Current Internet censorship in Australia
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia[^] Internet censorship in Australia currently consists of a regulatory regime under which the Australian Communications and Media Authority has the power to enforce content restrictions on Internet content hosted within Australia, and maintain a "black-list" of overseas websites which is then provided for use in filtering software. For all you morons on denial, here are some facts for you. You are under censorship, and it is going to expand.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Did anyone not already know this? News flash: Some countries censor their Internet access. Most don't.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Did anyone not already know this? News flash: Some countries censor their Internet access. Most don't.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)We are headed down that path in the name of "cybersecurity" and "fairness" or "neutrality".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
We are headed down that path in the name of "cybersecurity" and "fairness" or "neutrality".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
"fairness" or "neutrality"
Those are about preventing censorship, not encouraging or requiring it. I know you find it fun to "prove" that black is white, up is down, and stupid is intelligent... But don't expect us to believe you.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
in the name of "cybersecurity"
That's the only justification that might be used to bring the US into this little club. Hopefully special interest groups like the ACLU and EFF will keep reminding the government that this kind of censorship isn't an option in this country.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We are headed down that path
And once again, you assume that just because one country does it, we're going to follow. Hey, guess what! All of those Arab countries have Sharia courts! I bet we're going down that path next!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
"fairness" or "neutrality"
Those are about preventing censorship, not encouraging or requiring it. I know you find it fun to "prove" that black is white, up is down, and stupid is intelligent... But don't expect us to believe you.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
in the name of "cybersecurity"
That's the only justification that might be used to bring the US into this little club. Hopefully special interest groups like the ACLU and EFF will keep reminding the government that this kind of censorship isn't an option in this country.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We are headed down that path
And once again, you assume that just because one country does it, we're going to follow. Hey, guess what! All of those Arab countries have Sharia courts! I bet we're going down that path next!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Those are about preventing censorship, not encouraging or requiring it
Yes, the takeover of and censorship of the internet in the US will be in the name of security and stopping censorship. Unconstitutional and unpopular legislation has to be presented to the people as palatable. It is like coating a piece of shit with a glossy and brightly colored candy shell.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And once again, you assume that just because one country does it, we're going to follow. Hey, guess what! All of those Arab countries have Sharia courts! I bet we're going down that path next!
No, we are headed down that path because there is legislation in congress to take us down that path. Google cybersecurity bill and FCC regulate internet.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Those are about preventing censorship, not encouraging or requiring it
Yes, the takeover of and censorship of the internet in the US will be in the name of security and stopping censorship. Unconstitutional and unpopular legislation has to be presented to the people as palatable. It is like coating a piece of shit with a glossy and brightly colored candy shell.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And once again, you assume that just because one country does it, we're going to follow. Hey, guess what! All of those Arab countries have Sharia courts! I bet we're going down that path next!
No, we are headed down that path because there is legislation in congress to take us down that path. Google cybersecurity bill and FCC regulate internet.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Yes, the takeover of and censorship of the internet in the US will be in the name of stopping censorship.
You're trying to prove that
X -> ~XCaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No, we are headed down that path because there is legislation in congress to take us down that path. Google cybersecurity bill and FCC regulate internet.
Regulating isn't the same thing as censoring. Look at the telephone system. Is it regulated? Damn right it is. Is it censored? Hmm, I can still call anybody I want, in pretty much any country... Nope, not censored. Tapped, maybe, but not censored. So now you're trying to prove that
X -> Y, when X and Y are completely unrelated.Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Yes, the takeover of and censorship of the internet in the US will be in the name of stopping censorship.
You're trying to prove that
X -> ~XCaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No, we are headed down that path because there is legislation in congress to take us down that path. Google cybersecurity bill and FCC regulate internet.
Regulating isn't the same thing as censoring. Look at the telephone system. Is it regulated? Damn right it is. Is it censored? Hmm, I can still call anybody I want, in pretty much any country... Nope, not censored. Tapped, maybe, but not censored. So now you're trying to prove that
X -> Y, when X and Y are completely unrelated.Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're trying to prove that X -> ~X
I'm just telling how government operates.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Regulating isn't the same thing as censoring. Look at the telephone system. Is it regulated? Damn right it is. Is it censored? Hmm, I can still call anybody I want, in pretty much any country... Nope, not censored. Tapped, maybe, but not censored.
There isn't cybersecurity legislation for the phone system, just intensive spying.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're trying to prove that X -> ~X
I'm just telling how government operates.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Regulating isn't the same thing as censoring. Look at the telephone system. Is it regulated? Damn right it is. Is it censored? Hmm, I can still call anybody I want, in pretty much any country... Nope, not censored. Tapped, maybe, but not censored.
There isn't cybersecurity legislation for the phone system, just intensive spying.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There isn't cybersecurity legislation for the phone system, just intensive spying.
What does that have to do with FCC regulation and net neutrality? You're "arguing" the wrong point.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There isn't cybersecurity legislation for the phone system, just intensive spying.
What does that have to do with FCC regulation and net neutrality? You're "arguing" the wrong point.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
What does that have to do with FCC regulation and net neutrality?
They go at it in two different detections, on the left they have FCC regulations not only for net neutrality, but many other mundane regulation. On the right, they have cybersecurity legislation. Eventually the two meet to cover the entire spectrum of internet communications.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What does that have to do with FCC regulation and net neutrality?
They go at it in two different detections, on the left they have FCC regulations not only for net neutrality, but many other mundane regulation. On the right, they have cybersecurity legislation. Eventually the two meet to cover the entire spectrum of internet communications.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
on the left they have FCC regulations not only for net neutrality, but many other mundane regulation
Such as?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
on the left they have FCC regulations not only for net neutrality, but many other mundane regulation
Such as?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Acceptable wiring, protocols, servers, web-browsers, standards, port configurations, "illegitimate" use of bandwidth or networks...
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There isn't cybersecurity legislation for the phone system, just intensive spying.
What does that have to do with FCC regulation and net neutrality? You're "arguing" the wrong point.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian, you aren't actually getting through. The filter refuses to recognize "I screwed up." Heck, this post is trying to equate Australia being prudes with them mandating anti-virus and shutting down machines in some obscure scheme along with Google wanting to not have to pay an ISP for people to do searches. He's essentially arguing that if 1 + 1 = 2 then 1 + 1 + 2 = fjords. I also have a message for you from you know who. "The sardines are arguing about Mozart, beware, when you taste the color yellow: you will know peril."
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Acceptable wiring, protocols, servers, web-browsers, standards, port configurations, "illegitimate" use of bandwidth or networks...
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Acceptable wiring
As in Cat-5[^] cabling, commonly known as Ethernet cable? Defined as a standard in TIA/EIA-568-B[^] by the Telecommunications Industry Association[^], an organization formed of private-sector companies, not the FCC.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
protocols
Like what? TCP/IP? The closest thing to regulation we have over that is the IEEE[^], which is... *gasp!* Another PROFESSIONAL organization, not the FCC.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
servers
You mean web servers? Domain names? Do I have to mention ICANN[^], which is in charge of overseeing domain name and IP address assignments? A group that USED TO BE part of the government, but has been split off into an independent entity. Or are you talking about the physical servers? Because there's NO way you can justify your theory that the FCC is regulating my old Debian/Apache box.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
web-browsers
The software? Seeing as how anyone can make their own web browser, there can't be any FCC regulation there. Web protocols, then? Hey, look! The W3C![^] An international organization that includes both private-sector and public-sector members. No FCC authority there. So where does the FCC come in?
-
Acceptable wiring, protocols, servers, web-browsers, standards, port configurations, "illegitimate" use of bandwidth or networks...
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
if you want to live then acceptable wiring should be a mandate good news everyone!!! I set fire to the building... my bad on the wires.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Ian, you aren't actually getting through. The filter refuses to recognize "I screwed up." Heck, this post is trying to equate Australia being prudes with them mandating anti-virus and shutting down machines in some obscure scheme along with Google wanting to not have to pay an ISP for people to do searches. He's essentially arguing that if 1 + 1 = 2 then 1 + 1 + 2 = fjords. I also have a message for you from you know who. "The sardines are arguing about Mozart, beware, when you taste the color yellow: you will know peril."
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Ian, you aren't actually getting through. The filter refuses to recognize "I screwed up."
I know... This is like when an old TV starts showing static, so you keep hitting it until it works... Or until it shuts off entirely... Or until you break your hand. Hmm, I hope I don't break my hand on this one.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
He's essentially arguing that if 1 + 1 = 2 then 1 + 1 + 2 = fjords.
Well put :)
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I also have a message for you from you know who. "The sardines are arguing about Mozart, beware, when you taste the color yellow: you will know peril."
Ya lost me...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Ian, you aren't actually getting through. The filter refuses to recognize "I screwed up."
I know... This is like when an old TV starts showing static, so you keep hitting it until it works... Or until it shuts off entirely... Or until you break your hand. Hmm, I hope I don't break my hand on this one.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
He's essentially arguing that if 1 + 1 = 2 then 1 + 1 + 2 = fjords.
Well put :)
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I also have a message for you from you know who. "The sardines are arguing about Mozart, beware, when you taste the color yellow: you will know peril."
Ya lost me...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ya lost me...
excellent, I will tell them to hit the target. Even if he figures this out it will be too late. Good job keeping him posting so they could track him.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Acceptable wiring
As in Cat-5[^] cabling, commonly known as Ethernet cable? Defined as a standard in TIA/EIA-568-B[^] by the Telecommunications Industry Association[^], an organization formed of private-sector companies, not the FCC.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
protocols
Like what? TCP/IP? The closest thing to regulation we have over that is the IEEE[^], which is... *gasp!* Another PROFESSIONAL organization, not the FCC.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
servers
You mean web servers? Domain names? Do I have to mention ICANN[^], which is in charge of overseeing domain name and IP address assignments? A group that USED TO BE part of the government, but has been split off into an independent entity. Or are you talking about the physical servers? Because there's NO way you can justify your theory that the FCC is regulating my old Debian/Apache box.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
web-browsers
The software? Seeing as how anyone can make their own web browser, there can't be any FCC regulation there. Web protocols, then? Hey, look! The W3C![^] An international organization that includes both private-sector and public-sector members. No FCC authority there. So where does the FCC come in?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As in Cat-5[^] cabling, commonly known as Ethernet cable? Defined as a standard in TIA/EIA-568-B[^] by the Telecommunications Industry Association[^], an organization formed of private-sector companies, not the FCC.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Like what? TCP/IP? The closest thing to regulation we have over that is the IEEE[^], which is... *gasp!* Another PROFESSIONAL organization, not the FCC.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You mean web servers? Domain names? Do I have to mention ICANN[^], which is in charge of overseeing domain name and IP address assignments? A group that USED TO BE part of the government, but has been split off into an independent entity.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The software? Seeing as how anyone can make their own web browser, there can't be any FCC regulation there. Web protocols, then? Hey, look! The W3C![^] An international organization that includes both private-sector and public-sector members. No FCC authority there.
Well now the FCC will regulate standards. Note that this will slow down advancement and innovation and push up prices just like the CNBC article said.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As in Cat-5[^] cabling, commonly known as Ethernet cable? Defined as a standard in TIA/EIA-568-B[^] by the Telecommunications Industry Association[^], an organization formed of private-sector companies, not the FCC.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Like what? TCP/IP? The closest thing to regulation we have over that is the IEEE[^], which is... *gasp!* Another PROFESSIONAL organization, not the FCC.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You mean web servers? Domain names? Do I have to mention ICANN[^], which is in charge of overseeing domain name and IP address assignments? A group that USED TO BE part of the government, but has been split off into an independent entity.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The software? Seeing as how anyone can make their own web browser, there can't be any FCC regulation there. Web protocols, then? Hey, look! The W3C![^] An international organization that includes both private-sector and public-sector members. No FCC authority there.
Well now the FCC will regulate standards. Note that this will slow down advancement and innovation and push up prices just like the CNBC article said.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
your own example australia censors lots advancement's fine there cars regulated mustang getting 31 ford's innovating
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As in Cat-5[^] cabling, commonly known as Ethernet cable? Defined as a standard in TIA/EIA-568-B[^] by the Telecommunications Industry Association[^], an organization formed of private-sector companies, not the FCC.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Like what? TCP/IP? The closest thing to regulation we have over that is the IEEE[^], which is... *gasp!* Another PROFESSIONAL organization, not the FCC.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You mean web servers? Domain names? Do I have to mention ICANN[^], which is in charge of overseeing domain name and IP address assignments? A group that USED TO BE part of the government, but has been split off into an independent entity.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The software? Seeing as how anyone can make their own web browser, there can't be any FCC regulation there. Web protocols, then? Hey, look! The W3C![^] An international organization that includes both private-sector and public-sector members. No FCC authority there.
Well now the FCC will regulate standards. Note that this will slow down advancement and innovation and push up prices just like the CNBC article said.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Well now the FCC will regulate standards
You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you? You've been completely proven wrong, so you just pull another statement out of mid-air and expect me to just accept it as valid. Not happening. If you want to make a point, back it up with evidence.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
your own example australia censors lots advancement's fine there cars regulated mustang getting 31 ford's innovating
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
American cars are garbage.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Well now the FCC will regulate standards
You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you? You've been completely proven wrong, so you just pull another statement out of mid-air and expect me to just accept it as valid. Not happening. If you want to make a point, back it up with evidence.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Go read the god damn CNBC article I posted yesterday, you moron.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]