LinuxSA Mailing list archives

  From: Robert Wuttke <robert.wuttke@disc.com.au>
  To  : Mark Newton" <newton@atdot.dotat.org>, "Daniel Callan <newton@atdot.dotat.org>
  Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:30:48 +0930

Re: Opinions on New Internet Bill (While I am still allowed to

All this rhetoric generated by a Govt who think that "Work-for-the-dole"
should be renamed due to the negative connotations in the word "Dole", isn't
that just ground breaking international news that overshadows that little
old internet thingamabob!

I must admit, if that one get's on the list, I might just hand in my
resignation. I suppose then the waiting list to get on work for the dole
will be something along the lines of, you must have been unemployed for 6
years (or employed as a pollie for > 1 minute) and must be grateful to know
that you have the fastest internet access in Oz.

Hmmm, I apologize right now for this bit of cr<backspace, backspace>errm
garbage.

Just a thought, wouldn't LinuxSA get blocked, I mean some of the words that
would be in the archives.... Oh no, stop swearing everyone or this list will
be like the dinosaurs <shivers in little red booties, okay will really be
doing something like this if this things becomes law!).

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Callan <dcallan@dataline.net.au>
To: Mark Newton <newton@atdot.dotat.org>
Cc: linuxsa@linuxsa.org.au <linuxsa@linuxsa.org.au>
Date: Thursday, 27 May 1999 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Opinions on New Internet Bill (While I am still allowed to


>Hi Mark,
>
>At 14:49 27/05/99 +0930, you wrote:
>>Firstly, there's no such thing as snuff films.  Any politician who
>>claims they're a problem is only showing his own ignorance.
>
>Yeah, I know, they're a bit of an urban myth ;-)
>Sorry, I really just meant the stuff politicians refer to, like
>downright gory/offensive content (eg: gore archives with stuff taken
>from "Dan's Gallery of the Grotesque" before it got taken down...by the
>author himself). Point I was making was simply that the SERIOUSLY BAD
>content is mostly hidden away in the quieter hollows of the net.
>Not sitting on popular HTTP sex-sites (which, I believe, are the
>only targets here).
>
>> > If it became an INTERNATIONAL law/agreement, then there would
>> > be a whole lot less "oh but that's within THEIR juristriction"
>> > crap and they would have to hide in the few nations left that
>> > bauk extraditions and such. They currently use the internationalism
>> > of the Internet for safety from prosecution. So let's turn it against
>> > them by making it the same law wherever they are.
>>
>>Secondly, this has already happened.  There is nowhere in the world
>>where kiddyporn is tolerated.  Police have been cooperating
internationally
>>on this for years before the internet even existed, and ISPs worldwide
>>remove it where they find it.  There have been several successful
>>prosecutions in Australia for distributing child pornography on the
>>net, which just goes to show that existing laws were working.
>
>Quite true. I wasn't actually sure if it was permanent and well established
>(not to mention financed) yet. But I did hear about those operations
>last year (busting the "Wonderland Club" or something similar wasn't it?).
>
>However, I was more refering to an actual international organisation,
>kinda like the UN (bad example I know ;-) which then co-ordinates
>and directs the cooperative efforts of all these police forces.
>And not just porn, I'm talking about setting up an organisation with
>technically-minded, well-informed specialists who act like
>Internet "Marshalls". Not because I love the idea of regulation or
>censorship; but purely to pre-empt stupid 'stop-gap' legislation
>getting forced into effect by the moral majority (who understand
>practically nothing about the technical nuances of the problem
>they wish to rememdy). I mean, the official documents of this new
>law probably still have liquid-paper over the "must display warning
>sticker on outside plastic packaging..." sections from when it was
>originally the film/literature clasification laws document ;-P
>
>So, I wasn't saying they hadn't done it at all, just not enough,
>and not as ONE mighty organisation/body.
>
>>
>>It is a fallacy to say the Internet is unregulated, and the fallacy
>>is generally only promulgated by those who have a vested interest
>>in increasing the regulation.  Restrictions on banned erotica, terrorism,
>>and incitements to violence have always been illegal in all media,
including
>>the Internet.
>>
>
>I didn't mean unregulated. I just meant that it can/could be a potential
>juristrictional nightmare, IF there ARE any countries that don't want
>to play ball with each of the other countries involved.
>(There is no one head to the beast, if you know what I mean ;-)
>
>Anyway, I said it sounded utopian ;-P (albeit slightly inacurate too),
>just anything is better than insisting that the net regress to a senario
>that suits our paper-based censorship system (ie: list it, ban it).
>Many man-hours chewed in just making/maintaining the list too.
>
><sarcasm> Hey, now there's a job that the 'work-for-dole' mob wouldn't
>knock back: trauling the net for porn to block.  heheheheh </sarcasm>
>
>
>Cheers,
>-Daniel
>
>PS: I in no way work in the area of international law enforcement,
>so bear with me if my 2c worth is in any way niaeve or just wrong ;-)
>
>         Daniel Callan
>        System Engineer/
>       Senior Programmer
>
>     hostmaster@dataline.net.au
>      -- DataLine.net.au --
>     http://dataline.net.au
>
>--
>Check out the LinuxSA web pages at http://www.linuxsa.org.au/
>To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
>  mail linuxsa-request@linuxsa.org.au with "unsubscribe" as the subject
>
>

-- 
Check out the LinuxSA web pages at http://www.linuxsa.org.au/
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
  mail linuxsa-request@linuxsa.org.au with "unsubscribe" as the subject