digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Australia to enforce a "ratings system" on web, track users

arstechnica.com — Australia is preparing to enact new rules that will require age verification for multiple levels of content, as the country tries to apply movie ratings to online content. Visits to R18+ sites will even be logged.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • samkline, on 12/24/2007, -1/+49Internet. Serious Business.
    • Dylson, on 12/24/2007, -0/+11http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/6977/helloserio ...
    • uberkling, on 12/25/2007, -0/+8As an Aussie, this kind of "Let's filter the internets... All of them!!" BS just really drives home to me how technologically illiterate the people making these decisions for us all really are. The privacy issue really riles me too, but what I really take exception to is the wastage.
      *Especially* considering the bandwidth issues and telco problems we already have, do these folks seriously have even the vaguest concept of the level of overhead, infrastructure and cost associated with deep packet-inspecting the entire volume of traffic pertaining to EVERYTHING from HTTP traffic to Bittorrent to IRC chatter flowing in and out of 21 million Australians' homes?
      There's no point in even making a cynical comment on the fact that 14 yearolds in public schools will get around this in 5 minutes flat when you think of issues like, I dunno, SSL encrypted HTTPS traffic maybe? Are you going to be filtering my online banking transactions to make sure there's no nipple?
      It'd be nice if they got real on this issue. The internet doesn't have borders, and like any well-meaning anticopyright/censorship/nannystate system it only punishes the people who do the right thing. This kind of Mickey Mouse, feelgood knee-jerk crap is exactly why pollies should never be allowed to make any decisions relationg to telecommunications or national IT infrastructure until they're properly qualified.

      ...And of course, yeah... Cram censorship.
    • microchp, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3More correct than you think. This means Aussies will have to move their business to the U.S. or somewhere that has not yet tried to enforce such rules. Yay! That just means more work for me. I am ok with that.
  • dukeeeey, on 12/24/2007, -1/+127Australia is moving towards Chinese style internet censorship.
    • MaxPayne3476, on 12/24/2007, -7/+14Thanks to the OFLC, they've been there for quite some time. Don't kid yourself people, there are hardly any countries freer then the United States and Canada.
      • xkorbin, on 12/24/2007, -1/+24Sweden deserves notable mention..
        • Payoff, on 12/24/2007, -1/+13and Ireland... they have good Privacy laws and have a nice "reporter without borders" rating.

          Look it up on the god dam internets if you don't trust in me.
        • OverlordXenu, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2Or Estonia, or Switzerland, or France...
          • nastajus, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Not France, recently on Digg it was reported maybe 2 weeks ago that ISPs will cut off service. I think it was using any P2P at all.
      • rarson, on 12/24/2007, -3/+17Which is why I'm allowed to smoke pot in Amsterdam, but not the US.

        I mean, I do agree with you in many ways, but there are a few issues where other countries are better off.
        • NoCt1, on 12/24/2007, -5/+1You can smoke here... Just dont get pulled over...
        • rarson, on 12/24/2007, -1/+4Sure, I "can," but I'm not allowed to.
      • TiKoZ, on 12/24/2007, -1/+8Internet-wise I'm not any less "free" here in Egypt, and we don't even have lame MPAA sending us emails and sueing our grandmas!
        But well.. that's internet only :/
        • scott2007, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Uh, in America bloggers aren't put in prison.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -6/+12Hahaha! FREER?

        Can you grow whatever you want on the land you own?
        Can you digg a hole on your private land without a permit?
        Can you operate a business without requiring governmental approval?
        Can you drive a car without government approval?
        Can you consume any substance you want inside your own home?
        Can you purchase any item you want from private businesses without requiring the consent of government (firearms)?
        Can you renovate or build a home without following governmental regulations?
        Are you free to participate to the funding of government by a volountary contribution of your choice?
        Are your kids free to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol?
        Are you free to spank your kids inside your own home?
        Can the private media broadcast any kind of content without governmental approval?
        Is the government allowed to revoke your rights and priviledges at any time (patriot act)?
        Is the government free to seize your property (IRS)?
        Is the government allowed to detain you for consuming what the government decides is illicit (DEA)?
        Can the government force you to fight in its army if it ever decides to do so?


        Free country means that you are free to THINK any way you want.
        • PatrickBrown, on 12/24/2007, -10/+5I wish I had the freedom to kill libertarians.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6And that's why there's a government.
        • NoCt1, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1Technically the Draft can not go in effect. But if it does. A qarning to everyone the machine that they use is so out dated that it would take around 3 -5 years to get it online. then test and everything. etc.. plus it would be snail mail.. and since i dont have an address technically. or so thats what paper says and its all an email for me.. what the=n.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1The draft was in effect 30 years ago.
        • BurningApple, on 12/24/2007, -0/+10"Can you digg a hole..."
          Digg? Okay, some people spend too much time here.
          • Smills, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1I didn't even notice it was spelt that way. I think I am one of those people :(
        • SSUK, on 12/24/2007, -2/+1Half the things you listed, like "Can you drive a car without government approval?" is for your/others safety. While you're at it, why not say "Can you do open heart surgery on people without any medical training?". Yeah, sounds ***** stupid now, doesn't it?
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -1/+2Is that supposed to be an argument?

            Are you making the argument that you are free because laws are in place to protect you from yourself?
        • SKick, on 12/24/2007, -2/+1"I Wunt freedums cuz they r gud and i can handel them"

          The average citizen has repeatedly shown his or her inability to safely exercise their rights without government oversight. Maybe the answer isn't asking for more rights, but learning how to properly exercise the ones you have before they're taken away too. Think that's harsh? Show me what's been done to President Bush, despite his repeated screwing of the public that elected him?
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1I'm not making the argument that governments are bad you primate, I'm just mocking the ignorance of this American and his FREER country.
      • roodammy44, on 12/24/2007, -3/+6Arguably most of Europe is more free
      • Herostratos, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Did you forget the [/sarcasm] tag?
    • NoCt1, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2now, Is this a enter your age block. or a credit card, or Id number.. If it is a simple whats your birthdate then, there is something else underlying on this...
      • carl0ski, on 12/25/2007, -0/+0It is well known this is easily faked

        However asking gives the site owner legal protection since the under age visitor entered under fraudulent/false pretenses

        It also gives the end user/visitor
        a warning that the site may have adult content
        without first needing to be directly exposed to it in a trial/error mode.
    • phazon88, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6That's because our PM is a chinaman in disguise.
      • SSUK, on 12/24/2007, -2/+1Don't know why this is being buried, the Aus' current prime minister has strong ties to China. If you deny this, you're an idiot... Or American and know ***** all about international affairs.
    • carl0ski, on 12/25/2007, -6/+2you moron

      There is a difference from protecting the mental state of children from obscene content

      and political censorship
      If the Australian government was serious about achieving Chinese style censorship
      Wikipedia would be blocked

      Google search terms
      -GST
      -Tampa
      -Howard Government
      -Chaser's War on Everything

      would all be banned web content.
    • dustedotnet, on 12/25/2007, -2/+4***** Rudd and his ***** Chinese *****.
      • josh85, on 12/25/2007, -1/+2The new Australian parliament hasn't sat yet. This legislation was passed in July 2007, under the previous conservative government. Please work on your basic critical thinking and reasoning skills.
  • damnitdaniel, on 12/24/2007, -0/+61I'm curious how this affects visitors from other countries accessing content based in Australia...
    • hplasm, on 12/24/2007, -1/+9No more koala porn, for sure.
    • roodammy44, on 12/24/2007, -1/+5I'm not sure Australia will have much content in the future.
      Not 18+ content anyway, and what else is the internet for?
  • silentphoenix, on 12/24/2007, -1/+37aka....censorship
  • ryanward, on 12/24/2007, -0/+49That's horrible.
  • ericbramlett, on 12/24/2007, -0/+120That's absolutely insane. I've got an idea - why don't the parents take some responsibility?
    • Tilon, on 12/24/2007, -0/+28Now why would they do that, when the Nanny State can just instead play on fear, using it to usurp the rights of the people?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -7/+1What right is being usurped here?
        • spyd3rweb, on 12/24/2007, -2/+1GTFO you shill.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -5/+1I'll take that as an "I don't know".
          • ripdog, on 12/25/2007, -2/+2The amount of people on Digg who have remarkably appropriate names astounds me.

            You are one of them.
        • infinitiesedge, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3The right to look at whatever ***** porn I want. (So long as it's not cp...)
        • majorrick, on 12/25/2007, -1/+0I'd say the right to privacy. Even though Australia apparently doesn't have a set right to privacy law...
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1So nobody could tell what right is being infringed? How surprising.

          Your right to privacy is not infringed because you choose to purchase something with your credit card.

          This will not prevent any adult from watching, buying and selling porn.

          You're against something you don't even understand.
    • fkr3, on 12/24/2007, -5/+4Same reason parents don't individually classify movies. There's too much and they put their trust in various organisations to do it responsibly for them.
    • hplasm, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Have you seen the age of these politician's parents? Some hope.
      ;)
  • missingnoh4x, on 12/24/2007, -0/+42How would this even be implemented?
    • Qtip42, on 12/24/2007, -0/+30Good question. This is politics done by people who have ABSOLUTELY no fundamental understanding of the internet. It is some people in power who want control of something that is NOT supposed to be controlled.

      It's like Ted Stevens having any say what so ever on any matter related to the internet when he's proven how completely inept he is on the subject.
    • 3tcp, on 12/24/2007, -0/+10If they can't figure out on their own they can always get some help from China and Saudi Arabia
    • NoCt1, on 12/24/2007, -0/+7Install filters at the fiber taps when they enter the country.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -9/+2Lol, you guys are turning this into some weird filtering and censorship thing.

      This is easy, it's the same exact thing they do for TV content and the same exact thing Youtube does when its users flags conent as inappropriate for kids.

      They surf the web, watch the content, and based on certain criterias, they give it a rating, just like for movies and television. It's the same principle as the FCC, but WITHOUT censorship.

      http://www.fcc.gov/parents/parent_guide.html
      • Stevo23, on 12/25/2007, -1/+2Oh, of course. They'll just go to every site on the internet, review it, and assign it a rating. That should only take like a billion years or so.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2That's their plan, not mine. And that's what the US and most of Europe and Asia does for every single television show, all movies and all music that are broadcasted or sold. Australia will just add online content to their rating process. And they passed a law that requires watchers and buyers of porn to prove that they are adults. Like you would have to do if you bought porn anywhere else that is not online.
    • EmileVictor, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3Truth is that it won't. It was passed under the last Government, which automatically means that it will be scruitinised thoroughly. This is just more alarmist *****...
  • MrKrinkleDude, on 12/24/2007, -5/+2Yes, give me your credit card number. When I'm done with it, you can sue your country.
  • Qtip42, on 12/24/2007, -0/+62That is NOT what the internet is about. This is a scheme by the higher ups to control the internet and the voice of the people. Aussies should fight against this type of b/s.

    Saying it's to protect children is *****. This only limts people. Parents should do their job of policing what their children view instead.
    • Tilon, on 12/24/2007, -0/+9Incrementalism, stepping stones...the infrastructure this ***** puts into place enables more later.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -9/+2The internet is not about anything. It's just a communications infrastructure. Like the telephone. This isn't about the internet, it's about civil rights. On the internet or not, businesses must follow the law and the law must be applicable. It is illegal to sell or even to show porn for free to minors. So the law is modified in order to be able to ensure that these businesses follow the law.

      You are not obligated to do anything. You choose to go to certain websites that represent businesses. You choose to purchase items. If you want to purchase restricted items, you must prove your age, like in any other form of business. If you do not present ID, the store will most likely not sell restricted items to you and will be fined if it does so.

      "Parents should do their job of policing what their children view instead."

      They did. They voted in majority to protect children by the application of laws that protect children.

      The only part I see as being bad is the tracking part. The government should not have the right to monitor its citizens activities in any way, shape or form. But to setup a system that will prevent kids from watching hardcore porn is perfectly moral and legal. The same thing applies to video stores, conveniant stores, liquor stores, cigarettes, etc. It's not about the internet, it's about civil rights.
      • rarson, on 12/24/2007, -1/+4Do you vote on every bill that gets passed in Congress? Are you just clueless how politics work, or what? This is people in power grasping for more control.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -4/+1More control? Because they want the same laws that have been applicable for decades outside the internet to be applicable on the internet? How does that work out?

        A generic hatred for "the man" is not exactly a rational position. Also, just stating an opinion without making an argument and adding insult to stupidity is not a good way to win arguments.
      • TheSmiddy, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4the problem however is that once a system to effectivly censor the internet is in place (which honestly i cant see happening) what will then be defined as hardcore pornography?

        if the government doesn't like a site that opposes their policies or leaks 'sensitive' information will they 'accidentally' mark it as X rated?
        • NoCt1, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2well If they do block any of your good porn give me a holla i have it ...
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -1/+2Who ever mentionned censorship? That word is not in the article.

          If you have a DVD at home, look for that little sticker with a rating on it. It's the same exact principle, but on the internet. They aren't censoring anything, they just don't want kids to look at hardcore porn.
          • NoCt1, on 12/24/2007, -1/+1kids will find away. when i was thirteen and couldnt get into sites what did i do. credit card generator
    • phazon88, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3"[sic]Aussies should fight against this type of b/s."
      A pity we're (Australians) just as apathetic as Americans when it comes to speaking out against things.
      • Cunninlynguist, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1as an american living in australia, i agree... rudd vs howard, where's the difference???

        that's why we need a Ron Paul to wake up the people that are sleeping
    • dustedotnet, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Fight the power.
  • 3tcp, on 12/24/2007, -2/+11Next thing you know they'll be recording video from people with webcams while they're watching porn, y'know, just to make sure they're children
  • viciv, on 12/24/2007, -1/+27i thought australia is a free country...seriously..
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/24/2007, -12/+3Ever think about what the term "free country" meant?

      A free country is impossible. A country is a defined territory that is controlled by a form of government. A government is an institution that regulates what its citizens have the right to do and what they don't have the right to do. A free country is therefore impossible.

      Even a free society is impossible. Your actions are limited by the strength of others.
  • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/24/2007, -2/+10Damnit. Quickly, everyone call your congressman and prevent them from doing this ***** here in the US (You know they'll try)!
  • QuintiliusVarus, on 12/24/2007, -1/+0another nation making the case for the relakks business model... how absurd is it that we're all going to be bouncing our traffic through islands in the net to avoid our own governments (and if you think for a second that all that DHS tracked data wont mysteriously and "mistakenly" end up in private hands right at the end of the current administration you're kidding yourself)
  • TheLoneHoot, on 12/24/2007, -3/+20I thought with getting rid of Howard they'd be less right wing about things.
    • 3tcp, on 12/24/2007, -1/+10Authoritarian is something that politicians from both ends of the political spectrum can aspire to. We have it in the US too, just look at george bush and hillary clinton
    • Andrew626, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6right wing is for less government control, you mean they are leaning left
      • Skooma714, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5lol nope.

        Right and left are still the same thing. Libertarians (not just a party) are for less government.

        Rightists just say they want less government to get in power, leftists too.
      • MacEnvy, on 12/24/2007, -1/+4Oops, accidentally dugg you up 3tcp. Left/right has nothing to do with authoritarianism. They're on different axes in the political spectrum. One can be left-authoritarian, right-authoritarian, left-libertarian, or right-libertarian. I suspect you already knew that and were just being partisan. One thing is for certain though - right-wing does NOT equal less government interference. Neither does left-wing.
      • ErikHK, on 12/25/2007, -1/+0Hah, funny joke.. Just look at the Christian right (wrong) wings in the US..
    • SpykerSpeed, on 12/24/2007, -1/+3Heh, funny how that works out. I recall Digg and Australian posters being thrilled when Howard left office. They're notably silent now.
      • anubis1975, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4This change WAS a Howard government change, rammed through parliament when they had control of it back in July.
    • phazon88, on 12/24/2007, -2/+2I was just thinking the same thing. This is something I'd expect from Howard. I can't believe Rudd is doing this. I don't know exactly what this whole thing means, but it seems pretty *****.
      • josh85, on 12/25/2007, -1/+2The new Australian parliament hasn't sat yet. This legislation was passed in July 2007, under the previous conservative government. Please work on your basic critical thinking and reasoning skills.
  • anononon, on 12/24/2007, -4/+11THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNN
  • ChazHollywood, on 12/24/2007, -18/+11That's what you get when you vote socialist. Don't worry, we'll have it here too in the US before long.
    • krnldmp, on 12/24/2007, -6/+4Like Mitt Romney and his, "I'd like to keep pernography from coming up on their computers". Here we have corporate socialists. They can be harder to spot but they all basically give you nothing in exchange for anything to make big money more powerful.
    • MacEnvy, on 12/24/2007, -3/+10Socialism is a fiscal policy, not a social one. Your ignorance is showing.
      • ChazHollywood, on 12/24/2007, -9/+4Please explain to me how religious persecution and Internet sensorship in China is fiscal policy. And don't give me some crap about how "China isn't socialist it's communist." Communism is just advanced socialism.
        • MacEnvy, on 12/24/2007, -4/+7I didn't say you COULDN'T be both socialism and authoritarian, just that it isn't a prerequisite. Seriously, please look up basic definitions of the things you're talking about. China isn't a totalitarian state because they have communist roots. It's because their government is full of totalitarian assholes.

          How could an educated person not understand the difference at this point? We talk about it all the time on digg. Please, please, do your homework.
        • ErikHK, on 12/25/2007, -1/+2your ignorance is appauling.. How exactly is China socialist? Does it have a very restricted market for example? No, they have a very open one, very much like in the US. Does socialism say anything about massacres of the people, censorship and oppression? Didn't think so.. Please read up a bit on communism and socialism, no state has ever been communist (besides, "communist state" is a freaking oxymoron)
      • AROZ, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Thanks for that Fox News.
    • josh85, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2The new Australian parliament hasn't sat yet. This legislation was passed in July 2007, under the previous conservative government.
  • TubeDigger, on 12/24/2007, -4/+35Austrailia u were cool wtf happend?
    • cfuse, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2Some tard put politicians in charge. This is never a good idea.
  • skews13, on 12/24/2007, -5/+1but we don't need to protect them from sniper bullets,or all the dead bodies,or the real violence of a war your sending them to.
    great
    • petrodollar, on 12/24/2007, -1/+4Australia just pulled out of Iraq.
  • petrodollar, on 12/24/2007, -2/+10"Little Jimmy only needs to find a willing adult,"

    No problem. Little Jimmy can just talk to the man with the candy in the windowless econoline van.
  • steven0451, on 12/24/2007, -14/+1Anybody here that's 18+ not care about this?
    • rarson, on 12/24/2007, -0/+12No, we care because we understand the implications. Did you even read the article?
  • samssf, on 12/24/2007, -0/+26What is so hard to grasp about this concept: When you place restrictions on products, services, content, etc.... mostly what happens is you limit and piss of people who are legitimately consuming the product or service, and only slightly control those who are doing it illegitimately. In this specific case, the kids who want to see porn are still going to get to see porn, either by lying online, magazines, or some other cleaver solution.

    When will humans learn to tackle the source of the problem rather than trying to be forcefully controlling and patch stuff up with restrictions. If you want to stop kids from viewing adult content, you either have to make the kids not want to see it, feed their appetite another way, or get parents to take more action. Distribute free software to parents that will monitor kids' browsing or something.

    It's the same as with guns in schools. Putting more cops in schools isn't the answer. Trying to figure out why the kids are bringing guns to schools, and then tackling that, is the answer. The later will be very a difficult process, but the first solution doesn't work any better.

    When you try to prevent someone from doing something they were already doing, it just creates challenge, which makes the person want to succeed even more.... which usually makes them more successful at what they were doing, and makes the problem worse. Why can't anyone ***** realize this?
    • MaxPayne3476, on 12/24/2007, -0/+7Well said, I'm in agreeance. If Johnny is old enough to be curious about looking at porn, then he should have access to it in my opinion. It's not like looking at ***** and ass at 15 is any different then at 18.
    • Andrew626, on 12/24/2007, -0/+0immediate change buy controlling, which won't accomplish anything in the long run, is much more feasible than catching up on generations worth of ignorance and lack of education
    • rarson, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1Kids bring guns into schools because their parents ***** suck. There's no way in hell I'd have been able to get a hold of a gun when I was in high school. It's not like these kids are just walking into a gun shop and buying them.
    • Skooma714, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Putting cops in schools (ironically, with guns) is much much easier. We're American, we're lazy like that.
  • robojiannis, on 12/24/2007, -1/+10Children are creative enough to find a way to the censored material. If they want to see porn, they will see porn.
    Apart from that remember what Bill Hicks once said?
  • robojiannis, on 12/24/2007, -1/+2[addition to previous post] // Bill Hicks quote:
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2yeg2_bill-hicks ...
  • rarson, on 12/24/2007, -0/+19It's like saying, "You're not allowed to drive your car on this road because it's too dangerous."

    Why do so many people feel the need to save us from ourselves? Political correctness is the catalyst that set all this off. Once people started buying into the ***** notion that you can't say certain things to certain people, they began to feel that they had the right to not be offended. This has mutated into people feeling like they have the right to tell you what you can and can't do under the guise of morality. It's all *****.

    I'm a big boy, I can surf the internet without running into something I find offensive, and even if I do, then I can close the browser and move on with my life. I don't need to be protected from the internet. If it's kids you're worried about, then perhaps you should start looking at the parents. It's not government's job to be their babysitter, and I sure as hell am not paying taxes for it to be some sort of internet nanny.
    • AROZ, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1People do have the right not to be offended. It's called dignity.
      • nastajus, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1By censoring everything and creating work for every webpage maker? Dignity this is not.
      • jsmu, on 12/26/2007, -0/+0You imbecile.
        Internet porn offends you?
        TURN OFF YOUR ***** COMPUTER.
    • eggie015, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1"It's like saying, "You're not allowed to drive your car on this road because it's too dangerous"

      well they do restrict you from driving in a V8 or a car with forced induction while your on your P plates in NSW....the sad thing is when you are still on your L's they let you drive em....

      see what labor does to the country :-D
    • jsmu, on 12/26/2007, -0/+0AMEN. How many times must these MORONS relearn the lesson of Prohibition--the most spectacular FAILURE imaginable?
  • mongoloidplease, on 12/24/2007, -1/+4Good ol' Family First Party

    http://www.familyfirst.org.au/documents/INTERNETPO ...
    • aussieNickuss, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3There it is.....the ***** bible bashers trying to control us yet again!
  • Navigator7, on 12/24/2007, -0/+8Citizenry becoming bound and strapped into a yoke of control and servitude is the byproduct of apathetic citizens failing to control their government.

    The only people who understand this concept take their dogs for a walk instead of the other way around.


  • esoxLucius4, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6What about adults that don't own any credit cards? Or is owning a credit card mandatory in Australia?
  • shiny100, on 12/24/2007, -0/+10trying to control the internet is something no goverment should try to enforce. It is morally wrong. Let alone technically impossible.
  • ZeRux, on 12/24/2007, -0/+15Why they don't simply ban the Internet entirely, just like North Korea - it would be much more easier to do and would require far less money.
    /sarcasm
  • cvm4, on 12/24/2007, -0/+9It's the whole tracking/privacy deal that bugs me. Some people would be screwed if that ever got out.
  • Skooma714, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4I like how they try to use a method that only partially works in it's intended field, and applies it to something completely different. Who needs originality? Let's just rehash something we've already jammed down people's throats
    and apply to a medium where it will work even less than the first one.

    For a former prison colony with a strong sense of independence Aussies sure have dropped the ball (in the name of safety for the children of course). Don't worry, we did it first.
    • Navigator7, on 12/24/2007, -1/+2Naw.....you guys just caught a strong case of liberalism.

      Don't worry, liberalism disappears once all your freedoms are replaced with a caring government eager to fulfill your every need.

  • brickbat, on 12/24/2007, -0/+10Anyone that really thinks that this about kids accessing porn is crazy. Its strictly focussed on tracking what Australians are doing at Australian websites.

    So for example, this will not stop them going to redtube and getting as much hardcore porn as they can imagine.

    This is just another small step in tracking us.
  • aahpandasrun, on 12/24/2007, -3/+10Australia is a screwed up country. They've even banned ripping music CDs.
    • heystoopid, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5Not really , you are confusing the old 1968 Copyright Act , which prohibited change of format(no home re recording to a compact cassette for ICE) and public broadcast with out an appropriate license fee !

      The boys in Oz have created a new revised version to bring it in line with the US 1998 DMCA as part and parcel of the dumb ass agreement where George Bush's now ex best bum buddy Little Johnny Howard signed the infamous one way "Yank my wang Free Trade Agreement" . Strangely the last I had heard the US Senate had yet to ratify that particular agreement as they were debating other more expensive cost plus options in an endless war in the middle east over stealing other people's oil wealth ?

      Little Johnny Howard , always a second string follower and never an innovator was recently evicted from his own seat to become the second PM in history to lose his seat in an erection by his own voters as the old fossil was well and truly past his prime and on the nose too with the public in general !

      The pragmatic boys in Oz , allowing for the fact that 3 million cars ICE and a million plus portable mp3 players were out in the wild now allow for personal ripping of CD's as it would not be practical to jail fine or imprison well over a third of the population for ripping said items !

      Sadly should any political party or persons try to attempt any such ban the revolting boys down under in Oz would permanently evict such wowsers and force them to live the rest of their lives in permanent exile in the Kiwi twin islands of the permanent fog bank bank some 600 or so miles to the east of Oz in the South Pacific !
    • ryanonfire, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3we did?
    • chingy1788, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1it was illegal to record from your VCR and show it to some one else...
      i think that has changed
  • bxblox, on 12/24/2007, -0/+10theyre breaking their internet
    • cfuse, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Good luck with that. If the chinese government cannot do it, then I seriously doubt that my government can.
  • phazon88, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4This is ***** up

    /Moves
    • infinitiesedge, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1To Sweden. ***** yeah!
      • phazon88, on 12/29/2007, -0/+0OMG my thoughts exactly. I so want to move to Sweden.
  • ScooterG, on 12/24/2007, -0/+11This is despicable. There is a plethora of software available to parents to block inappropriate content from their children... ***** use it?

    If the Australian government must get involved in this issue, then how about using the millions of dollars they will spend on implementing this ***** to distribute free copies of this already available content-blocking software to parents?
    • mousky, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2But why should people be responsible for anything these days? The government will tell them what to watch, what to eat, what to do when on private property, what they can and can't do, so on and so on and so on. People are slowly abdicating power and responsibility to the government under the guise of safety and security.
      • AROZ, on 12/25/2007, -1/+2That's called a social contract. Society gives up some of its freedom to government which in return provides safety and security. Without that, you can't have a sovereign state.
  • lothix, on 12/24/2007, -1/+5Control freaks
  • IAmLegend24, on 12/24/2007, -1/+5Enjoy the police state.
  • BitBurner, on 12/24/2007, -0/+7It will be hacked in under a week from launch I'm sure...and the hacks will be traded at school like we used to trade bubble gum cards.
  • DennisPease, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Another completely mis-guided law.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 12/24/2007, -3/+3What else did you expect from oh-so-tolerant Laborites?

    Hitlery 2008!
    • josh85, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1The new Australian parliament hasn't sat yet. This legislation was passed in July 2007, under the previous conservative government. Please work on your basic critical thinking and reasoning skills.
  • chopsky, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Viva Fascism? :(
  • ryanonfire, on 12/24/2007, -0/+7what the ***** is this *****
    • mousky, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Censorship. Government intervention. Government intrusion. Nanny State. Fascism.

      Take your pick.
  • ryanonfire, on 12/24/2007, -0/+8This is retarded. Instead of going to nastyassporn.com.au they can just go to nastyassporn.com and by pass all the red tape.
  • mousky, on 12/24/2007, -0/+7Stop electing people that want to protect you. Stop electing people that want to protect your children. Stop electing people that want to tell you what you can and cannot do on private property. Stop electing people that give special rights and privileges to specific groups of people or companies.
  • ubergeek09, on 12/24/2007, -2/+3Australian citizens, it's time to leave Australia before you lose the rest of your freedoms.
  • SSUK, on 12/24/2007, -1/+0Well, that's okay... There's plenty of American-hosted porn sites for you to bi-pass the rating system with.
    • AROZ, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2More importantly, there's software that could probably override this, like the much talked about Psiphon.
  • DestroyFascism, on 12/24/2007, -1/+2I am so glad Australia has a Nanny....I also know why they took guns off us.........
  • sfacets, on 12/24/2007, -2/+3The problem? The same problem facing the US - too many damn fundamental Christians in Australia.
  • Faolchu, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2First Firearms, now this...Australia is on the way to becoming another Workers Paradise, along with the usual restrictions on everything but compliance. It used to be a nice place...too bad.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.