Comments on: Scrutiny in the Senate: water, markets and censorship

By: Sam Clifford

Sam Clifford — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:41:25 +0000

This was one of Beazley’s brain dead policies designed to appeal to conservative voters. It’s a crap idea that’s going to make the internet worse for everyone without actually tackling the problem. I support more resources for capturing child pornographers, but crippling the internet’s not the way to go about it.

By: Helen

Helen — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:57:41 +0000

When the Howard government got that overwhelming majority in the senate a few years ago, the ABC reported that Senate Estimates committees would become a thing of the past. As TT said, they’re a conduit for public information that otherwise would stay in obscurity. I was hugely worried, and so glad that that the demise of the Estimates committees seems to have been greatly exaggerated.

By: danny

danny — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:31:29 +0000

It’s probably needless to say but, if qld did have a Senate to scrutiny with, with proper proportional representation, The Others would have the numbers, 52/47, if necessary, not counting the FNQ ~~The Undead~~ One Nation one. It must be the heat.

By: danny

danny — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:07:04 +0000

Re: Scrutiny in the Senate: while youse all bewail and/or celebrate the excesses/deficiencies of the operation of the upper house, please spare a thought for us Queenslanders – we don’t even have one.
Thus there was no opportunity for parliamentary review of the blatant miscarriage of every principle except avarice in 1) turning the so-called water market here into a pirate’s paradise, where whoever has the biggest pumps and bulldozers wins 2) Legitimising the piracy by giving the pirates post facto legal ability to sell back the booty to the rightful owner, the Commonwealth of the Murray-Darling. The fact that an ex-qld labor treasurer is chair of the biggest pirate will have nothing whatsoever to do with the gov’t decision that allows it.
See last Monday’s 4 corners videos, the penny wong interview.

By: paul walter

paul walter — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:49:54 +0000

Why cannot people just be honest about the Darling Murray?
The words are “evil”, “psychopaths” and “”corruption”. Here’s another forbidden word relating to the Russ Hinze of his generation; “Bill Ludwig”. Given the hatred for Mother Environment of the crass, arrogant, barren minded and soul deficient cretins who run things. And Rudd and the Roosters like Abetz and Tuckey, and Alan Wood and Miranda Devine in the media, all seem to be of this culture. NO hope for generations of future world citizens.
No, instead we get micro-managment by the same micro minds; filtering the naughty bits off people’s computers while the world at large looks on, starving.
The senate estimates would indeed remain a fertile opportunity for political reporting except that it appears in the process, like everything else with the media and press, of being usurped by tabloidism both in the presentation and politics.
Crested one, thanks for raising these issues.

By: Mole

Mole — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:55:13 +0000

Heres a deal for them, they will have my full undivided support for the internet filter AFTER they design and implement a 100% effective spam email filter. Without in any way stuffing up emails from people I want, or slowing down my access.

Setting the bar at that low level should cure them of any illusions of adequacy they may be harboring on technical issues.

By: LJS

LJS — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:20:57 +0000

If Dan is accurate, then even when it's free the vast majority of people don't actually want a filter on their internet connection. This suggests to me that the issue(s) this filter is meant to address exist in the imagination of politicians, the MSM, and a very small and vocal minority.

By: Chris (a different one)

Chris (a different one) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:52:21 +0000

dj @ 4 – surprisingly this is a case where the liberal party policy has been much better – eg. filtering on the client side for those who really want it without affecting those who don’t.

By: danny

danny — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:30:37 +0000

Couldn't we just let the contract out to ~~the PLA~~ whoever does the Great Firewall of China? We're in the real-time workforce logistics timezone so that should't be a problem. It's not like they don't know their way around already , especially DFAT, if they wanted to:

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has signed a three year contract with Pacnet for global network services under a whole of government telecommunications agreement. The contract is an extension of an original deal signed in 2002 with Pacnet, formerly Asia Netcom. Under the terms of the agreement, Pacnet will continue supporting DFAT's voice and data applications on a network solution connecting more than 103 sites worldwide. DFAT sites include embassy, consulate and high commission locations in Asia, Africa, Middle East, Europe, the Americas, and the Pacific and Indian Ocean Islands.

Asia Netcom is a wholly owned subsidiary of (Chinese Government owned ) China Netcom Yep, China pwns Oz at the backend, from way back in Dolly DFAT days. If the Chinese Government/Netcom do the router provsioning, and have (Cisco assisted) world best(?) practice at telling red packets from blue packets, aren't they best suited for our packet-sniffing'r'us jobs? They showed they are up to the task at the Olympics, and we wouldn't have repeatedly given them the DFAT contract if they weren't trustworthy. Put them 1,000 Chinese spies here to work say I.

By: David Irving (no relation)

David Irving (no relation) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:45:21 +0000

I know this is slightly off-topic, but since we’re discussing lackwit Ministers, Marn Fersn has been strangely silent lately.