We need protection because??

I see many webpages/blogs/forums all saying the same thing. We do not want the Australian Governments intervention via “filtering” the internet.

Government Censorship

I believe this whole “Plan for Cyber-Safety” really is just another great way to control what information the Australian public is allowed to see, while at the same time making some more serious $$$ dissapear into the ether…

So.. The original “volunteer” filter system wasn’t being used. (Obviously because we didn’t WANT to use it) Now THEY force it on us?

Well.. It seems I am not alone with this negative view of the Governments Internet filtering desires.

Plan for Cyber-Safety

The (Australian) Rudd Government (via the infamous Stephen Conroy) has involved itself in filtering the internet according to “complaints” received from the public.

Problem is: Once on the list of filtered sites there is no way to get off it!

This is the obviously flawed system that Senator Stephen Conroy would subject us to.

Hands Off!! Sheesh Noobs..

To Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy and anyone else who wants to restrict information flow I say.. “HANDS OFF THE INTERNET - YOU NOOBS!”

Why do the “religious fanatics” have to “control” our thinking? We reject their “faith” as mumbo jumbo. But we have to vote for someone because thats the law in this country. (What a joke) So we end up with “Religious” Bozzo’s controlling the laws? (Nice Loose Loose situation that one..) In my opinion.. Thats some serious corruption..

Future (Fascist Attitude) Lists

Any fool (self obviously included) can see that future Governments WILL manipulate this “list” of filtered websites to include information from “political enemies”.

Senator Stephen Conroy has provided no way to have a URL removed from their filter list? (What if a site was hacked then fixed?)

The politicians have designed the shortcomings into the system. (as usual) They probably have already thought about the processes that would be required by the public to impliment a satisfactory system. But they would rather have endless Commissions and Inquiries into it at a later date. (Obviously vested interests in future “Filling of the pockets”.)

Even though (they would have us believe) that they are the BEST thinkers in Australia. (Thats why we pay them so much.. Isn’t it?) They dish up obvious draconian systems of control, instead of legislation that requires minimal tweaking.

Basically at this stage. They need to start again. With totally transparent “Government and Industry Independant” review panel made up of ordinary australians. (Like a Jury duty system perhaps..) With the ability to appeal a decision of this panel. That would be a start to fixing the fiasco.

Keep track of What the Politicians are up to

Contact your Local Member

Sheeesh!! Australia… Dont let these Politician noobs screw with our net.. FFS!! They are obviously totally net stupid and probably corrupt with their intentions. (Net NOOBS!)

Contact Your local Federal MP and each Fedarel Senator for your state.

Tell them what you think of their filter.

  • Federal MPs 2009 - M.P.‘s Contact Details (Email)
  • Federal Senators 2009 - Senators Contact Details (Email)
  • Kevin Rudd MP - Rudd, The Hon Kevin Michael Griffith, ALP 630 Wynnum Road (PO Box 476), Morningside Tel: (02) 6277 7700 Prime Minister Qld Qld 4170 Fax: (02) 6273 4100 Tel : (07) 3899 4031, Fax : (07) 3899 5755 E-mail: http://www.pm.gov.au (Should also be?: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au)
  • Senator Stephen Conroy - Conroy, Senator the Hon Stephen (Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) VIC ALP Suite 1B, 494 High Street, Epping VIC 3076 (PO Box 1067, Epping MDC VIC3076) Level 4, 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne VIC 3002 03/9408 0190 1300 131 546 03/9408 0194 (fax) 03/9650 1188 03/9650 3251 (fax) Email: senator.conroy@aph.gov.au

Let them know how you feel about this “filter”.

Something like this perhaps?

Rudd the Stick Puppet

Rudd.. Dunno what you are.. Puppet on a stick perhaps? Certainly no Gough Whitlam.. Stick to doing what you do best.. Those appearances on Rove Live.. I like see’ing what your up to on Rove.. (Isn’t that your main job description?) The 140 character Tweets at least makes you sound somewhat human.

Party Time: Prat House - Canberra

Oh and your other spot on the ABC where you act like a total prat with all your prat mates at prat house in Canberra. (that endless childish behavior is unfortunate) You call it “Question time”. We call it “Feeding time at the Zoo”. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8

Monkeys in a Cage

I suggest you stick with the Rove gig.. The Canberra thing seems very 1950’s.. Constantly poking fingers at each other, Ranting like Monkeys isn’t doing you and all the other prats any favours in Australias popularity polls.

Parliament (Party/Prat) house is long overdue of being cleaned out from all the total utter prats that have (unfortunately) constantly infested it.

Senator (Waffle) Stephen Conroy

I say to Senator Stephen Conroy Next time. Win your seat! I do not think that would be possible now. Your proposed “Plan for Cyber-Safety” has created many “internet” enemies.

Breaking up Telstra

Forcing Telstra to “breakup” may become Senator Stephen Conroys saving grace. Because most Australians have become quite weary of fighting the “Telstra” corporate greed. Many people will see him as a saviour in this regard.

I do not think it will save Senator Stephen Conroy

I do not think that decision will outweigh the damage the “Plan for Cyber-Safety” has done to his reputation. As a result, I predict that as public opinion turns against Senator Stephen Conroy. He will struggle to retain his seat in Parliament.

"Australia and Germany are the only liberal democracies proposing a mandatory internet censorship regime."

Setting the Example

I thought Senators were supposed to “set an example” to the public. The example Senator Stephen Conroy sets is to avoid laws when it suits him.

also…

I fail to see how this “avoid the law” attitude places Senator Stephen Conroy on any kind of moral high ground. As a result, I do not have faith in his ability to create a system that isn’t easily corrupted.

Face the Public

I also note with interest how Senator Stephen Conroy continues to perform poorly during “Question time” in Parliament (Prat) house.

Eventually (Like Howard did) Senator Stephen Conroy WILL have to face the public. I doubt the public will allow someone with such obvious vested interests to remain a Senator.

Looking forward to the Future

I would like to send a message to our “Religious Mind Control” practicing politicians.

The Newspaper polls indicate that Rudd would increase his majority if an election was held tomorrow. But I have seen polls proved wrong in the past. They need to poll “real” Australians perhaps. Bring on the next election Mr Rudd. I think we have a message for you. I hope the message will be in the form of a Reduced Majority in Parliament.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. [Adopted and proclaimed by United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948”]

Australian Government Websites

2010-08-12 Plan for Cyber-Safety

…draft..

Year 12 Stage 2 English

Exposition


A Vote for 'Australian Labor Party' is a Vote against Freedom (by Sarah)



Australia in a communist state, why not? If the Labor Government is re-elected August 21st, we will be voting our freedoms away as the internet filtering policy gets one step further to being passed through parliament. The effects of this policy will be disastrous on the on the social, economic and technological progression of our ‘democratic’ nation. We need to consider the negative effects of this policy seriously. These include: breaching democratic rights, affecting the economy and how this bill does not serve its intended purpose. You could be the vote which prevents this attack on freedoms which would change our country for the worse.

So can we really trust our government to only filter illegal pornographic websites? Firstly, a filter cannot distinguish what the definition of pornography is in the context of art. Many sites that contain art and other such content will be inaccurately filtered. Will sites that display historical and infamous art works such as Madonna of the Rocks by Italian renaissance artist Leonardo Da Vinci. This particular art work features naked children. Will Australians be derived from appreciating this art and expression?

A test conducted by the current government, proved one in twenty sites will be inaccurately filtered. But are these sites really ‘inaccurately’ filtered, or do they contain information the Government considers incriminating? The blacklist created by the Government has been leaked on the internet. So it is almost definite that websites will be filtered without reason. Some of these sites include the widely popular Myspace and Youtube .

The Government has justified the content of the list by saying “..................”. More than coincidently, the site that leaked this list has now been added to it. The blacklist could cause more harm than it’s intended to prevent. If it continues to spread, children and others will seek it out to purposely access inappropriate sites, if they haven’t already. The government has taken measures to address this problem, such as warning that the distribution of the list can result in fines and imprisonment. But this will not deter careless children with no responsibilities.

We live in a democracy, so what happened to our freedoms? Australian’s are born with personal and democratic freedoms. The internet filter will affect freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of information. Stephen Conroy, the minister who has proposed the law, has argued “freedom of expression has its limits.” This completely contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, devised by the United Nations.

Civil liberty groups are rightfully contesting this filter, creating campaigns such as “It’s Time to Tell Mum”. This video features comedian Akmal Saleh explaining the disadvantages of internet censorship. This video convinced over 14, 000 people to ‘tell their mums’ twenty-four hours after its release . Civil liberty group, Electronic Frontiers Australia is conducting a petition which was tabled in the Senate in June, with over 19,000 protestors of the censorship.

Furthermore, one purpose of the filtering is to protect children from being exposed to inappropriate material. It should be the discretion of the parents to filter their personal internet connection. If filtering is implemented in Australia, we will be joined along with nations such as communist China as one of the few nations in the world to be controlled by an internet filter. A recent Netspace survey found that 80% of its customers disagreed with any internet filtering scheme. Surely these people are not all wanting to access child pornography, right? They are average people like you or I, who are concerned about what actually is going to be filtered and why.

This filtering will affect more than freedoms, it will affect Australia’s economy. The internet filtering scheme will cost 84 million dollars . This is because the testing proved an 83% decrease in internet speed . This is particularly worrying for dial-up users, especially those in remote areas that cannot upgrade. This will provide difficulties for the 10% of total internet subscribers in Australia . Telecommunication providers will face widespread disconnections and consequently generate less income, therefore less service.

The predicted speeds of internet after the installation of the filter will be:______ which is a ___% decrease from the average speed of ___now. Australia already has poor internet speeds compared to Europe which has an average speed of _____. Upgrades have been promised, but this is not possible when this filter will decrease speeds by 83%.

Federal Labor’s proposed internet filtering policy needs to be stopped. By not supporting this scheme we are not condoning pornography, we are rightfully contesting this discrimination, in this democracy we call home. Too many negative effects will result from this proposed policy. Just a few are; breaching our god-given democratic rights and freedoms, affecting Australia’s already unstable economy and how this bill does not serve its intended purpose of eliminating child pornography. References:

Add Comment

2010-02-05 Plan for Cyber-Safety

Spams and Scams

How many scam/spams do you get?

How to get some revenge on Scammers/Spammers:

  • Start Outlook express
  • Right click the Offending email
  • Select “Properties”

  • Select “Details”
  • Select “Message Source”
  • Look for “X-Originating-IP:”
  • Take Note of the IP number and do an IP lookup.
  • Use a service like http://ws.arin.net/ to find out the Originating ISP

Email Sent back to Scammer and Originating ISP

How about this…

Piss off you dumb scammer..

I am reporting this email to the isp that originated it.

 Return-path: <chenguangyuann00@msn.com>
 Envelope-to: lazerzap@lazerzap.com
 Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:03:09 -0500
 Received: from col0-omc1-s10.col0.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.20])
 by maui.fivebean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
 (envelope-from <chenguangyuann00@msn.com>)
 id 1Nd3EU-0002RE-8e
 for lazerzap@lazerzap.com; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:03:07 -0500
 Received: from COL101-W31 ([65.55.34.8]) by col0-omc1-s10.col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
 Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:02:56 -0800
 Message-ID: <COL101-W31009D1ED83C75A12BEA7AD2550@phx.gbl>
 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="_8a219619-1e72-4a13-94eb-ffde5f374126_"
 X-Originating-IP: [41.138.181.168]
 From: Chen Guangyuan <chenguangyuann00@msn.com>
 To: <lazerzap@lazerzap.com>
 Subject: RE: RE
 Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:02:56 +0000
 Importance: Normal
 In-Reply-To: <CFCF93CFF71A4B4F97CCA79B4A829898@lazerzap.org>
 References:
 <20100203185959.6MO2Z.81268.root@ispmxfep13-z01>,
 <CFCF93CFF71A4B4F97CCA79B4A829898@lazerzap.org>
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2010 15:02:56.0800 (UTC) FILETIME=[225D2200:01CAA5AB]

IP you sent mail from: 41.138.181.168


 OrgName:    African Network Information Center 
 OrgID:      AFRINIC
 Address:    03B3 - 3rd Floor - Ebene Cyber Tower
 Address:    Cyber City
 Address:    Ebene
 Address:    Mauritius
 City:       Ebene
 StateProv:  
 PostalCode: 0001
 Country:    MU
 ReferralServer: whois://whois.afrinic.net
 NetRange:   41.0.0.0 - 41.255.255.255 
 CIDR:       41.0.0.0/8 
 NetName:    NET41
 NetHandle:  NET-41-0-0-0-1
 Parent:     
 NetType:    Allocated to AfriNIC
 NameServer: NS1.AFRINIC.NET
 NameServer: NS-SEC.RIPE.NET
 NameServer: NS2.LACNIC.NET
 NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET
 NameServer: SEC1.APNIC.NET
 NameServer: SEC3.APNIC.NET
 Comment:    
 RegDate:    2005-04-12
 Updated:    2009-05-27
 OrgAbuseHandle: GENER11-ARIN
 OrgAbuseName:   Generic POC 
 OrgAbusePhone:  +230 4666616
 OrgAbuseEmail:  abusepoc@afrinic.net
 OrgTechHandle: GENER11-ARIN
 OrgTechName:   Generic POC 
 OrgTechPhone:  +230 4666616
 OrgTechEmail:  abusepoc@afrinic.net

You are not in China Chen (or whatever you call yourself)

You are in Africa..

Any fool can clearly see this by examining the mail headers from your return message.

I am sending a copy of this email to abusepoc@afrinic.net (The isp you used to send the email through)

They will compare the allocated IP (41.138.181.168) with the time that you sent the email.

The world is sick of spammers/scammers and you should find a better way to make money.

Or you will end up in Jail/Goal..

Have a nice day…

 From: Chen Guangyuan
 To: lazerzap@lazerzap.com
 Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:32 AM
 Subject: RE: RE
 FROM: MR.CHEN GUANGYUAN
 Bank of China (Hongkong)
 Eastern Commercial Centre,
 393-407 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai,Hong Kong.
 Dear Friend,
 It is understandable that you might be apprehensive because you do not
 know me but I have a lucrative business proposal of mutual interest to
 share with you.
 Permit me to introduce myself, I am Mr.Chen Guangyuan, Foreign
 Operations Manager of the Bank of China (Hong kong), Eastern
 Commercial Center, Wan Chai Branch. Only recently I discovered that an
 account belonging to Ghazi Musa Hassan, who was with the Iraqi forces
 and also a businessman made a numbered fixed deposit for 12 calendar
 months, with a value of Seventeen Million Three Hundred Thousand
 United State Dollars only into an account with my
 branch, Upon maturity several notice was sent to him, but there was no
 response.
 Again, December last year, another notification was sent and still no
 response came from him. We later find out that Ghazi Musa Hassan and
 his family had been killed during the war in gun fire at Mukaradeeb
 where his personal oil well was.
 After further inquiries, it was discovered that Ghazi Musa Hassan did
 not declare any next of kin in his official papers, including the
 paper work of his bank deposit. The last time he came to my office, he
 confided in me that no one knew of this deposit in my bank. What
 bothers me most is that according to the laws of my country, at the
 expiration of six{6} years,the funds will be revert to the ownership
 of the Hong Kong Government, if nobody applies to claim it. Against
 this backdrop, my suggestion to you is that I will like to front you
 as a foreigner to stand as the next of kin to Ghazi Musa Hassan, so
 that you will be able to receive his funds.
 MODALITIES:
 I want you to know that all modalities for the successful of this
 transfer to you have been mapped out and success is 100% sure. I have
 an attorney that will prepare the necessary documents that will back
 you up as the next of kin to Ghazi Musa Hassan, all that is required
 from you is to provide me with your Full Names and Address, so that
 the attorney can commence his job.
 After you have been made the next of kin, the attorney will file for
 claims on your behalf and also secure the necessary approval and
 letter of probate in your favor for the movement of the funds to an
 account that will be provided by you. We are going to adopt a
 legalized method because the attorney will prepare all necessary
 documents in your favor. There is a reward for this project and it is
 a task well worth undertaking. There is no risk involved at all in our
 planned modalities, I have evaluated the risks and the only risk I
 have here is your refusing to work with me and alerting my bank.
 I am the only one who knows of this situation, good fortune has
 blessed you with a name that has planted you into the center of
 relevance in my life.
 Please endeavor to observe utmost discretion in all matters concerning
 this issue. Once the funds have been transferred to your nominated
 bank account, we shall share in the ratio of 50% for me, 50% for you.
 I send you this mail not without a measure of fear as to what the
 consequences, but I know within me that nothing ventured is nothing
 gained and that success and riches never come easy or on a platter of
 gold. Please observe this instructions religiously.
 Should you be interested please send me your:
 Full names and address.Telephone and fax numbers.
 And finally after that I shall furnish you with more informations
 about this operation.
 Your earliest response to this letter will be appreciated.
 Kind Regards
 Chen Guangyuan

Conclusion

Scammers can be easily stopped by just reporting each attempt directly to the ISP that originated the email..

Eg: abuse@whateverispisresponsible.whocares

Add Comment

2009-12-16 Plan for Cyber-Safety

#nocleanfeed Filtering the Internet

Email send to local MP (T.Draper.MP@aph.gov.au) Dated: 12-Aug-1999

May I enquire into your party’s policies regarding controlling access to information on the internet?

As an existing Internet user. I wonder if the people who have made the decision to restrict access are aware that the current generation of webrowsers ALREADY have the capability to restrict content.

I would prefer an Internet that is controlled in the home by the supervisors of that household. I object strongly to the assumption that I am unable to manage of my family’s Internet access. I object strongly to the fact that CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS (ie: Anyone who’s rich enough to act as an ISP) are able to circumvent the current legislation.

As far as I can see the policies of your polictical party have favored the upper echelon while restricting only those who are less financially secure. Just as “Locks are only there to keep honest people out of your house”, You have kept the honest people away from area’s they probably never would have accessed anyway.

The other people will still be getting whatever material they want the SAME way that they always have. Encripted with a personalised key and renamed so that no-one has a clue what’s in it. Are you going to burden the Internet futher with decrypting software that tries all 10 billion combinations before it passes any data on to the user? Because that’s the only way this policy could be implimented fairly across the board.

What about filtering Telstra’s main feed instead of the individual ISP’s? What’s going on there? How come Telstra is not restricting the content of what they carry? Don’t you have a measure of control over them anymore? OBVIOUSLY certain people still wanted to maintain the ability to access this filtered material. But even if Telstra was filtered you would still have a problem with all the other people who get their Internet direct from the USA or via satalite.

So what was it all about then? It seems you just wanted to restrict people like me and only people like me. Have I been descriminated against?

This is what specifically prompted me to write this letter. I was doing a search for:“Early Settlers in Victoria”. I selected this destination from a search engine…

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/usenet/soc.genealogy.australia+nz/archive/june-1996/subject.html

And recieved the message that this page has been filtered due to some obscure reference to something or other….

Now isn’t this great… I can’t access information that I want.. Which is located, on what what I can see, is an educational department computer system at the University of Sydney in Australia. So if this content is so objectionable to the general public. Why was it ever available for access from the internet in the first place.

Looks to me like there is questionable material still available to people on our own computer systems in the education department. Obviosly this legislation is attempting to close the gate after the horse has well arnd trully bolted.

You should have al least made sure all questionable material had been purged, from all computer systems under your juristriction before even attempting to restrict access to the Internet. This particular political policy reeks from the stench of double standards.

If the material is unsuitable for the internet but still deemed suitable to remain on a university computer system then this is clearly hypocritical. This is not the Australia of the 1950’s. It is nearly the year 2000. Wake up and start making policies to match!

See: Original Email

Reply from T.Draper.MP@aph.gov.au Dated: 20-Aug-1999

Thank you for your e-mail, and I note your comments about Liberal Party policy and censorship of material available on the Internet.

As the matters you have raised regarding the Internet relate to the Government’s new policies and initiatives, I have forwarded your e-mail to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator the Hon Richard Alston, for a response.

In the meantime, I provide the following information about the Internet legislation that was passed by the Senate recently, which I hope will be of assistance in clearing up some misconceptions you may have.

Essentially, the legislation will allow people to make complaints about offensive material to the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). The material will then be assessed by the Classification Board and, if it is considered to be offensive, the Board will give the service providers or content providers an opportunity to take the material down.

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and The Arts, Senator the Hon Richard Alston, has indicated that if material comes from offshore an obligation is placed on the service providers to do their best to block it. At present considerable reliance will be placed on industry codes of practice, giving the industry an opportunity to work out the most effective ways of achieving the objective.

The Minister has advised that service providers will not be required to monitor the content of material on the internet, as this would not only be onerous, but an impossible task. He advises that service providers will be required to respond to complaints, but only after an independent body has determined that the material is in breach of the classification regime. Therefore if the material is hard core pornography, refused classification or illegal material, it will have to be removed or blocked.

You may be interested to learn that the ABA is the “first stop” for complaints about the content of radio and television programs and it is therefore appropriate that concerns about internet sites should be directed to the ABA. The service providers will only be required to act in relation to an internet site after the ABA has brought it to their attention and it has been demonstrated that the material is in breach of the classification regime.

The Government is aware that there are a range of measures available to assist parents in monitoring the internet in their household including subscribing to software filters or packages from internet service providers that provide a “clean universe”.

In relation to claims that the new legislation will “slow the internet down” and result in increased costs from service providers, I would stress that the legislation does not require internet service providers to implement any new technology. Indeed, in working out what reasonable steps the service providers will take, issues on the speed of the internet will be taken into account.

The Government takes very seriously its responsibility to provide an effective regime to prevent the publication of illegal and offensive material online, while ensuring regulation does not place onerous or unjustifiable burdens on industry and inhibit the development of the online economy. I have appended a copy of the main elements of the framework for the legislation for your information. .

Again, thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention and I hope the information I have provided is of assistance to you. I will write to you again in relation to the specific points you raised as soon as I receive the Minister’s reply

Yours sincerely

(Mrs) Trish Draper, MP Member for Makin

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999

A Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for other purposes

Details of the framework are available on the internet at http://www.noie.gov.au/index2.htm. The main elements of the framework are as follows:

  • a complaints mechanism will be established in which any person can complain to the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) about offensive material online
  • material that will trigger action by the ABA will be defined, on the basis of current National Classification Board guidelines, as material Refused Classification and rated X, and material rated R that is not protected by adult verification procedures
  • the ABA will be given powers to issue notices to service providers aimed at preventing access to prohibited material which is subject to a complaint if it is hosted in Australia or, if the material is sources overseas, to take reasonable steps to prevent access if technically feasible and commercially viable, with the “reasonable steps” to be detailed in an industry Code of Practice to be developed in consultation with the ABA
  • indemnities will be provided for service providers to protect them from litigation by customers affected by ABA notices
  • a graduated scale of sanctions against service providers breaching ABA notices or the legislation will apply
  • the framework will not apply to private or restricted distribution communications such as intranets or communications not in a stored form; however, current provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in relation to offensive or harassing use of a telecommunications service will apply in this context
  • a community advisory body will be established to monitor material, operate a “hotline” to receive complaints about illegal material and pass this information to the ABA and police authorities, and advise the public about options such as filtering software that are available to address concerns about online content
  • the Commonwealth will be responsible for regulating the activities of internet service providers (ISPs) and internet content hosts (ICHs) and the Attorney-General will encourage the development of uniform State and Territory offence provisions complementing the Commonwealth legislation (including section 85ZE of the Crimes Act) that create offences for the publication and transmission of prohibited material by users and content creators.

See: Original Reply

Conclusion

I dont think much has changed since 1999.. Except now they are closer than ever at actually doing it.

Email the Federal Senators for your State. Tell them you dont want the internet filtered. Likewise contact your local Member of Parliament.

Add Comment














Bookmark this on Delicious

SEO-AU Links Best INFP Websites - Click here to Vote for this site!