Australian plan to block websites sparks anger

[Liberalman]

Any country has a right to block any site that it is a potential danger to its citizens.

Government can do this because they make the laws for companies to operate in the first place.

You can depend on self-regulation of the industry because there is no enforcement of the rules.

More countries are doing this and the citizens are the ones that win

 

[Blackleaf]

The Australians are just angry that their cricket team has just been defeated by South Africa, their first defeat at home since 1993.

 

[eh1eh]

It is over a year later and Australia is still trying to protect its citizens from the evils and illegalities of the internet.
When it happens here lets hope 'anonymous' is still around to help us.

Cyber attacks against Australia 'will continue'


By Zoe Kleinman
Technology Reporter, BBC News

The Australian government has not made contact with the activists

An activist group that temporarily blocked access to key Australian government websites plans to continue its cyber attacks, the BBC has learned.
The group, known as Anonymous, was protesting against the Australian government's proposals to apply filters to the internet in the country.
A man claiming to be a representative of the group said that around 500 people were involved in the attack.
The method they are using is known as Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS).
DDoS is illegal in many countries including the United Kingdom. There is no indication that the attack was carried out from within Britain. DDoS attacks typically call on machines in many different nations, making them hard to trace.
The sites were intermittently blocked on 10 and 11 February. The action has been condemned by various bodies including the Systems Administrators Guild of Australia (SAGE-AU) and Electronic Frontiers Australia.

More here
BBC News - Cyber attacks against Australia 'will continue'

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Do they have a Supreme Court in Australia, similar to USA or Canada? If they do, I don’t see this law seeing the light of day. It will be struck down by the courts.

If Australia still has the old system, where Parliament is supreme and courts cannot overturn the laws passed by the Parliament (they can only make sure that the laws are properly applied), then they could possibly pass such a law.

So it all depends upon what type of democracy they have in Australia. If they have the holdover from Britain whereby the Parliament is supreme (even Britain does not have that system any more, British Parliament can be overruled by the European Court pf Human Rights), then I suppose they could pass such a repressive law.

I was surprised to see somebody dig up this old thread, so I decided to answer my own question. They do indeed have Supreme Court in Australia. It is called High Court, but it has the power of judicial review, and can declare laws passed by the Parliament invalid.

I don’t know how conscientious they are in doing their job. But if the High Court does its job properly, the legislation will never see the light of day. No wonder they still haven’t passed it.

Anyway, if civil libertarians are on one side and Fundamentalist Christians on the other side (as is the case here), it is a no brainer for me as to which side I am on.

 

[eh1eh]

I was surprised to see somebody dig up this old thread,

It's better to post in an existing thread than start a new one. Forum etiquette 101 for you.
Also the issue hasn't gone away in over a year.

Anyway, if civil libertarians are on one side and Fundamentalist Christians on the other side (as is the case here), it is a no brainer for me as to which side I am on.

Well not to put to fine a point on it, if it's a 'no brainier' then I tend to believe you are on the Fundamentalist Christians side. Is that the case.

 

[Liberalman]

The government regulates the internet and the internet service providers or ISPs have to do what the government says if they want to avoid fines and prison time.

In order to put a web site on you have to have an ISP.

The ISPs don’t care about censorship issues as long as it does not affect them or the police or government are not bothering them.

The ISPs make their money on bandwidth.

The reason the Australian government wants to filter information of a controversial point is that they have been getting a lot of complaints about the effects that this information has on their love ones.

The majority of people want instant information and torrents takes too long to download or else it would be popular.

Once Australia filters all data coming into the country other nations will follow and that will be the new internet experience.

 

[eh1eh]

...

Once Australia filters all data coming into the country other nations will follow and that will be the new internet experience.

Yep! A fascist state.

The government has no place in the bedrooms of the people and likewise, no place on the computers of the people.

You can stuff your fascist 'new experience'

 

[Liberalman]

Yep! A fascist state.

The government has no place in the bedrooms of the people and likewise, no place on the computers of the people.

You can stuff your fascist 'new experience'

Are you an anarchist?

 

[eh1eh]

Are you an anarchist?

No.



I'm a believer in freedom not censorship and having the government deciede what
i can read or view on the internet or anywhere else. I guess anarchy could become an option if the populous was too restricted.
Only fascists, communists and dictators worry about the content of the citizen's reading and media.

 

[Liberalman]

No.



I'm a believer in freedom not censorship and having the government deciede what
i can read or view on the internet or anywhere else. I guess anarchy could become an option if the populous was too restricted.
Only fascists, communists and dictators worry about the content of the citizen's reading and media.

you forgot parents protecting their children and people trying to live in a safe society.

 

[lone wolf]

you forgot parents protecting their children and people trying to live in a safe society.

That's why they have NetNanny. Why should the neurotics get to set the measure for everyone?

 

[eh1eh]

you forgot parents protecting their children and people trying to live in a safe society.

That is a parents responsibility not the job of the state.
Do you feel unsafe in Canada because I looked at boobies on the internet? Or are you afraid free thinkers will not agree with your views and turn society in a direction not suitable for you?

 

[Liberalman]

That's why they have NetNanny. Why should the neurotics get to set the measure for everyone?

Taxes pay government to protect us more people want the filter then the ones that don't and in a free society majority rules

 

[lone wolf]

Taxes pay government to protect us more people want the filter then the ones that don't and in a free society majority rules

Do you have a link or is this another of your National Enquirer slant drilling things?

 

[Liberalman]

Do you have a link or is this another of your National Enquirer slant drilling things?

In a free sociaty majority rules do you not agree lone wolf?

 

[lone wolf]

In a free sociaty majority rules do you not agree lone wolf?

Free and rules.... Do they mean the same thing?

...and where is the link?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In a free sociaty majority rules do you not agree lone wolf?

In a free society, the majority cannot do anything it wants, it rules up to a certain point. There is the constitution and the Charter.

 

[Liberalman]

In a free society, the majority cannot do anything it wants, it rules up to a certain point. There is the constitution and the Charter.

The will of the majority controls the government which wants the internet filters

 

[lone wolf]

The will of the majority controls the government which wants the internet filters

Not even in Oz....

 

[Liberalman]

Not even in Oz....

Even in Oz you better believe it.

They have to wait till the next election to overturn it that is if they win