[Linux-aus] The federal election - what ICT policies have been announced? (fwd)

[Bret Busby]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Ben Jensz wrote:

> 
> But the best part of that is that they realise that this may be a 
> prohibitive cost for smaller ISPs, but they don't see why we need 100s 
> of ISPs in Australia and think we'd be better off with just 30 large 
> ISPs instead:
> 
> "This may have the result of putting cost pressures on some of the 
> smaller ISPs, but there are arguably too many of these at the moment, 
> and adequate competition could be maintained with 30 ISPs rather than 
> the hundreds in existence now," it said.
> 
> From:  
> http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C4057%2C10900684%255E15306%2C00.html
> 
> So if competition is something they're willing to sacrifice to push 
> their christian fundamentalist ideals, then what else are they prepared 
> to sacrifice in the name of "protecting our children"?
> 
> 
> / Ben
> 
> 

The children themselves?

"Sacrifice your child today, so it can enter the kingdom without 
being corrupted by worldly things..."
:)

My understanding, is that so-called nanny software, or whatever you want 
to call it, is very fallible, and, the censorship of the Internet, goes 
against the principles of the Internet, which involve free (as in 
liberal, not "free of charge") communication across national borders.

A simple example of fallibility of software, is the example that occurs 
in anti-spam software, of the "xxx" string, so that if a message is sent 
that involves reference to a family tree going back "xxx generations", 
it is classed as sexually oriented and classed as pornographic spam.

Another simple example, is, as a genealogist with interests in parts of 
England, any reference to Middlesex, Essex, Wessex, etc, would be 
trapped by  "content filtering software", and, websites of great value, 
relating to these areas, would be inaccessible, under such censorship.

Similarly, for anyone who is interested enough to research health 
issues, such as breast cancer, about which (from what I understand), all 
women should be well-informed, such draconian censorship would deprive 
people of access to such essential information, preferring instead, that 
women died of breast cancer, rather than being properly informed about 
it

And, I am once again reminded of the feral government's Internet 
Oppression Bill, which was to outlaw anything "that the government 
might regard as offensive", being transmitted on the Internet, which 
would include material such as Pauline Hanson's maiden speech to feral 
parliament, in which she said that it was time to end the perks of 
members of the feral parliament, so that they would not get any rorts 
above what workers were entitled to receive. Such offensive (to members 
of the feral parliament) comments and material, were to be illegal under 
the feral government's Internet Oppression Bill, which I believe was 
passed into law, with the help of a senile christian fundamentalist 
senator, who (from what I understand) is not seeking re-election.

Similarly, as the man was imprisoned for advising voters of their voting 
rights, a couple of elections ago (the people are not allowed to be 
informed of their voting rights for feral elections, under feral law), 
advice of human rights, via the Internet, would also likely be banned 
under "mandatory filtering" legislation.

-- 
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
 you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
  Chapter 28 of 
  "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
  A Trilogy In Four Parts",
  written by Douglas Adams, 
  published by Pan Books, 1992 
....................................................