<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>No Clean Feed on Nick Perkins Archive</title><link>https://archive.nickperkins.au/categories/no-clean-feed/</link><description>Recent content in No Clean Feed on Nick Perkins Archive</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +1000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://archive.nickperkins.au/categories/no-clean-feed/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>It’s time to take action NOW!</title><link>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/its-time-to-take-action-now/</link><pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/its-time-to-take-action-now/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Senator Stephen Conroy has posted a new blog post called “&lt;a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/civil_and_confident_society_online" title="Minister Conroy on: Promoting a civil and confident society online."&gt;Minister Conroy on: Promoting a civil and confident society online&lt;/a&gt;“. Sounds like crap, Senator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sen. Conroy’s blog post is nothing more than Government spin doctors working the media. What concerns me most is this section:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We are happy to have an open debate about these technical issues. However, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Do Australians really support mandatory Internet filtering?</title><link>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/do-australians-really-support-mandatory-internet-filtering/</link><pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/do-australians-really-support-mandatory-internet-filtering/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Some sections of the media are reporting that a majority of Australians support mandatory Internet filtering. This is misleading, quoting a biased survey from a biased source.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;ABC radio ran a story yesterday on &lt;a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/default.htm" title="AM"&gt;AM&lt;/a&gt; reporting on the planned &lt;a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2445637.htm" title="AM - Day of action against internet filtering"&gt;rallies against mandatory Internet filtering&lt;/a&gt; (link is to the transcript). In this story they spoke to Professor &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Hamilton" title="Charles Hamilton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"&gt;Charles Hamilton&lt;/a&gt;, Vice Chancellor at Charles Sturt University and former Executive Director of &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australia_Institute" title="The Australia Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"&gt;The Australia Institute&lt;/a&gt;. Here is part of the transcript:&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>FCC proposes opt-out filter on free wireless broadband service</title><link>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/fcc-proposes-opt-out-filter-on-free-wireless-broadband-service/</link><pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/fcc-proposes-opt-out-filter-on-free-wireless-broadband-service/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;The US &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission" title="Federal Communications Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"&gt;Federal Communication Commision&lt;/a&gt; (FCC) recently cancelled a meeting which could have resulted in free wireless broadband being made available, reports &lt;a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10122586-94.html" title="FCC cancels meeting for free Internet vote | Wireless - CNet News "&gt;CNET&lt;/a&gt;. Strangely enough, the home of the &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act" title="USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"&gt;PATRIOT Act&lt;/a&gt; was considering an &lt;strong&gt;opt-out&lt;/strong&gt; pornography and ‘material deemed not fit for children’ filter for this free service.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Some more thoughts on today’s rally.</title><link>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/some-more-thoughts-on-todays-rally/</link><pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/some-more-thoughts-on-todays-rally/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;(Reposted from another online forum)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I’ve been stewing on this for a bit but I think it needs to be said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, a major error with today’s rallies (and it seems not just the Brisbane one) is the connection to other political parties/agendas. I’m glad that there are many groups interested in this as an issue, but as soon as you bring the Socialist Alliance, The Greens, or the &lt;a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,24795948-5014239,00.html"&gt;Raelians&lt;/a&gt; you’ve lost Joe Public.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Australian Internet Censorship Protests - December 13</title><link>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/australian-internet-censorship-protests-december-13/</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/australian-internet-censorship-protests-december-13/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;If you are into protesting of the peaceful kind, why not consider attending your &lt;a href="http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/december-13-filtering-protests/" title="December 13 filtering protests - Something Think of the Children"&gt;local internet censorship protest&lt;/a&gt;. I will be at the Brisbane event. You could come and say hi, but that would be kinda creepy. Plus who would you say I to? I could be anyone.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Internet Censorship - not tested on animals, or humans</title><link>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/internet-censorship-not-tested-on-animals-or-humans/</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://archive.nickperkins.au/nicholasperkins/internet-censorship-not-tested-on-animals-or-humans/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;More news has come to light on the &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia" title="Internet Censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"&gt;Great Australian Wall&lt;/a&gt; trails which are due to begin. The trials are going to be huge apparently, featuring hundreds and hundreds of non-humans. Yes, no people.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What did you expect? ISPs to deal with complaining customers and have &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Conroy" title="Stephen Conroy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"&gt;Senator Conroy&lt;/a&gt; on stage with egg on his face? Sorry, &lt;a href="http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/live-filter-pilot-will-not-involve-real-customers/" title="Live filter pilot will not involve real customers"&gt;not a chance&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>