What are you saying?

It's been a big week for IT. What have you been saying about it?

Every week, Computerworld collates all the things our readers have been saying about the news, both in the forums and in the comments. This week's hot topic was Conroy's filter debate debacle on Channel 7 program, Sunrise, in which occurred Conroy spoke without opposition. Here are some of the things that you had to say about it:

"Internet safety must fall back in the hands of parents. I have 2 kids with 2 PCs. Both of them have filters downloaded from the net for free. The government would save billions of dollars if they educated parents or even funded parents to buy a filter to put on their PC to protect the kids. Conroy, you are playing god my friend in trying to push for something that you want and don't give a stuff about the majority of internet users. I have voted Labour all my life but if this goes through you have lost my vote and probably hundreds of thousands of others." - Kevin on <i>Ludlam: Filter opponents "stand-up now"</i>

"If past public online polls of about 92% opposing the filter are anything to go by, perhaps the "public" have already spoken. I remember back when the Government said that an Internet filter would be "opt-out", but then they back-flipped (i.e, they either changed their mind or lied. Take your pick). I don't forget these things. So why should we believe what they have to say about the filter now, or even that the filter is for the good of the children/general public. You see, once someone lies or backflips, it becomes harder to trust them. Online safety/education should always be the role of the parent, not the government, and it's up to the parents to be educated about online issues, so that they can protect their kids. However me, very much into my adulthood, don't find the need to be 'protected', thank you very much. As such I, as an adult, get to decide how my Internet comes into my house, whether that be Cable, ADSL or whatever, and the same goes with filtering, thank you. I like to listen to what Conroy has to say, but now, because of what was said in the past, take everything he has to say with a bag of salt. Hoping that the 92% remember their vote in the past online polls, perhaps the Government, Our Government, can realise and also remember that they are meant to be serving us*. It's pretty simple really: Don't push onto us something that we don't want. Get it through your thick head." - Earl Blennerhassett on <i>Senate committee to call for public net filtering views</i>

"Well, I guess we know what $230 million after a "coincidental" meeting with a Station owner "coincidentally" in the same country "coincidentally" on holiday at the same time can buy." - Jim Walter on <i>Conroy goes unopposed in TV filtering debate</i>

"...The report into ISP filtering conducted by the IIA showed that one proposed filtering solution that was the most effective in not under or overblocking content slowed down the Internet by up to 87%. What should be brought to attention is the reports and trials Senator Conroy will acknowledge, most importantly the Telstra Trial. The report from the Telstra Trial is where he is getting his "100% Accurate" and "only 1/70th of the blink of an eye speed reduction" claims. This is the same report that also states, "No customers were involved in this trial" and "This testing was performed using a modern medium specification Laptop computer connected to the test environment using a standard 1.5Mb/s ADSL service and, at times, via a direct Ethernet connection to the test environment". So he is basing results from a single computer, in a lab environment, involving no customers, with a maximum speed of 1.5Mbit (not even the 12mbit that was part of the testing criteria for the Enex Trial) as "evidence" that the plan works. So much for “evidence based policy”. Senator, you are the one misleading the Public. It's no wonder you didn't want anybody on the show to oppose you because your spin won't stand up to the truth!" - Akira Doe on <i>Conroy goes unopposed in TV filtering debate</i>

"...Geordie Guy has numerous opportunities every week to voice his views on this subject. Conroy is just not interested in the usual claim/counter-claim slanging match. Sunrise could have decided not to accept Conroys request..." - Lich King on <i>Conroy goes unopposed in TV filtering debate</i>

"Why has everyone let Sunrise off the hook? The corporate media plays a big part in letting the government control its message. We actually live in an oligarchy not a democracy people." - Mark on <i>Conroy goes unopposed in TV filtering debate</i>

"Surely it is easier for Senator Conroy to just gaol and execute anyone that dares to oppose the internet filter. " - Concerned on <i>Conroy goes unopposed in TV filtering debate</i>

"One sided debates?! Just how Labour Party like it. Kevin Rudd graduated with honors in Chinese history and language. Maybe if Labour win the next election they'll change it to The People's Republic of Australia." - Bill on <i>Conroy goes unopposed in TV filtering debate</i>

"The filter is not related to "nation-state security". All criminal activities such as pedophilia, rape and terrorism are illegal and subject to full enforcement of the law. But very few of these activities/sites are going to be detected by the filter, so the resources should be given to the justice system to improve detection of illegality. Supporters of the filter stand exposed as well-meaning but ignorant at best, and fundamentalist-moral despots at worst." - Gordon Frend on <i>AusCert 2010: Australian net filter doomed</i>

Of course, the internet filter isn't the only thing you're talking about. Here are some other topics that generated some chatter:

Pushed back ruling for R18+ rated games

"Yes, it got a large number of pro 18+ responses but most of those came from a gamer lobby group and from one of the worlds largest games retailers. Most of the results from both respondents came from petitions circulated by the groups and signed by gamers. The government is arguing that they need to see the viewpoint of the large segment of the population that are not dedicated gamers. They want views from parents (of kids who play games and of kids who dont). They want views from others. The 98.2% result just indicates that gamers overwhelmingly support R18+, not that the nation as a whole is in favor of it." - Jonathan Wilson on <i>SCAG lags on R18+ games</i>

"Well, I think that this just shows that Atkinson wasn't bluffing when he said that he wasn't the only AG against an R18+ games rating, just the only one with the balls to say so in public. I would bet my bottom dollar that if there had been only 100,000 submissions, with 70% or more against an R18+ rating for games, it would've been a glowing vindication of their position against such a reform. But with 98% of 600,000 submissions in favour of it, they need to fully consider the options. I don't think they expected submissions from unorganised game-playing adult voters to massively outnumber their organised conservative friends. I think that the fact that they did just shows how much support there really is for an R18+ rating for video games. If only we lived in a more transparent democracy..." - Nezuki on <i>SCAG lags on R18+ games</i>

"People who refer to gamers as kids are indicating they don't know what they are talking about. Apart from people's right to play their choice of games, the other issue is that we already have a significant game production industry in Australia. If R18+ games were legalised, there would be more jobs and a good increase in export income from this vibrant sector." - gnome on <I>SCAG lags on R18+ games</i>

Our bid for Justice Kirby to be filter king

"A retired judge will be checking the list? Is that really the best person to be deciding what stays on the list for the internet to be safe?" - Jarryd on <i>Conroy goes unopposed in TV filtering debate</i>

"A review 'every six to twelve months' is supposed to be an effective oversight mechanism? For the internet, where a few thousand new URLs easily can spring up in an hour? Err, no. Will the list of sites shown to be incorrectly added be published after each review? Will the proportion of sites incorrectly added as compared to the total number of sites added be published, so the public can get an idea of the error rate? I think not. The fact he can even say any of what he said in the interview with a straight face is more proof (as if any more were needed) that Conroy truly has no understanding of the media he is attempting to control, or that he is deliberately deceiving the public. Either way, not a man who should hold public office." - DM on <i>Conroy goes unopposed in TV filtering debate</i>

"To be fair, Kirby is as good a candidate as any to at least try and make sure Conroy and co don't stomp all over our rights. He always was the trailblazer in his High Court days." - Dominic on <i>Our vote is in: Kirby for net filter blacklist inspector</i>

Google viewing everything on the street

"Surely the panjandrums of the privacy industry have better things to do than waste their time and ours with tedious complaints about images taken from vehicles travelling along public streets?" - Anonymous on <i>Privacy groups target Google Street View</i>

"Why target Google, they aren't the only ones who've done this. If I remember correctly, Apple and Skyhook have been doing this since 2008." - C on <i>Privacy groups target Google Street View</i>

"Whoops Google accidentally collected your data? Anyone that believes that monster does anything by accident probably also buys that they pulled out of China for ethical reasons. Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"?" - Magneto on <i>Google "failed badly" over Wi-Fi data collection</i>

Piracy stats and rulings

"John Gantz' credibility is already low considering who he is working for (Business Software Association) but he lost all credibility when he included free and open source software in the presentation ... This is completely useless." - tuxhedo on <i>Piracy stats BS, A?</i>

"What's the P2P situation with iiNet meanwhile? While this is up in the air for a possible 2 yrs, there seems to be no clear law for the ISP or the User." - Les on <i>AFACT v iiNet: Back to court 2-5 August</i>

"The fact that corporations retain so much of the revenues has never been a justification for people to take something without paying. Never. AFACT may be a monumental pain, but they will only get bigger and stronger the longer people try and justify taking and using content without the license holders permission. That includes so many bloggers, who continually convince the corporations to give AFACT and other groups so much funding to mount ever bigger campaigns. A big thanks to all those wiseacres who think taunting these corps helps the cause at all... Now AFACT will NEVER go away." - Anonymous on <i>AFACT applauds LimeWire ruling</i>

"It's amusing that the content corporations often claim the effect of file sharing is to deprive artists, authors and performers of income. It seems that most of the proceeds from content sales by the corporations is retained by the corporations, with the content creators in many cases getting only a pittance for their work. Perhaps somebody should start representing the creators against those who grab so much of the value created?" - gnome on <i>AFACT applauds LimeWire ruling</i>

The National Broadband Network

"Legislation should be passed requiring the big telcos in Australia to peer freely with each other and all comers." - technology wonk on <i>NBN arguments 101: Is Australia's NBN world class?</i>

"Seriously consider how densely the population of Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea is per square meter and you should realise that it is vastly more affordable and significantly easier to deploy high speed fibre (or other technologies) to 90% of the population. Even somewhere like England and France generally is so much more densely populated than Australia or the US where we are spread across an area the size of all of western Europe. We should never try to be on par with our high tech Asian neighbours. The NBN as I see it, at least gets us off the path of old technology - copper - onto something that allows us to at least try to maintain the gap between ourselves and our neighbours rather than slip further behind." - shad0h on <i>NBN arguments 101: Is Australia's NBN world class?</i>

"Get the fibre laid - the speed it runs at is a secondary consideration. As with the copper network, different speeds can be offered in different locations and the areas of highest demand will obviously get 1 gbps and maybe even 10 gbps by the time it's done - the underlying fibre will allow that. Who cares how that compares with Asia when you're sitting here on a 24 kbps dial-up because of pair gain as many people less than 10km from the GPO in Adelaide are... or you can't even get an ADSL2 node to a branch office in many parts of Adelaide or the mid north of SA. It has to be done. " - Simmo on <i>NBN arguments 101: Is Australia's NBN world class?</i>

"To all the cheer squad for NBN, get this into your heads, it is not going to be built! the the Tassie Effort does not work, how mant Telstra shareholders are there in Tassie, is it a good thing for a government to actively campaign against your stock holding and super investments, what is next! Remember project Opel? If you are in one of those areas, that would have been in place by now. But your government cancelled it, and replaced it with nothing! We all are being played for mugs with NBN Stop being true believers, you are making fools of yourself." - Raymond on <i>Tasmania to push Telstra out in future contracts</i>

So, that's what you've had to say this week. Keep the discussions alive at the Computerworld Forums

Join the newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags internet filteringSenator Stephen ConroyNational Broadband Network (NBN)Michael Kirby

More about ACTAppleAusCertBilletworkGoogleIIAIinetSunriseTelstra Corporation

Show Comments