Govt wants ISPs to record browsing history (1 Viewer)

[Phoenix Fury]

Just rename Australia to China2 and let them control it tbh.

 

[thongetsu]

I think China 2.0 sounds more appealing

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Yeh, I guess it does, hey.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

im less concerned about the legislation itself than i am with the AFP being able to use it. the AFP have no restraint - they'll pounce on anyone who looks at anything even remotely approaching child porn (even by accident), and this will disrupt countless lives.

my vote is erring on the side of the liberals, kevin rudd, and your tough stance on israel won't save you from my wrath!

 

[SnowFox]

Yeh, I guess it does, hey.

You knows its bad when China wants to follow Rudds idea of increasing taxes.

 

[SylviaB]

lentern it has nothing to do with "lives being affected" as it is that the government should have no right to invade our privacy like this

 

[seremify007]

So the government which proposed a national broadband network also wants to record all our browsing data?

... what's the best that 10 years later down the track they suddenly privatise all that data into the hands of some marketing folk? But hey, at least it might bring the budget back into surplus.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

lentern it has nothing to do with "lives being affected" as it is that the government should have no right to invade our privacy like this

Sir, pragmatism has NO PLACE in any society!

ie: no, it has everything to do with lives being affected, and nothing to do with government rights or any other furfy mumbo jumbo. this type of legislation will affect lives and it will have a big difference.

 

[17028354]

source :zdnet..

no other sources
not even the attorney generals office?

for now i call bullshit.

 

[thongetsu]

ISPs are private though so the govt. can kiss my ass.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

source :zdnet..

no other sources
not even the attorney generals office?

for now i call bullshit.

it's not really out of character for the government

 

[Davie1]

The politicians will never vote it through once they relies that they wont be excluded from the recordings. All those skeletons in the closet will stop them from ever doing it. I mean come on, this idea of recording our browsing history plus wiki leaks? It would spell doom for the individual who is exposed. The actual stupid idea will never see the light of day.

An example of the trouble it could cause a prime minister with the press, head lines: "THE PM WATCHES LESBIAN PORN" or "THE PMs SON WATCHES PORN" or even "PMs HOUSEHOLDS INTERNET HISTORY LEAKED".

We worry now, but once it dawns on them that it would be playing with fire, the whole stupid idea will be forgotten.

 

[vanush]

I don't give two fucks honestly, all this shit will never be implemented; just labour vying for the battler vote

 

[mirakon]

A government with terrible ideas like this or Abbott? Tough luck folks, you lose either way.

 

[Lentern]

I see where you are coming from with the whole paranoia, but it is still a step in the wrong direction, because it simply violates the privacy of an entire nation of internet users, for very little if any gain. Not to mention the idea of being watched on the internet makes me personally uncomfortable and I can imagine many other people feeling uncomfortable about it. So I don't understand why the government would even consider a policy which would have little or no benefit.

I agree on the whole it is a bad policy and were I king of the world I would not implement it but as far as feeling uncomfortable about it, I'm afraid thats really a bit of an overreaction. Its effects will be negligible if any and if it were ever abused the guilty party would be harshly prosecuted and the victim suitably compensated.

lentern it has nothing to do with "lives being affected" as it is that the government should have no right to invade our privacy like this

Yeah well I tend to consider the rights invasions that actually do affect someones life to be the more significant ones. Don't get me wrong I have huge qualms with things that don't make a difference either way I just have bigger qualms with the things that, you know, matter.

 

[Rothbard]

This shit already exists. You just nee a warrant.

Labor hates civil liberties.

 

[Rothbard]

This is why centrists are fucking useless. They have no fucking values.

Hell lentern is a catholic so he's used to being under constant scrutiny and being guilty about everything but for those of us who are not brain damaged enough to buy into the grotesque lie of organized religion, we find that concept to be abhorrent.

 

[Lentern]

This is why centrists are fucking useless. They have no fucking values.

Hell lentern is a catholic so he's used to being under constant scrutiny and being guilty about everything but for those of us who are not brain damaged enough to buy into the grotesque lie of organized religion, we find that concept to be abhorrent.

I'm sorry, you are playing the values card while you try and prevent filters of child porn and hatespeech going through? Mate an anarchist or minarchist is the only species in the world that proudly bares the standard of believing in nothing but the inalienable right to not believe in it.

 

[Rothbard]

I'm sorry, you are playing the values card while you try and prevent filters of child porn and hatespeech going through? Mate an anarchist or minarchist is the only species in the world that proudly bares the standard of believing in nothing but the inalienable right to not believe in it.

Yes because that's what they're filtering, child pornography.

Of course I don't want the internet being filtered by the grounds of what an arbitrary government determines as 'hatespeech'. That scope is sickeningly large.

You are a thoughtless Catholic Labor hack, you have no values, you have no ideology, you have nothing.

"Believing in nothing but the inalienable right to not believe in it", was this some attempt at pseudo-profundity?

 

[Lentern]

Yes because that's what they're filtering, child pornography.

Of course I don't want the internet being filtered by the grounds of what an arbitrary government determines as 'hatespeech'. That scope is sickeningly large.

You are a thoughtless Catholic Labor hack, you have no values, you have no ideology, you have nothing.

"Believing in nothing but the inalienable right to not believe in it", was this some attempt at pseudo-profundity?

Oh shutup you nong, just like Abbeyroad, the moment someone demands you substantiate your paranoid, hysterical oratory you turn to untrue, personal abuse. Yes I attend a catholic mass once a week and take communion, but heres some other news, I also attend the marriage equality rallies. I also believe that abortion is the inalienable right of every woman and that contraception is a wonderful thing. I also volunteer at the house of welcome, a charity organisation for refugees and asylum seekers, the same work I do there by the way I could be and used to get paid for doing at Young Christian Workers but I left the YCW because I liked HOW work more.

Yes I think that Labor governments are generally preferable to liberal ones but guess what? I am a registered member of the Australian Greens you tool. I also would like to see Barry O'farrell defeat Kristina Kenneally at the 2011 State Election. So please restate your charge of my believing in nothing, restate it, substantiate it, cite examples, refute me, I would like nothing more than to say a pathetic half educated spiv like yourself try and argue that one again.

Finally no it wasn't some attempt to sound like Oscar Wilde although re-reading it does sound a bit like clunky prose, it was a mere observation.