No censorship, say 90% of Aussies: report

[DaBees-Knees]

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18915

How many Australians are behind plans to censor the Net? Virtually none, says a new survey from ISP Whirlpool, conducted between December 31, 2008, and February 1 this year. Governments and companies still believe they can continually fly in the faces of the people who put them into power and who keep them in business, and get away with it. But that was in the good old days before the Net gave us the ability to communicate with each other almost instantly, no matter what time of day, or where we are. Thanks to its policy of suing customers instead of wooing them, the corporate music industry is now on its last legs. And politicians such as Australian Labour leader Kevin Rudd, who wants government-controlled online censorship complete with a blacklist’ of sites, are learning they answer to the people, not the other way around. “This is an opportunity to drive a nail into the coffin of internet censorship, so we’re looking for creative ideas to produce a TV ad that will turn up the heat on our campaign to Save the Net,” says Australian acitivist group GetUp. “Script ideas, images, music, video content or just a good pun - your brainwave could end up on national TV! “We’ll turn the best ideas into a TV advertising campaign ready to hit the airwaves in April. Submit your ideas!” The campaign should generate plenty of support. When people in the Whirlpool survey — verified a total of 19,763 times — were asked how the issue of internet filtering affected their voting at the last Australian federal election, only 2% of Labor voters supported it, says the report. And almost two thirds of Labor voters hadn’t even realised a filtering policy was being proposed, it says. On top of that, almost 90% of respondents wouldn’t use the government’s proposed optional filter component, “a staggering result,” says the survey. Meanwhile, Wikileaks.org, which published the blacklist,  has been offline since yesterday duye, no doubt, to being swamped for requests.

One day politicians will wake up to the fact that they are there to represent the entire population not just industries with vested interests. 

[RReactor]

how would they censor the net after all its the net and any freak or grandma that wants to put a webpage or whatever up if they have the money it will be done

[Forested665]

isps can block addresses from resolving in the DNS.
and they can block the use of uncensored DNS addresses.
I beleive china already has some systems like this.

[Daniel]

DNS isn't absolutely necessary though. It's just used because words are easier to memorize than an IP address.

[Forested665]

ip addresses can be blocked as well.

[wonderer]

how about filtering a poster?

[Forested665]

define a poster?
If you mean an ad built into a site those are linked from another system. If said that site is blocked the ad wont appear on the page.

[wonderer]

depends how close you want a poster to be defined. In this case the poster would be defined as the poster of posts. Specially posting like triggered by someone else's posts, it is kind of starting to be annoying

[Forested665]

If you are trying to say something then spit it out.

[wonderer]

It is hard to stay polite, but I will try.
 It is hard to find a thread on this forum where the last post is not from bacon666.
 Almost any new post may expect at least one reply and you never guess who the poster is..., right, bacon666.
A wild guess makes me think at least about 50% of the posts are off topic or have at least very little to do with the subject.

I'm sure this is not clear enough because I'm sure this post will trigger another post from bacon666, which proves you want to have the last word, no matter if it brings help or not.

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

It is hard to stay polite, but I will try.
 It is hard to find a thread on this forum where the last post is not from bacon666.
 Almost any new post may expect at least one reply and you never guess who the poster is..., right, bacon666.
A wild guess makes me think at least about 50% of the posts are off topic or have at least very little to do with the subject.

I'm sure this is not clear enough because I'm sure this post will trigger another post from bacon666, which proves you want to have the last word, no matter if it brings help or not.

What difference does it make if he's the last poster on every post? What's it to anyone on this forum? Should you be given the guardianship of posting and control of posters? I see that he was very much on topic as far as I'm concerned. Even if he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, it was relevent in that as far as he knew it was answer to the proposal in the beginning of the thread. Should I take it upon myself to count each and every post of each and every poster to make sure they only post so many times in such a length of time? This is a forum of free speech and opinion. If he had posted in this thread a big F.U. that would've been off topic. You poor attempt at not being rude, which failed miserably is until now the only offtopic discussion in this thread.
Now not to be rude to you because you are entitled to your opinion however wrong or right it may be. Perhaps if you would spend the time educating someone on their error if you feel they were wrong, in this case you feel he posts too much on too many threads, you should try discussing it privately and not pull a punch on an open forum you may have gotten your point across a lot better than you did. I ask this once from everyone. If you can't be nice and at least attempt to unterstand why someone posts what they post then at the least, be cordial, be proffessional, be anything but insulting as you will see the only crop you get from planting seeds of insults are abuntant yeild of insults in return. Let's try harder to make this place better than this. It is not just Quick's or Me_Here's, Mrs. T", or mine, or Storb's, or anyone's forum in general. It is all of ours. Let's respect each other better than this.

[RReactor]

lol does storb post on this forum never seen his name ?  if it was not for people posting how they feel and however many times they want to this forum wouldnt exist so people are encouraged as much as they want

[White Stripes]

DNS isn't absolutely necessary though. It's just used because words are easier to memorize than an IP address. -----  ip addresses can be blocked as well.

trying to get back on topic here.... if one were 'damned and determed' so-to-speak could they still no get around those blocks.... i mean... ive ripped the 'cyberpatrol' program a new one in the past and DNS blocks have never stopped me either....

the great firewall of china and the aussie blocker cant be -that- hard to get around can it? ive always found holes to wiggle through in the past to get the sites i want to load (not exactly to the delight of the IT personell)

[Forested665]

If China and the others were really serius about limiting their citizens internet to the websites within say... Their country they could ban satellite, point of sight,and RF connections outside of the country isolating them. But now that is an extreme idea even for me.

[White Stripes]

that would take too much effort to block all of that...

[Forested665]

Would it?
something as simple as our FCC's beloved cease and desist order being issued to all the ISPS telling them to disconnect all connections outside the country, and banning satellite providers from providing service to people within the country. For a Government it wouldnt be much work at all , considering they dont do the hard part,especially if its an island like australia.

[wonderer]

You don't need to ban satellite out of direct sight. Radio jamming was common business in the second world war and there is no cure if satellite transmissions are jammed. You don't need a satelite provider to connect to the internet via satelite.