religious anti abortion website that is expressing their view on something they believe in.

3.  Self indulgent waste of web space? 

I will have to disagree with you, I consider websites with political speech to be very important .  Even if you consider their opinions to be offensive or self indulgent. 

4. I shot my own argument down? 

That doesn’t make sense, can you please provide a effectual argument that explains how I shot my argument down, rather than just stating that I did.

James1 says:

10:58am | 22/06/10

That is one of the most disappointing things about the Liberal Party for me.  They never seem able to run a clean campaign, or run a campaign on the basis of their policies.  They seem to rely mostly on fear and stupidity when it comes to gathering votes outside their core constituency.  Whatever works for them though, I guess.  If a large chunk of the electorate votes on the basis of their fear and stupidity, the Liberals might as well pander to it.

Scott says:

10:58am | 22/06/10

I launch personal attacks at KRudd whenever I can… i dont have an issue with my own personal performance… i just call a spade a spade… or in kevins case a tool a tool. Liberals are just doing the same. Not because they have an issue with their performance, but like everyone else they can see Kev for the terrible PM that he is. How a butt kisser like Kev could fool the entire ALP party says a lot about the ALP.

James1 says:

01:51pm | 22/06/10

Incorrect Scott.  What you have there is a bunch of childish name calling, not a coherent argument as to why Rudd is bad, and why the Liberals can do better.  That is what the Liberals should be presenting - I actually agree that Rudd is not doing well, but engaging in childish name calling does not make you look like a credible commentator, it makes you look like a childish name caller.  And my understanding of childish name calling and bullying is that it stems from fundamental feelings of inadequacy.

Greg says:

03:20pm | 22/06/10

Low personal attacks on Krudd!
It was just a week ago that every Labor politicians line taught by the head master was about Abbott would be the prime minister in a less than personable manner just targetting the next PM and a great PM he will be too.
If you’re referring to the Kevohlemon, what a classic and you cannot help that the truth can hurt but get up a chuckle in the true self deprecating Aussie way and have a good bloody laugh for it’ll help and you do really know that you’ll be better off without Krudd and Labor.

James1 says:

04:06pm | 22/06/10

Indeed, I agree Greg.  But childish name calling is still just that.  I would much prefer that more energy was spent on devising workable and alternative policies, as is the traditional role of the opposition.  I take politics seriously - electing someone to run a nation-state should not be done of the basis of who makes us more scared or laugh more, it should be done on the basis of good policy.  And at the moment, neither party can claim that they have good policies.

Kordez says:

01:13pm | 22/06/10

@OldGirl, even though we’re all off topic. RC material is anything which is refused classification. RC material can range from educational sites regarding abortion to sites informing about terrorist activities. X rated material is likely to be deemed illegal and most people won’t care that it’s blocked.
The biggest problem with the intended filter is we’re all being sold a retarded Trojan horse. It will not and cannot stop or prevent child porn distribution, it will not and cannot prevent children from being exploited by paedophiles and it will not indefinitely block a website which is listed in it’s database.
The really evil thing about the proposed filter, is no one will know what is blocked, we are to trust that our government has our best interests at heart and the Labour Government postponed the filter until after the election due to the negative effect it was having on their credibility. I’m not sure of the figures but from memory about $40 million is the initial cost of the filter (which won’t work as promised,) this figure includes a small increase in internet police who will search for the dirty kiddie peddlers.
Think of it this way OldGirl, we start off by blocking sites like xtube, redtube and jerkyourtube then move onto filtering of Google results relating to abortion and then start removing certain phrases from media reports and public opinion forums. Will it only be then that the Australian public will realise the mistake we allowed our own government to make? Well by then it will be too late.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

01:20pm | 22/06/10

@OldGirl

1. It won’t work. Child porn is traded over protocols which are outside the scope of the filter.

2. As it won’t work, the money should be spent on more law enforcement.

3. There is no oversight. Some bureaucrat at ACMA will decide whether something should be blocked or not. We won’t be informed when this happens.

4. It’s not just child pornography. It’s all Refused Classification material. Refused Classification includes illegal material, but also includes some legal and politically sensitive material including topics such as abortion, euthanasia, graffiti art, some sexual material etc

5. It’s easy (and legal) to circumvent, which reinforces points 1 & 2.

6. It will slow the Internet down, despite Conroy’s assertions to the contrary and his dubious Ennex test results where the methodology was opaque and the sample of blocked URLs was very small.

7. If you want to help families with children to block adult content, then the filter should be optional. Or, do what the Howard government did and provide free software filters for anyone who wants one.

MatLon says:

01:52pm | 22/06/10

*sigh*

OldGirl, it is not just filtering child porn, it is Refused Classification material, 99% of which is completely legal to consume.

antiperspirant says:

01:54pm | 22/06/10

You have my vote Cam.

All that you said is true. It is naive to think a filter is a panacea.

All it is is a prophylactic. All it can possibly hope to achieve is to perhaps stop a person accidentally stumbling onto a “mans best friend” site that is not about the joys of dog ownership.

If people want to find kiddie porn, bestiality or how to join Hammas they can

It is all there and a filter doesn’t stop it.

It is a nanny state reaction from big brother with awful consequences if misused.

There are commercial filters. Use them. There is freedom of choice. Use it too.

To use kiddie porn in the debate is disingenuous and mentally lazy. The “why won’t you think of the children” card is overused and demeaning to real debate.

OldGirl says:

02:31pm | 22/06/10

Ahhh I see thank you, I knew I only had half of the story here. Thanks for filling me in. Sometimes of late the penny takes awhile to drop xxxxx

Greg says:

03:34pm | 22/06/10

You sure you do not mean Australian Story Peasant for 4 corners was all about indigenous people rorting their own re land titles and NW gas plants all because of $$$$.
Julia might come across as caring but look at her storyline very closely and it was all about Julia caring for Julia with factional issues to get where she is and so they show some of a softer side with her parents and sisters family but she is just another politician and not so good in respect to managing a portfolio.
Ever seen her answer a question without an of course we care about what the Australian people want etc., and of course we have appointed someone to investigate that mess and what is the real benefit/cost of a laptop for every student, when will they all get them and how long before that are broken or outdated and need replacing etc.
She can start off by powdering her nose and have a heap of wishy washy stuff said but that does not say a hell of a lot.
Wasn’t one of the closing shots a pic of her leaning across in parliament to give someone a real mouthful? - charming in deed!

MatLon says:

02:22pm | 22/06/10

Agreed.

The framers of Australia’s Constitution intended Australia to be secular.

It is sad that so many of our political leaders are willing to spit on that constitution for the sake of gaining support from fringe-dwelling nut cases.