| « Numbers lining up against censorship | SA A-G plays guilt by association » |
Senator Lundy backs 'opt out' choice
CensorFree article posted on Wednesday 17 February 2010 Senator Kate Lundy (ALP, ACT), the most enlightened backbencher in federal parliament on IT matters, proposes 'opt out' options for all internet subscribers. Now, if only her party - particularly Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy - would listen. Read more » ...
Quick sort links: Categories: Home, Public comment
1 comment
Comment from: Bret Busby [Visitor] · http://www.armadale-wa.net/
Any such actions should always be "opt-in", rather than "opt-out".
The federal parliament imposed spam on the Australian people, with the "Opt-out" option, so that people would be able to find who had opted out of spam, and, harass them, rather than people being able to anonymously avoid spam.
I have an ISP that last year, imposed interception on the Internet access of all of its subscribers, on an "opt-out" basis, and, due to the malpractices of the ISP, I did not find out about it, until I had been required to make a complaint to the TIO, and it was a scenario like the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy demolition of the Earth - "We provided notification via this obscure medium - if you can't be bothered finding it in all of the mess, that is your problem".
We should not have malicious activities imposed on us by the federal parliament, or any other institution, on an "opt-out" basis, by which we have to take extra action, and, by which we have to identify ourselves as dissidents so as to invite retaliation.
If people want to subject themselves to malicious acts, they should be required to take action to achive that, through "opt-in" actions, and, victims who do not want to be subjected to malicious activities, should not have to take action and identify theselves, to stop the particular activity.
It is a bit like walking into the national parliament of China, and saying, rather loudly, I object to state oppression of individuals, and I reject it, or, when Apartheid was in power in South Africa, walking up to a policeman, and saying "I object to Apartheid. It is wrong and I reject it".
Our rights (the extremely small number that we have, if any) in Australia, should be protected. If we want to be punched in the face, we should have to tell the person that. We should not have to walk up to an aggressive person, and say "I do not want to be punched in the face".
Likewise, in an act of malice by parliament or by a corporation imposing malicious changes, like interception of Internet access, it should be "opt-in", and, not "opt-out".
The federal parliament imposed spam on the Australian people, with the "Opt-out" option, so that people would be able to find who had opted out of spam, and, harass them, rather than people being able to anonymously avoid spam.
I have an ISP that last year, imposed interception on the Internet access of all of its subscribers, on an "opt-out" basis, and, due to the malpractices of the ISP, I did not find out about it, until I had been required to make a complaint to the TIO, and it was a scenario like the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy demolition of the Earth - "We provided notification via this obscure medium - if you can't be bothered finding it in all of the mess, that is your problem".
We should not have malicious activities imposed on us by the federal parliament, or any other institution, on an "opt-out" basis, by which we have to take extra action, and, by which we have to identify ourselves as dissidents so as to invite retaliation.
If people want to subject themselves to malicious acts, they should be required to take action to achive that, through "opt-in" actions, and, victims who do not want to be subjected to malicious activities, should not have to take action and identify theselves, to stop the particular activity.
It is a bit like walking into the national parliament of China, and saying, rather loudly, I object to state oppression of individuals, and I reject it, or, when Apartheid was in power in South Africa, walking up to a policeman, and saying "I object to Apartheid. It is wrong and I reject it".
Our rights (the extremely small number that we have, if any) in Australia, should be protected. If we want to be punched in the face, we should have to tell the person that. We should not have to walk up to an aggressive person, and say "I do not want to be punched in the face".
Likewise, in an act of malice by parliament or by a corporation imposing malicious changes, like interception of Internet access, it should be "opt-in", and, not "opt-out".
Wed 17 Feb 2010 @ 21:20
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
What's New on CLAQuick Links
