Internet companies could be forced to track you
in [Computers]
|
Prev: .NET
Next: Allphones scam?
From: Rod Speed on 12 Jun 2010 17:35 .. wrote: > On 13/06/2010 5:08 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >> Hunter wrote: >>> On 12/06/2010 7:30 PM, Doug Jewell wrote: >>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> Doug Jewell wrote: >>>>>> It'd probably come with a requirement on ISP's to block domestic >>>>>> VPN traffic& proxies too. >>>>> >>>>> Pure fantasy. >>>> The nanny-state government is proposing mandatory web filtering. >>>> Assuming they get it over the line, when they discover it is easily >>>> bypassed by using a VPN or proxy, what do you think their next >>>> requirement against ISP's will be? >>> >>> >>> They wont ban VPN traffic, it's way too heavily utilised for >>> legitimate purposes. >> >>> At any rate there's a good chance they're going to go belly up in >>> the next election >> >> At one time I thought that we hardly ever give a federal govt just >> one term, but then I realised that the Dud has already lasted longer >> than Cough Witless. Gunna be fascinating to see how many the dud has so comprehensively >> pissed off with his arrogance that now that the polls show that they >> will lose the next election, he get the bums rush just like Beastly >> did with such lousy poll results. >> >>> and none of this insanity will see the light of day. >> >> Even if they are still the govt, they are likely to have a MUCH >> worse senate with the greens getting to decide everything that the >> coalition opposes. > vote 1 Julia Gillard She doesnt stand a chance, none of the left has ever got to be PM.
From: z1 on 12 Jun 2010 19:23 Rod Speed wrote: > . wrote: >> On 13/06/2010 5:08 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> Hunter wrote: >>>> On 12/06/2010 7:30 PM, Doug Jewell wrote: >>>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> Doug Jewell wrote: >>>>>>> It'd probably come with a requirement on ISP's to block domestic >>>>>>> VPN traffic& proxies too. >>>>>> Pure fantasy. >>>>> The nanny-state government is proposing mandatory web filtering. >>>>> Assuming they get it over the line, when they discover it is easily >>>>> bypassed by using a VPN or proxy, what do you think their next >>>>> requirement against ISP's will be? >>>> >>>> They wont ban VPN traffic, it's way too heavily utilised for >>>> legitimate purposes. >>>> At any rate there's a good chance they're going to go belly up in >>>> the next election >>> At one time I thought that we hardly ever give a federal govt just >>> one term, but then I realised that the Dud has already lasted longer >>> than Cough Witless. Gunna be fascinating to see how many the dud has so comprehensively >>> pissed off with his arrogance that now that the polls show that they >>> will lose the next election, he get the bums rush just like Beastly >>> did with such lousy poll results. >>> >>>> and none of this insanity will see the light of day. >>> Even if they are still the govt, they are likely to have a MUCH >>> worse senate with the greens getting to decide everything that the >>> coalition opposes. > >> vote 1 Julia Gillard > > She doesnt stand a chance, none of the left has ever got to be PM. > > correct there Rod. the deals the Left gets supporting the Right bloke, pay huge dividends for the ACTU and imagine the daily drone we will get whenever she speaks . . . will drive the nation to either throw up or fall asleep.
From: Clocky on 12 Jun 2010 20:46 Rod Speed wrote: > terryc wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> terryc wrote: >>>> Clocky wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote > >>>>>> Usual terminal govt stupidity. Anyone with even half a clue that >>>>>> wants to conceal their use of the net would just use the library >>>>>> net service or a net cafe. > >>>>> Useless if they keep records of usage of their systems, or are >>>>> made to. > >>>> And a few have/are getting surveillance cameras. > >>> Completely trivial to avoid those. > >> Trivial in the sense of? > > Like I said, in NSW at least, they have to have signs saying you are > on camera, so even you should be able to find a library net service > or net cafe without cameras. >> Going to the next one? > >>> Legally in NSW those have to have signs advising that surveillance >>> is in operation. Irrelevant when all they have to do is change the law.
From: terryc on 12 Jun 2010 21:04 On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:47:54 +1000, atec7 7 wrote: > Doug Jewell wrote: > > You wanna cut that unintelligible stuff into a 20 word answer thanks ? > remember this is the net and most of us don't enjoy trying to > understand tough stuff Check the headers.
From: terryc on 12 Jun 2010 21:05
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:56:15 +0800, Hunter wrote: > At any rate there's a good chance they're going to go belly up in the > next election and none of this insanity will see the light of day. Don't make any bets on that. |