Govt wants ISPs to record browsing history (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

lentern you socialist cunt why do you have Thatcher in your dp

 

[Lentern]

lentern you socialist cunt why do you have Thatcher in your dp

In memory of Iron

 

[SylviaB]

who if I recall correctly thought you were shit

 

[Lentern]

who if I recall correctly thought you were shit

There were times we said nasty things about each other and ultimately I was disinherited by him yes but before he departed we both acknowledged that we did very much like each other. And to be anointed as his successor as the defender of the faith was no small thing for Iron to do, even if he later retracted it.

 

[SylviaB]

lol

 

[speak]

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?

what defines child pornography can also pretty arbitrary.

 

[mirakon]

what defines child pornography can also pretty arbitrary.

YEah, i mean, look at that henson dude

 

[Slidey]

source :zdnet..

no other sources
not even the attorney generals office?

for now i call bullshit.

Bullshit eh? The government confirmed it.

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/349779/opposition_government_web_monitoring_grows/?fp=16&fpid=1

DO NOT VOTE FOR LABOUR.

Preference the Greens in your top 3 parties (and above Labour and Liberal) if you want to strengthen civil liberties in this country. Labour and Liberal couldn't give a fuck.

 

[Lentern]

Bullshit eh? The government confirmed it.

DO NOT VOTE FOR LABOUR.

Preference the Greens in your top 3 parties (and above Labour and Liberal) if you want to strengthen civil liberties in this country. Labour and Liberal couldn't give a fuck.

The Greens don't care about the filter or this either, why? because it doesn't matter. They're coming out against them for political reasons, yes even the greens go political if its an issue they don't care about.

 

[Slidey]

The Greens don't care about the filter or this either, why? because it doesn't matter. They're coming out against them for political reasons, yes even the greens go political if its an issue they don't care about.

Lentern, considering how much shit you regularly post, I'm aware this is just more of the same, but it's ridiculous none-the-less.

Civil liberties (including for the internet and communications industries) have been part of Greens charter and policy for years.

The Greens aren't entrenched like Labour or Liberal, so they don't need to lie - they are growing from a small, core base of beliefs and attracting people as they come. Labour and Liberal pick up and dump policies as it suits them to attract swing voters. The Greens don't need to attracted swing voters in the traditional sense, so they don't need to do that.

A good example is their refusal to back down from what is a good policy, but not good political common sense: safe heroine injection rooms and methadone drug replacement, as part of a larger move for drug decriminalisation: Greens hold line on drugs

Honestly, the Greens stance on Internet Censorship (both here and in the rest of the world, especially China) has been clear, loud and consistent from the get-go. It's pathetic that you'd try and spin otherwise.

Edit: And the funniest part is: you don't actually give a crap about civil liberties in communication yourself. So it must irk you to see the Greens giving a damn.

 

[SylviaB]

small breasted women porn is too close to child pron for the government's liking

 

[Lentern]

Lentern, considering how much shit you regularly post, I'm aware this is just more of the same, but it's ridiculous none-the-less.

Civil liberties (including for the internet and communications industries) have been part of Greens charter and policy for years.

The Greens aren't entrenched like Labour or Liberal, so they don't need to lie - they are growing from a small, core base of beliefs and attracting people as they come. Labour and Liberal pick up and dump policies as it suits them to attract swing voters. The Greens don't need to attracted swing voters in the traditional sense, so they don't need to do that.

A good example is their refusal to back down from what is a good policy, but not good political common sense: safe heroine injection rooms and methadone drug replacement, as part of a larger move for drug decriminalisation: Greens hold line on drugs

Honestly, the Greens stance on Internet Censorship (both here and in the rest of the world, especially China) has been clear, loud and consistent from the get-go. It's pathetic that you'd try and spin otherwise.

Edit: And the funniest part is: you don't actually give a crap about civil liberties in communication yourself. So it must irk you to see the Greens giving a damn.

Slidey despite the UN saying differently, not all rights are equal. The right to life we obviously treat more seriously than the right to marry for example. That isn't meant to be poo pooing the right to marriage by the way. Similarly civil liberties range in importance and anyone who denies this is either a liar or a fool.

As for the Greens being this noble and forthcoming political angel in a sea of effluent, they are not. Three years ago I was present in the audience as Bob Brown stood alongside Stephen Fielding, Lyn Allison, Nick Xenophon and Bob Katter and declared that they a would be running their own debate in parliament house on the same night as the Howard one because all political voices should be given a turn and it was unfair to lock them out of the debate like that. Three years on and Bob Brown is poised to eclipse Janine Haines as the most powerful third party leader in post war history, some whispering of him being included in the debate starts up and suddenly he no longer cares if Xenophon or Fieldng are in there, nay, he would prefer it if he didn't have to share the stage with them.

They are not the angels they used to be and while they might actually oppose the filter in much the same way I think its a dumb idea, the reason Scott Ludlam is jetting around the country and addressing rallies about it, circulating petitions and running internet ads about it is because there is political points to be scored from doing so.

 

[runoutofsleep]

Bullshit eh? The government confirmed it.

Opposition to Government Web monitoring grows - Telstra, Senator Scott Ludlam, optus, internode, iinet - ARN

DO NOT VOTE FOR LABOUR.

Preference the Greens in your top 3 parties (and above Labour and Liberal) if you want to strengthen civil liberties in this country. Labour and Liberal couldn't give a fuck.

huh? where did the government confirm it?

 

[Slidey]

huh? where did the government confirm it?

Well, given Internode and Telstra confirmed that the government is discussing it with them but that they are under NDA's, I thought it was a given.

The lack of denial from the government is also telling.

 

[runoutofsleep]

the only thing confirmed is that the attorney general's dept is discussing *some kind of* data retention scheme with ISPs.

the claims about logging every customer's browsing history seem to be no more than paranoid speculation by a few overexcitable IT workers / journalists

 

[speak]

YEah, i mean, look at that henson dude

small breasted women porn is too close to child pron for the government's liking

I forgot about these. I was mainly thinking simpsons porn. It's great!

discussing *some kind of* data retention scheme

logging every customer's browsing history

data retention.

 

[runoutofsleep]

um what is your point

 

[Slidey]

um what is your point

Here's the response from the AG's department: iTWire - OzLog won’t include web history: AG

Still retarded - basically they want a way to track identities online. So for example, they'd be able to figure out who owns accounts on an internet forum.

 

[oddish]

tor.

 

[runoutofsleep]

yeah that's what i expected.

bear in mind that most of this data is already recorded by ISPs (it's crucial for billing for a start) although the implementation likely varies between companies

would they be able to figure out who owns forum accounts? that would require either logging all web traffic (ridiculous), or matching IPs with the forum's own logs - which in turn depends on 1. the forum logging IPs and 2. those logs being accessible to law enforcement or discoverable by a court. this is basically the situation already.