Comments on: Howard to blow $90m on porn filters

By: komandoe

komandoe — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:47:05 +0000

What the f*ck is with this bull. this is going to be a huge failure and once the general population discovers about this porn filter there will be a massive upoar. this giverment is displaying stupidity beyond belief

By: Wee

Wee — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:10:49 +0000

Bah! That is so shit! I take it, if i do not install the software, i will not encounter these blocked pages? Violence and porn are fun!

By: rach

rach — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:05:15 +0000

I think it also needs to be said that Howard announced this when he was addressing an explicitly conservative Christian lobby group.

I also find it amusing that Rudd's response to Teh Internetz is 'get down' with the yoof on MySpace, Howard's is to clutch his pearls about mythical sex preverts and bad language.

By: McbLt

McbLt — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:32:26 +0000

Simply a publicity stunt. It sounds nice and it’s a hot topic, but unless they actually put in a very long term goal, it will be useless. Even if it is functional, without a long term strategy, the software will be worked around – within months if not weeks. As is the nature of ’security’ on the net.

It just goes to show just how out of touch the government is to things online… so they know how to use YouTube and MySpace, woop de doo…

By: poo

poo — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:11:28 +0000

@ Brendan

Regulation of internet content? To what end? I like violence and I like porn. I like choice and the ability to think for myself. None of these things are illegal. I also like to swear when any government does something that wastes the finances of its people. How is this in ANY way 'another step in the right path'? I think you are missing the point; which is that our government plans to spend $189 million on something that SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK!

Is this government the same one that fought against the rights of the homosexual community? And now the same government is having 'huge success cracking down on child pornography' you say?

This ought to be good...

By: Dmitri

Dmitri — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:46:56 +0000

Welcome to Communism :-)

By: Cam

Cam — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:03:34 +0000

@Seamus,

Sorry i read that on the SMH website not this one, basically they said that while it would be optional for people to filter out porn and alike, child porn and voilent websites would be filted out for everyone, not that thats necessarily a bad thing, but yeah just sets a dangerous precident.

By: Seamus

Seamus — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:43:50 +0000

@Cam, the ISP-level stuff is set to be at the request of the user, so that isn’t too bad. Except that the ISPs have pointed out it won’t really work, and will absolutely slow down a person’s connectivity.

By: Cam

Cam — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:39:38 +0000

ISP level filtering??? What are we in China now? This sets a dnagerous precident, not to mention the ease of misuse.

Oh and yay! My tax dollars spent doing something i am opposed to. Whoever goes against this gets my vote (Waiting for the Greens here).

By: Brendan

Brendan — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:17:11 +0000

The government has had huge success cracking down on child pornography and this is another step in the right path – especially considering there is no regulation of internet content.