On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:01:43PM +1100, Scott Ragen wrote:
Now tell me how do you stop your children from connecting to porn sites
from their mobile phone?
Allow the PARENT to decide if the child needs internet access on their
phone AT ALL.
Seriously, what child NEEDS internet on
I am really most concerned about all the side effects of filtering that we are yet to uncover.
For example:
If I hosted on a dynamic IP, although I have been assured that it is unlikely, how would I deal with the event that my IP has been blocked to other users? Could the federal government
On 22/10/2008 10:13 AM, CaT wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:01:43PM +1100, Scott Ragen wrote:
Now tell me how do you stop your children from connecting to porn sites
from their mobile phone?
Allow the PARENT to decide if the child needs internet access on their
phone AT ALL.
Nigel Allen wrote:
On 22/10/2008 10:13 AM, CaT wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:01:43PM +1100, Scott Ragen wrote:
Now tell me how do you stop your children from connecting to porn sites
from their mobile phone?
Allow the PARENT to decide if the child needs internet access on
Theoretically, I believe the IP thing vs domain thing has been solved now.
If we are willing to put aside the evilness of filtering for a second
and limit the issue to the technical implementation, I know there are
some implementations that use a two-phase filter to deal with IP
issues (I think
YES!
AUSTRALIA is the pilot! Sounds like Paypal.
Are we so gullible?
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
internet content.
Gareth
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of david
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 3:30 PM
To: Rev Simon Rumble; slug@slug.org.au
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fortress err Firewall Australia
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one
Has anyone seen this;
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/081016_copyrouter.pdf
SMITH GARETH wrote:
I know there is no perfect solution.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs:
AUSTRALIA is the pilot! Sounds like Paypal.
Are we so gullible?
Kyle wrote:
Has anyone seen this;
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/081016_copyrouter.pdf
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs:
To summarise:
This router disables all transport compression, and man-in-the-middles
or disables all transport encryption, then relies on the police to
send the network operator a list of every single child porn url and
file hash in the entire world...
What could possibly go wrong?
Adam K
surely?
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 21/10/2008 03:13:42 PM:
Hi there,
Maybe I missed something but the censorship on the website on the
original post was to be applied to Australian homes, schools and public
computers.
If you're a techno head and want to view an UNCENSORED content get an
SMITH GARETH wrote:
Our internet connections are already filtered and intercepted so why not
filter the extra CRAP like PORN out.
Why are you downloading porn if you don't want it?
Adelle.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs:
2008/10/17 Morgan Storey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is very real and very scary. http://nocleanfeed.com/
I am a parent and I don't think this enforced censorship and limitation
should be forced upon us. Do as that site says and spam... err email a
delegate.
ITYM write a paper letter.
--
SLUG -
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote:
Is this possibly for real?
Yes. Our political overlords realise it will cost a fortune, will slow
down our internets and won't work. They're being successfully wedged by
the shrill wowsers like Hetty Johnstone that being
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Glen Turner
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 10:50 AM
To: Rev Simon Rumble; slug@slug.org.au
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fortress err Firewall Australia
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote:
Is this possibly for real?
Yes. Our political
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 10:31 +0800, SMITH GARETH wrote:
Hi there,
I don't think this is a bad idea to censor Home/School internet
connections. I think business connections shouldn't be censored as you
can setup your own filtering.
Education Department already filters their internet
This one time, at band camp, SMITH GARETH wrote:
I think censorship is a great idea. Young children need to be censored
from harmful content. They don't need to be exposed to potentially
damaging websites and now with internet on a mobiles, kids are being
exposed to harmful content that they
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 13:44 +1100, James Purser wrote:
Yeah while we're at it,
let's jail people for joining a religion or we could try bringing back
the death penalty.
Don't forget torture, forced abortions and mutilations while we're at
it.
-Rob
--
GPG key available at:
October 2008 10:50 AM
To: Rev Simon Rumble; slug@slug.org.au
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fortress err Firewall Australia
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote:
Is this possibly for real?
Yes. Our political overlords realise it will cost a fortune, will
slow down our
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rev Simon Rumble
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 2:22 PM
To: slug@slug.org.au
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fortress err Firewall Australia
This one time, at band camp, SMITH GARETH wrote:
I think censorship is a great idea. Young children need to be censored
from harmful
This one time, at band camp, SMITH GARETH wrote:
If you're a techno head and want to view an UNCENSORED content get an
UNCENSORED CONNECTION. EG a business connection and censor it yourself.
No. The point of the proposed internet censorship regime is it is
MANDATORY.
Whouldn't it be great
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:13 +0800, SMITH GARETH wrote:
Hi there,
Maybe I missed something but the censorship on the website on the
original post was to be applied to Australian homes, schools and public
computers.
If you're a techno head and want to view an UNCENSORED content get an
This one time, at band camp, James Purser wrote:
Here's a radical suggestion, why don't we mandate that ISP's must offer
a filtered service and see who actually picks it up. Instead of
forcing Telly Tubby land on everyone, give it to those who want it, and
leave the rest of us who are able to
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:26 +1100, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, James Purser wrote:
Here's a radical suggestion, why don't we mandate that ISP's must offer
a filtered service and see who actually picks it up. Instead of
forcing Telly Tubby land on everyone, give it
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, James Purser wrote:
Here's a radical suggestion, why don't we mandate that ISP's must offer
a filtered service and see who actually picks it up. Instead of
forcing Telly Tubby land on everyone, give it to those who want it, and
leave the
This is very real and very scary. http://nocleanfeed.com/
I am a parent and I don't think this enforced censorship and limitation
should be forced upon us. Do as that site says and spam... err email a
delegate.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this possibly for
Is this possibly for real?
Does anyone here have any insight pls?
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/15/australias-great-fir.html
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1399635276
... Australians will be unable to opt-out of the government's pending
Internet content filtering scheme,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008, Kyle wrote:
Is this possibly for real?
The government has certainly been planning to require that ISPs
filter-by-default. The exact status of:
- whether complete opt-out is possible
- the extent of filtering of, eg, encrypted traffic (I have been told
by a sysadmin,
This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote:
Is this possibly for real?
Yes. Our political overlords realise it will cost a fortune, will slow
down our internets and won't work. They're being successfully wedged by
the shrill wowsers like Hetty Johnstone that being anti-filtering is
equivalent
I dont think it would be fair to say 'filtering will make mistakes so
dont use them', because that argument would therefore logically extend
your morality to 'police make mistakes, so get rid of them'
also this thread should be in slug-chat.
Dean
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at
31 matches
Mail list logo
