Below my lengthy rant is info from the following link:
[link]I'm reposting here for those not likely to follow links offsite.
Thanks to
for the info!
Before I paste in the content of that page I ask you to have this in mind, "what chances do we have of being able to keep visiting a site with some adult content and sometimes very alternative art when the government is being pressured into kicking legislation like this into gear by the hard right wing fanatical church going zombie voted in by the Australian public.
Hello? Are you hearing me Minister Stephen Conroy? "The Church and State MUST BE KEPT SEPERATE!!!" I'm sure this makes for a very convenient buy off of Church fed Family First Party votes but seriously, find a better solution or fuck right off.
It's the most idiotic thing I have heard in years for internet management. If they wish to stop peadophiles harming children, EDUCATE the children, EDUCATE the useless fucking parents who use the net as a way to get the kids to shut up instead of paying due care and having safety in mind. And, if you use a filter to block a vague type of content out, you know of course that what will happen is the same as with gun ownership. The criminals will find a way. They will encrypt it, they will mask it and they will find ways to keyword their way around being found by the idiotic filter concept. Meanwhile that vague filter will stop valid reasons to see adult material. It'll probably end up cutting off every thing from DA to Deviant Nation to even fine art that may offend sensitive fucking fools on some church committee into morals standards for internet.
So, put more resources into funding the hunt for those who prey on children. The cost of this filter that will slow the net for all Australians could be best spent putting more police and more experts into well paid positions hunting scum. It's a really shit job, and I know from having played a part in more than a few paedophile hunts myself for the media and for private security.
If those bastards have the net filtered they will use even more devious and harder to track means to send their spoils of evil to each other. Do you think for a second that checking every DVD in the post is feasible? Add to that every DVD they'd send would be encrypted beyond what we have resources to crack in reasonable time.
So I say no, tell the Rudd government they've got to put the money into funding the Ocset Team! This is them here:
[link]They are a hard working team facing a very difficult job under levels of work and often emotional stress I hope NONE of you ever have to face.
If you ever find evidence or suspect online child sex issues report them to:
The Australian Federal Police online form:
[link]Do not use this reporting form to report emergencies or concerns which need an immediate response, such as a child who is immediate danger or risk. In those cases call 000 or your local police station.
Your report will go directly to the Australian Federal Police Online Child Sex Exploitation Team. A police officer will then be in touch with you.
for snail mail use:
Online Child Sex Exploitation Team
The Australian Federal Police
PO Box 401
Canberra City ACT 2602
_______________________________________
The Federal Government is pushing forward with a plan to force ISPs to filter out all material "inappropriate" for children from Australian homes.
This plan will waste tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and slow down Internet access.
Despite being almost universally condemned by the public, ISPs, State Governments, Media and censorship experts, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is determined to force this filter into your home. Don't let him!
Although the final details of the filtering plans have been kept secret up to now, the Minister is on record as being firmly committed to a mandatory clean-feed internet to Australian homes, schools and public computers. A limited trial by the ACMA is already underway, with a "live" field trial to follow later this year. We must act fast before millions of dollars are squandered on this technically impractical and democratically unworkable solution in search of a problem.
What is planned?
The Government is refusing to release concrete details on the plan. However, we know that ISP-level filtering has been ALP policy for some time and is being zealously pursued by the Minister. What we do know is this:
* The feed will be mandatory in all homes and schools across the country.1
* The filter will censor material that is "harmful and inappropriate" for children.2
* The filter will require a massive expansion of the ACMA's blacklist of prohibited content.3
* The filter will target legal as well as illegal material.4
What we don't know is just as important.
* Will there be any way to opt out from the scheme?
* What age level is the country's Internet to be made appropriate for? 15? 10? 5 years old?
* Who decides what material is "appropriate" for Australians to see?
* Who will maintain the blacklist of prohibited sites?
* How can sites mistakenly added to the list be removed?
Although all of us want to see children protected from content that could be disturbing or harmful, the clean-feed filter is not a good way to go about this, and could actually reduce the safety of children online. Let's look at why.
Technical Issues
The clean-feed, if attempted, will be a technical disaster. The Internet does not work in a manner that would let a filter be effective, and the World Wide Web contains far more content than could ever be effectively rated by a Government organisation. The host of technical hurdles include:
* A filter would require ISPs to examine all Internet traffic, causing enormous expense and technical headaches.
* A filter will slow Internet access down by up to 78% according to a Government report.5
* No software yet exists that can accomplish what the Minister is trying to do.
* Millions of web sites, with the list changing on a daily basis, would need to be monitored by Australian bureaucrats - an impossible task.
* Illegal material is already hidden and so would be difficult to find to even add to the blacklist in the first place.
* Any determined user - including children - could bypass the filter quickly using an anonymizer service.
* The clean feed would be less customisable and effective than a PC-based filter.
In short, as the best experts in the country unanimously agree, Conroy's plan does not make sense technically.
Free Speech in Australia
Although the initiative is intended and marketed as a tool to help protect children from the dangers of the Internet, this paternalistic scheme raises some troubling issues that affect all Australians. As a source of daily information, the Internet increases in importance every day. Do we really want the Government of the day deciding what Australian adults can and can't see? Do we want Australia to join a censorship club in which Burma, China and North Korea are the founding members?
* The list of prohibited sites will probably be secret, so it will be hard to know what content the Government has effectively banned.
* The feed will be compulsory in all homes, even where there are no children.
* It is unknown whether there will be any way to have content removed from the prohibited list.
* How far will the list go, now and in future? Will it filter out material on sexual health, drug use, terrorism.. even breastfeeding?
Bad Policy
In short, even if it worked the clean-feed filter would be terrible policy. By censoring the entire country's Internet access down to the level of a child of indeterminate age, it robs Australian adults of ability to make their own decisions about what content they view.
* Most Australians don't want the filter. Support for this overly broad policy is virtually non-existent, even from child-protection organisations. A recent survey shows that 51.5% of Australian net user strongly oppose the plan, while only 2.9% strongly support it.6
* One size doesn't fit all. A single filter list can't deliver results that are appropriate for all parents, teens and children, with no way to modify the filter for your household.
* The protection for children is minor at best, an illusion at worst. The filter does nothing to protect children from real threats like cyber-bullying, online sexual predators, viruses, or the theft of personal information. It may provide a false sense of security to parents, reducing effective monitoring of their children's online activities.
* The money is better spent elsewhere. The filter will cost tens of millions of dollars to attempt. Yet the Government's own studies admit education is more effective than filtering in protecting children, and that "content risks" are less dangerous than other risks.7
* No other democracy has such a scheme. Comparable systems in Europe only filter a handful of illegal sites, and then only to prevent accidental access. 8
* Those that want filtering already have it. The Government already offers filtering software to any home that requests it, free of charge.
If you care about your online rights, let the Minister know what you think of his plan to censor Australia's Internet.
long overdue return
Zest 
and his journal detailing info is right here: [link]
Artistic 
:
Disgust 
Relief 
I do love it when the client sees one shot on the screen on the back of the D3 and right there and then asks for 8 prints. 
and another member's shots) and I dread to think how many shots I have to trawl through to find the picks for the next annual mag! 
and will likely be making up others for this coming walk. I don't yet have prices for his work but will be working on a project with him over the next two months so stay tuned. He's a professional, with experience with a number of major movies made in Australia. (by Hollywood studios)
Mortified 
and I will be doing our now regular job of chaperoning them around the day before the gig and taking shots of them doing touristy stuff while they visit and play. With some luck I'll get to do a shoot with them in my studio as I did with Gen. 
