British pop singer M.I.A has sparked world wide criticism in the media over the video clip to her new song Born Free. The 9 minute video clip which depicts U.S authorities going house by house to round up all the red headed men for execution has even been banned on YouTube!

I'll be first to admit the video is over the top graphically violent, and honestly the song itself is none but a bunch of noise (maybe I'm just getting to old) but I don't think it deserves the sort of criticism it's getting if on the other hand we're going to say pop stars like Lady Gaga are allowed to have their extremely sexually explicit video clips and movies like Saw IV are allowed to exist. In fact if anything I'd have to say M.I.A's video clip is rather tame compared to any of the remade films Rob Zombie has done. And more over, M.I.A and ROMAIN GAVRAS were attempting to make a political statement with this video clip. Sure the clip does a clumsy job at making it's statement, but it quite clearly has hit people hard (otherwise it wouldn't have so much media attention) so one must assume it has at least partly fulfilled it's purpose.

Do I agree video clips like this should exist? No, of course not, but I disagree with video clips like those of Lady Gaga and movies like Rob Zombies remake of Halloween even more. None of this crap should exist, it's not art, it's not expressionism, it's not about complementing music or benefiting society. It's pornographic sexuality and violence for shear shock value and commercial gain. All of these types of videos should be banned, not just one video that has a bit of violence in it. I certainly don't think it's appropriate that I walk into a shop like Big-W and my children can see Lady Gaga half naked, dancing around like a whore on the LCD Tvs. We need to really take a long hard look in the mirror at the crap we're allowing Record companies to pump out and expose our children to.

Our video sharing website project that I announced last month is developing along nicely. The official launch date has now been set for May 15th 2010. The site is currently in beta trials so if you want to get in early and help test out the system just head on over to camzit.com and sign up. If you hurry and sign up for beta testing, you might even find you'll get a reward as a result.

The Australian Film and Television industry have lost a class action against West Australian ISP iiNet. The brief charged iiNet with authorising it's users to breach copyright laws by allowing them to use bit torrent software.

With common sense on his side Justice Dennis Cowdroy ruled that iiNet was not responsible for the breach of copyright. Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft who launched the action are of cause very upset with the decision with their spokesman Neil Gane stating
"It's very difficult for the movie industries to compete with a free alternative which is perpetrated by theft"

You're right Mr Gane it is difficult to continue to make billion dollar returns on movies you make when people can download them for free. But with movies like Avatar making 1 billion dollars at the box office in the first 3 days of it's US release I hardly think the industry is in any real danger. What the industry needs to understand is that regardless of what laws the bring in, someone will always be offering free copies of the latest movies. And people will continue to download them, and that isn't always a bad thing. Most of the time these downloaded copies are of poor quality, and certainly never anything approaching High Def.

If people want to see a movie in good quality, their only real choice is to purchase it. So the Movie and Television industry need to look at these downloads as a way for people to preview a movie by watching it in low quality, then if they like the movie they'll of course be much more likely to go out and buy it. That said however, the price of cinema tickets and DVDs certainly doesn't help the piracy issue. Honestly why pay $20 each to go see a movie at the cinema when you can download the movie for free?

Heck, even if you couldn't download it for free, there would still be an almost equally sized amount of people not going to see movies at the cinema simply because they don't want to pay the exorbitant prices. At the end of the day, movies were invented as the working mans pass time, they were meant to be affordable. But instead modern studios have increased prices to unbelievable levels and they're still going up. Here's a hint for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, drop the prices and you'll immediately see more people buying your products legitimately.

Thankfully todays judgement by Justice Cowdroy is likely to be adopted in the US, EU and UK as we all share and model copyright law from each other. This means ISPs a likely to remain without blame for the piracy issue.

Links;

ABC News Article

I subscribe to a number of Skeptic publications; and over the last year I've seen quite a number of articles published in those publications. I consider myself to be a skeptic, but I feel that perhaps there are a few people out there whom claim to be skeptic when really they only stand to debunk anything that threatens the status quo.

To me a skeptic is someone who doesn't just take what they're told by someone and accepts it. Instead, a skeptic will investigate, research and come to their own independent conclusion. To enter a situation with an unbiased and open mind, weigh up the facts and come to the simplest, most logical conclusion. But it seems to me there are quite a lot of people whom call themselves skeptics but really should be better known as debunkers. These are the sorts of people who go out of their way to try to prove that certain phenomenon, be it UFOs, ghosts, other paranormal, spiritual or mystical events, or things like swine flu vaccine being unsafe.

They're the sorts of people whom, instead of digging for the truth, will accept official versions of events from government organisations or other persons whom are invested in the cause. Debunkers are the complete opposite of a conspiracy theist, basically doing everything in there power to convince people that the status quo is the only logical answer. It's almost as if these people were employed by some interested party in order to persuaded the general public there is "nothing to see here". Of course I'm not actually suggesting this is the case, merely using the euphemism to highly how these people operate.

Increasingly I'm finding these sorts of people being published in one skeptic publication in particular; that being Skeptic Magazine. You may have heard their ad play on TopHogg FM from time to time. I am also finding these sorts of people representing skeptics everywhere on all manner of documentaries into the paranormal. Frankly, as an intelligent, well educated person, very capable of critequing and making up my own mind about events, I find some of the things these sorts of debunkers say offensive. They give the skeptic community an unwarranted perception of close minded, illogical fools.

Sometimes for whatever plausible reason, (for example the event happening as so often it is, a surprise and thus there being no camera handy) there may be little to no physical evidence. This however doesn't mean that it never happened, it just means further investigation and research may be warranted should the anecdotal evidence suggest so. This brings me to 2 quite major points.

(1) Science is far from having all the answers, regardless of what any scientist might suggest to you there is still a great deal about ourselves, our planet, our co-inhabitants and the universe around us that we simply don't understand, nor have come anywhere close to it. While humanity has spread to much of the earths land mass, we still find somewhere around 1000 new species a DAY! Most of them being insects sure, but there is still the odd larger animal in there. There is much that happens on the planet that humanity still has no answers for.

(2) Debunkers like to ignore anecdotal evidence all together, stating that it is often fraught with unreliability and thus can't be trusted of given any weight to. But I counter that statement with this simple fact. Very often our legal system uses anecdotal evidence as either part of, or even sometimes as their entire case against crime. While I concede that there are cases in nwhich due to this evidence innocent people are convicted of crime, but this is in the grand scheme of things quite rare. So thus I submit this question to you. Courts demand a high amount of reliability from the evidence they receive on a case, there are plenty of new technologies which are inadmissible in court because they aren't proven to hold high levels of accuracy. It, for example, took over a decade for DNA evidence to become something which was looked at in a court with weight. Yet anecdotal evidence has remained weighted and relied upon. If such evidence is anywhere near as unreliable as debunkers suggest, then how is it our legal system still uses it?

The fact of the matter is that there are SOME cases which debunkers dismiss due to anecdotal evidence and the lack of much in the way of the physical which do indeed warrant additional research and investigation. There are (while fewer still) some cases which while having the same amount of evidence as the previously mentioned, in their own right suggest through the anecdotal something extraordinary happening.

I am offended when debunkers try to pass off phenomenon as mass hysteria, collective imagination or some sort of psychological disorder. All too often I hear so called skeptics using such arguments to explain away UFOs for example. Trying to pass them off as a mix of collective imagination and mass hysteria. While I'm not going to say that little green men are flying all over the planet; I do find it insulting to my intelligence to be told these so called UFO phenomena are in the same category as "monsters" and "demons" as popular fiction.

To me communities telling stories about monsters between themselves or to their children, as well as stories about demons to help explain their world and scare people into a moral life; are completely different to someone telling me they seen a UFO. Now there might be a million other explanations for it beyond alien beings, but to rule it out as ever happening simply because it's only anecdotal in nature is very very wrong. A true skeptic would listen, look at how believable the story sounds and then, if believable perhaps investigate further, setting up equipment, tests or whatever is appropriate to document some form of physical evidence. I would suggest to you, never accept someone as a self professed skeptic if their mind is not open to possibilities.

Ok so after hearing that Avatar is meant to be the best movie ever now I mistakenly seen it. Boy was I disappointed. Far from being the greatest movie ever; avatar presents us with a jumble of story lines from previous movies. Think Braveheart, but set on another planet with people who are actually blue instead of having to paint themselves that way. Add to that a splash of the movies alien and aliens, a dab of surrogates and sprinkle the lot with a cliche love story and you've got avatar. I'm not saying it's a bad story line; although it isn't exactly great; but what I am saying is that it isn't a very original story.

I'm not going to argue that it wasn't a visually stunning movie, because it was. I didn't see it in 3D but it isn't hard to see that it was purposely shot to be seen that way. The imagination doesn't have to stretch in the slightest to be able to know where scenes were created just to have things jump out of the screen. But there have been plenty of other visually stunning movies in the past, some of which with far better story lines.

We shouldn't judge a movie based on how cool it's visual effects or special effects are. That isn't what movies should be about, you only need to watch some great old school black and white films to know that! It all comes down to story line, and this film just didn't have what it takes to become the greatest film ever made. Sure it's made lots of money, but it's one of those gimick films where they give you a different technology.

On an acting side, the characters aren't believable at all. Most notably is sigorny weaver who does an absolutely woeful job of her performance. But the bulk of the film is made up of CGI enhanced actors, which leave you wanting for some sort of connection. This is a movie that tries to do and be far to much and loses it's heart along the way.

I'm not saying don't go see the film, sure go see it, I'm sure you will be entertained. But what I am saying is don't go to see Avatar thinking it's some great movie, because it's not. Instead go for a visual experience, to experience 3D CGI mixed with the real world in High Definition. That to me is the only reason to see this film, I mean it is definitely lacking in every other department.

The following letter is from a network engineer named Mark Newton whom has brought up multiple concerns about the internet filter with the AMCA. But instead of addressing these concerns, in true fascist nature Senator Conroy and his office have attempted to bully Mr Newton into a campaign of silence on the issue. I am reposting this letter as I feel it captures a great deal of the concerns at the heart of this issue. I have pulled this letter from homepagedaily.com

Senator Stephen Conroy

------

Mark Newton's letter:

20 October 2008
The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Minister for Youth and Sport
161a Main North Road
Nailsworth SA 5083

Dear Ms Ellis,

I am writing to you to express my concerns about moves by Senator Stephen Conroy to implement the "clean feed" proposal described on page 5 of Labor's Plan for Cyber Safety by Senator Conroy prior to the 2007 election.

My objections to this policy are detailed below. In your reply to this letter, I would appreciate a direct, detailed response to each of these issues. I am making the assumption that collating such responses will be a simple matter, because a proposal as important as this one obviously wouldn't have proceeded as far as it has if these basic concerns had not been considered and alleviated. If that assumption is unfounded, then that fact should justify revisiting (or, alternatively, abandoning) the "clean feed" proposal.

While I approve of the general thrust of the Cyber Safety proposal, I have serious objections to the "clean feed" section, which will erect an online Government censorship regime in Australia for the first time.

I also have significant objections about the professional conduct of Senator Conroy as he has pursued this issue. The Senator has attacked critics by comparing them to child abusers; refused to provide details of his policy then maligned opponents for their "speculative" remarks; lied to the Australian voting public about the availability of an "opt-out" in December 2007; and failed to consult with the 21 million Australian stakeholders who will be most affected by this plan, in contravention of the Prime Minster's oft-repeated aim to implement a "Government for all Australians" [1, 2, 3]. Rather than addressing the serious policy objections which I outline below, Senator Conroy has preferred to respond with aggressive, offensive, extremist bluster.

The Government has not demonstrated a need for an online censorship regime.

While I accept that the presence of illegal material on the Internet is a cause for some concern, I'm appraised of two important points which the Government appears to have missed.

Firstly: Australians have been using uncensored Internet access for at least 30 years, and there's no evidence of a burgeoning problem concerning access to illegal material. I have been using the Internet almost every day since 1989 and have never seen any content that I'd expect to require Government intervention. Without demonstrating a need for this system, how can the Government credibly claim that it should be mandated?

Secondly: There is little evidence that Australian parents require Government assistance. Indeed, those who claim that parents require such assistance have a remarkable track record of being wrong.

In 1989 / 1990, the Senate Select Committee into Online Services carried out an enquiry into the nature of content available online, and made a rash of recommendations in favour of some kind of censorship scheme based on the expectation that unfettered access would harm the fabric of Australian society.

The passing of time has shown that 1990 Senate's concerns were completely wrong: Almost 20 years have passed since that enquiry, and Australians have enjoyed uncensored Internet access for the entire period. Society has not fallen apart, there is no emergency, children are not being raised in moral vacuums and turning into rapists and axe-murderers, parents are diligently and capably excelling in their efforts to raise their children into fine, upstanding citizens. Today's parents are comfortable with ubiquitous access to unfiltered Internet, having grown up using Google to assist with homework assignments, publishing blogs and websites, using email to stay in touch with friends and family, and treating the Internet in its current unfiltered form as a valuable resource for the education and social engagement of their children.

This fact is reinforced by the public's unresponsiveness to the previous Government's offer of free filtering software for family PCs. When only 140,000 users downloaded the free software over 12 months, and less than 29,000 of them were still using it three weeks later, Senator Conroy concluded that the $84M filtering software distribution plan failed because it wasn't mandatory, rather than the more rational conclusion that the failure of the initiative could be traced to lack of public desire.

The image of technologically-disconnected parents floundering helplessly in a sea of pornography as they fail to adequately raise their children is a reflection of the appalling lack of Internet-savviness of our politicians, not society at large. Politicians assume that parents are ignorant about the Internet because politicians are ignorant. Yet parents came to grips with it years ago; the last remaining social group in our country who expresses difficulty with the Internet appears to be baby-boomer Federal politicians, whose child-rearing days are mostly well behind them.

It is thoroughly insulting to Australian parents to undermine their efforts by asserting that the way to prevent societal decay is for the Government to step in and make decisions about the appropriateness of online content. That is a parent's role, not Senator Stephen Conroy's role.

The government has not demonstrated that mandatory online censorship is technologically feasibly.

Senator Richard Alston, in his tenure as Minister for Communications and the Arts, passed amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act in 1999. As accompaniment to that legislation, the Minister directed the ACMA (then ABA) to establish NetAlert, and for NetAlert to carry out periodic assessments of the "state of the art" of filtering technology.

Since that time, NetAlert and the Department have commissioned separate studies by the CSIRO, Ovum, and most recently RMIT and Enex Testlab. All of the studies have uniformly demonstrated that online censorship technology:

* slows down Internet access;
* inaccurately blocks content which should not be blocked;
* inaccurately fails to block content which should be blocked;
* is ineffective at inspecting or blocking "Peer to Peer" traffic that comprises over 60% of Australia's Internet traffic; and
* fails to accurately distinguish between legal and illegal content even when specifically configured with lists of illegal content under laboratory conditions.

The most recent trials, conducted in Tasmania by Enex Testlab earlier this year, found that the most accurate product tested incorrectly blocked 3% of innocent material, and incurred a "slowdown" performance penalty in excess of 70%, and failed to reliably block the ACMA's prohibited content list. It stuns disbelief that the Minister for Broadband would be interested in pursuing these systems whilst at the very same time advocating for a $20B National Broadband Network (NBN) intended to increase Internet speeds.

There is no evidence on the public record to demonstrate that mandatory online censorship is technologically feasible. Every time experts have been asked, they have uniformly concluded that it is not possible. Furthermore, advances in technology cause Internet speeds to increase faster then censorship systems' speeds, meaning that as time passes the performance penalty caused by these systems becomes worse.

It is very poor public policy to proceed with mandatory implementation of provably failed technology.

The government has not demonstrated that online censorship is effective.

Any Australian can obtain encrypted Virtual Private Network (VPN) access from the United States for less than $5 per month [1, 2]. This is the same technology that human rights activists use in China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to hide their activities from the Government, and provides an effective, guaranteed bypass of any effort by any National Government to filter Internet content.

There is no requirement for complicated software to use these services, VPN clients are installed by default on all common Operating System platforms. Australians who wish to hide themselves from Government Internet censorship efforts are only a few clicks away from total anonymity.

The government has failed to consider unintended consequences arising from the policy.

In order to implement a censorship scheme, the ACMA will need to make its blacklists available to ISPs.

There are approximately 400 ISPs in Australia. Even if each ISP only has a handful of staff in a position to access routers and scrutinise network configurations, that still leaves several thousand ISP technical staff with full knowledge of the contents of the blacklist.

A moment of consideration of that state of affairs yields the unavoidable conclusion that the blacklist will be "leaked". Many sites on the Internet specialise in providing repositories of "sensitive" Government data for the purpose of providing public access to documents against Governments' wishes, and a Government blacklist is exactly the kind of content those sites exist to publish.

When the Government makes a mistake, it will be public [1, 2, 3]. It is simply not believable that putting the same people who called for the destruction of the Bill Henson photographic exhibit in charge of a blacklist of pornographic imagery can end well. It also strains credibility to assert that there is value in putting the people who decided that Mohammad Haneef should be pursued on terrorism charges, or that David Hicks should rot in Guantanamo, in charge of a list of illegal terrorist material. Governments of both sides have a long and distinguished track record of embarrassing failure in these areas, and the public is wise to be sceptical of moves to place further faith in the demonstrably flawed judgement of our public officials and political representatives.

Leaks have other hazards: It will only be a matter of time before someone, somewhere in the world, testifies in open court that they knew where to find child pornography due to the assistance and enablement of a leaked copy of Senator Conroy's Internet blacklist. The Government will no doubt launch a flurry of PR spin to demonise the leaker and portray itself as an innocent victim of circumstance when it happens, but one fact which will not be in dispute when it happens is that the Government was warned and carried on regardless. How much child exploitation is the Government willing to accept as "collateral damage" associated with this policy? More than zero? How much more?

Encouraging people who wish to bypass censorship to use encrypted VPNs carries a further unintended consequence, namely that the Australian Federal Police are unable to effectively execute Interception Warrants on encrypted traffic. Implementing censorship will drive criminals towards encryption by blocking non-encrypted methods of accessing the content they desire. I invite you to ponder the likely political effect of the revelation that Australian law enforcement was unable to gather evidence to convict a child abuser or a terrorist because the ALP's censorship system had inspired the offender to encrypt their Internet traffic.

Senator Conroy has invalidated the government's claim for a mandate by lying to the Australian public about the scope of the policy.

In December 2007, Senator Conroy was widely reported in the press as stating that "...anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service."

In October 2008, Darren Pauli from IDG/Computerworld obtained confirmation from the Minister's media spokesman that no opt-out will be available, "... the filters will be mandatory for all Australians."

As far as politicians' lies go, this one is breathtaking in its audacity. The Minister took the false impression that Australians will be able to (in his own words) "opt out of the service" to the last election, and allowed it to persist for almost an entire year even as the policy progressed to "live trials" with no opt-out provision. Then when the truth was exposed he launched personal attacks to denigrate critics as "extremist" "speculators".

Summary and Conclusion

Nearly a year has passed since Senator Conroy announced his plan, and none of the concerns described above have been addressed. The 21 million people comprising this policy's largest stakeholder group have not been consulted. We have not even been provided with the details we'd need to assess whether Senator Conroy's efforts to implement the policy are consistent with the Australian values, societal fabric, and child-rearing aims that the policy is purportedly designed to protect.

It disturbs me that Senator Conroy's response to these criticisms has been to label those who disagree with him as "speculators" and "extremists" and to compare them to child abusers. My criticisms are not "extreme", and I am not a child abuser. I am a voter, and I expect Senator Conroy to show some respect by answering my concerns without resorting to hysterical personal attacks. Senator Conroy's job is to convince the Australian public that his idea is worthy, but his habit of resorting to bluster, offensiveness and secrecy has severely undermined that role. Without Senator Conroy's detailed responses to these issues, the responsibility for any undesired "uninformed speculation" lies directly upon his shoulders.

I call upon you to:

1. respond to the policy concerns that I have outlined above; and
2. represent my interests in the Party Room to persuade Senator Conroy and the Prime Minister Mr Kevin Rudd to change track by abandoning the "clean feed" proposal.

The general aims of the ALP's cyber-safety initiative are worth defending. In particular, budget allocations for education programs and investigative law enforcement are commendable. But the "clean feed" proposal is impossible to defend on technical, moral, financial and public policy grounds, and should be reviewed for suitability for inclusion in the Government's policy agenda before being allowed to proceed any further.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Newton

-----

On the 15th of December it was announced that a Mandatory Internet Filtering system would indeed be installed in ISPs around Australia and should be switched on within 12 months time. Supporters of the filtering cite that it will stop child pornography so it's a good thing. How wrong can you be?

"Fact, online child pornography is most often distributed by private email attachments to avoid detection. The internet filter will ONLY block out websites"

Child pornography which is distributed online, is most often by private email between pedophiles as apposed to putting it on a website which would open the creator of the website, and it's members up to all sorts of criminal prosecutions. Simply put, if the main distribution network for child pornography was websites, then there would be a lot more pedophiles in jail. If your sole reason for supporting the filter is stopping child porn, then you need to rethink your position.

So what are the facts about the list? Well, the filter has it's roots all the way back in 1999 when the then liberal government introduced laws which gave the Australian Communications and Media Authority; authority over internet content displayed in Australia. Under that law Content hosted in Australia and classified Classification restricted, or 18+ without an age verification system would be issued a take down notice. Such content hosted internationally would be added to a black list for use in voluntarily installed software on home PCs.

In August 2007 the Australian government through it's NetAlert department offered free, voluntary downloads of internet filtering software to be installed on home PCs. Late 2008 the scheme was shut down, with ACMA Senator Stephen Conroy citing it had not been successful with very few Australian's downloading the software. Clearly that should have woken him up to how Australians feel about filtering the internet, but instead it only inspired him into ISP level filtering instead.

"This very much seems to be a situation where Stephen Conroy feels he knows what's better for Australian's then they do for themselves. If you look up fascism in the dictionary, it will define it very much in that way."

During the elections which seen Labor form the federal government, they claimed the ISP level filtering would be an opt-out scheme. Of course an opt-in scheme would have been more desirable but at least in an opt-out scheme you of course have a way to not be filtered online and gain unrestricted access to information on the internet. But since forming government the policy has changed to one of mandatory filtering at the ISP level. This means every household, school, business, organisation or other entity connected to the internet will be under the power of the internet filter without any way to remove it. If you have an internet connection, the internet filter affects you.

So what is the big deal right? I mean surely they're only going to block out websites that are illegal... right? Wrong! All Restricted Classification content, X18+ content and R18+ content will be blocked. Speficially the AMCA criteria states;

• * Any online content that is classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board. This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
• * Content which is classified R 18+* and not subject to a restricted access system that prevents access by children. This includes depictions of simulated sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes.

In other words, ALL pornography will be subject to the filter not just child pornography. As well anything which is of an adult nature, that being something you wouldn't want someone under the age of 16 to see. All added to the filter and blocked from view for EVERY Australian, regardless of their age. But this isn't subject just to porn, there is so much more on the list than porn but before I get into that, consider this.

On the 18th of March 2009, wikileaks leaked a copy of the black list onto the internet. A user of the popular internet consumer forum whirlpool posted a link to the black list on the site. The AMCA then issued a notice to Whirlpools hosting company Bulletproof Media that fines of 11,000AUD would apply per day, for every day the link remained on the site. The AMCA furthermore when to extraordinary lengths to forcibly have the black list removed from the wikileaks website. So, consider this, the black list comprises simply the URLs (or domains names) of websites which can not be viewed through the filter. If the filter is such a great thing, then why is it that they are so guarded against the general public viewing the list?

The answer? Because of what the list actually blocks out. From the leaked list it was found that a Brisbane dentist's website was blocked, as was a tuckshop vendors website and the website of a dog kennel. These websites clearly have nothing to do with anything even remotely illegal or 18+ in nature, but yet somehow they're on the list?

But it goes further. In may of 2009 the Australian press, citing wikileaks as it's source broke the news that Dr Philip Nitschke's online Peaceful Pill Handbook, which is a website dealing with euthanasia has been added to the list, as have a range of other websites dealing with the same topic. Apparently the right to a peaceful death for the terminally ill remains out of the scope of reasoning for the federal government even though it isn't illegal in several Australian states.

But still, EVEN MORE FILTERING! In June 2009 the AMCA and the Australian government confirmed that the internet filter will block downloadable games, flash-based web games and websites which sell physical copies of games (like ebay and amazon) that do not meet the MA15+ standard. If the AMCA don't think someone under 16 should see it, then neither should anyone over 18 apparently.

"This isn't about stopping cyber crime; it's about controlling information the public see"

Already many anti-censorship websites campaigning for the filter to not go through have been forcibly taken down by the government. Other sites containing content which is anti-government, or does not support the government has been either forcibly taken down, or added to the black list.

In short the filter classification system stops anyone from not only committing an illegal act online, but from discussing anything that is illegal online, be they for or against the action. It further stops any member of the Australian public, regardless of age viewing any content not suitable for children. It blocks out anything that is deemed to be racist, or that submits a view other than that shared by the censor. Under this classification system, websites like wikipedia (which is a free, user contributed online encyclopedia)have already been announced to be added to the black list; and social networking websites like facebook (due to their user groups, fan pages and applications) have only a limited amount of time before they too are added.

It seem the ONLY way this filter is going to be revoked is if the majority of the Australian public, publicly announce this distaste for the filter and their desire to axe the scheme. If even that didn't work, well then it would be clear that we indeed no longer live in a democracy society. As it stands the labor party are moving very steeply toward a fascist dictatorship not only on filtering but on many issues. It time Australia, that we cut the government back down to size, before we end up in a situation where we suffer from tunnel vision due to lack of information and millions of Australian jobs are lost.

Links;

Wikipedia Article
Electronic Frontiers Australia
No Clean Feed
Labors plan for cyber safety (pdf)
USA Today article
Sydney Morning Herald article (March 19)
Sydney Morning Herald Article (December 15)
ABC News Article

As the year draws to a close we start to reflect on what that year has brought; and one can't reflect on such things without realising a considerable amount of the individuals privacy has been lost. So the question draws, will history hold 2009 as the year privacy was lost?

Facebook and Twitter and of course the Google machine have been the big violators of our privacy in 2009, gathering wads of data on us. This year Facebook made no less than 4 changes to their privacy policy, each one inching just that much more of your privacy away. As a result not only is everything you place on facebook up for documentation and collation with them, but so their privacy policy states, so is every other website you visit including how you interact with every site you visit.

Facebook also teamed up with Microsoft to place facebook on the Xbox 360, automatically updating your facebook status with what games, movies and music your using, as well as various other detailed information about them. Of course once the data is on facebook they file it away to make just that much more of an accurate picture of you. The world went twitter mad in 2009 as well, updating each other with their smallest, most tedious of actions. twitter itself; with a very facebook like privacy policy violated our privacy collating all the data we unwittingly delivered to them.

But it doesn't stop there, facebook took our twitter content and got us to stream it directly from twitter to them where the data could become facebooks to gather as well. And all the while the google machine gobbled up data from facebook, twitter and every other corner of the internet. Google's privacy policy shifted this year to allow for the collection of even more data. Your name, age, date of birth, the school you went to, your medical records, your likes and dislikes, your ex's, school grades, the games, movies and music you involve yourself with, your marital status, your credit rating, how much money you make, how much you paid for your house and how you paid for it...it's all their, publically viewable through google if you only know what to search for.

But where facebook collate each piece of our data as their policy allows for more collection, google play a more shifty game. For google the game plan is to creep through gathering more and more data, but to wait until the time is write to change the policy on collating the data.

But make no mistake, the time WILL come, after all Google are a targeted ads company, gathering data about you and collating it is what their business model is made up of. And with new services like Google's Public DNS and comments from Googles CEO Eric Schmidt on CNBC like

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

the stage is certainly set for a future where google know and collate EVERYTHING you do online. And what's more, knowing google; it will all most likely become publically available as well. The thought becomes even scarier when you consider that more and more devices are moving online.

The future see's devices like the Television and Radio, the telephone, the washer/drier and even the fridge all moving online. Even the video game console seems set to be replaced by a Set Top Box to link into a virtual unit. In this future one can expect your weekly shopping list, your phone calls and even how often you wash your clothes and how much water you use to added to the list of google indexed and publically available content. A wise man once said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The big question now becomes, where do we go from here? Knowing what has happened to privacy through 2009 do we allow our privacy to further unravel or do we steal it back from the fingers of sleazy two faced advertising corps, back into our own control?

It seems The Twilight Saga is the new harry potter, in that the whole world seems to be mad for it. New Moon is officially the highest grossing box office release for it's first opening day, taking in 72 MILLION dollars in the US alone. Think about that for a moment, and consider the extra tens of millions made from other countries around the world. This is a film that in it's first day recouped it's production budget. Everything from that point on is profit!

But the thing I'm not understanding is simply why it's so popular. I just don't see what is so interesting about the story line which for me alienates the very vampire legend itself. You see vampires aren't loving caring people, they can't fall in love, they have no sole. They won't rescue you. The folklore of the vampire is simple, they're soulless beasts whom apparently made a pact with the devil in order to rise from their grave. They are the undead. In the context any romantic notions of them are sorta creepy.

I mean seriously, who falls in love with what is essentially a corpse that sucks blood to stay alive? That's more than sorta gross don't you think? I mean what's next? Zombies that fall in love? Or will it be werewolves? Or the creature from the black lagoon? I've seen a LOT of drivel come out of hollywood, and these Twilight movies are right up there with the worst of them.

But in the theme of things, lets explore the vampire legend a little better. As most people know folklore, myths and legends usually have some truth to them, somewhere, no matter how abstract. This is indeed the case for the vampire legend. There are 2 schools of thought on this one, depending on where you come from. The first of which comes from what is now Slovakia and is where we get the Dracula legend.

In 1611 there was a countess by the name of Elizabeth Bathory; she was one of the highest aristocrats of the time and thus had extraordinary power. She not only had people from the local village abducted, but she killed them and drank their blood. No one knows exactly why she did this, but the best respected theory is for it's iron content. Elizabeth Bathory was obsessed with beauty and more over youth. Having a high iron diet will slow the viable aging process, smoothing skin and removing wrinkles.

The second origin for the forklore has to do with what is actually a normal occurrence of death. When a body dies, it starts to lose moisture as a result the skin shrinks back making it seem as though finger nails and hair continue to grow. The gums recede making the canines more prominent as if the person has grown fangs. The hair also starts to lose its colour. Now try to view this from the point of view of a superstitious, highly religious and christian society. One for whom the burial ceremony is quite quick, where a corpse is in the ground within a day or so.

Not enough time to view these traits on a regular basis. But should there be a hold up with the burial for some reason these quite normal characteristics of a corpse can be seen. For such a community it is easy to see how they would mistake the corpse for being alive. Now couple this occurrence with another unrelated one. That of vampire bats. Vampire bats, will feed on humans while they sleep. The experience is painless as the bat's saliva contains a natural anesthetic.

For an already paranoid, superstitious and devoutly religious community linking these to events together must have seemed natural. And so the legend of the vampire was born. A being which made a pact with the devil to cheat death. A being which is dead, but must feed on blood to survive, and must do so by night. And a being capable of turning into a bat. And there you have it, over time the legend of course changed and morphed into something else... new bits where added and eventually we got to a point where we have silly movies and books like those in the twilight series.

It's a relevant question; what happened to horror films? Once upon a time, good nature slashers with oldly little blood and psychological thrillers filled out screens. It was the age of classics, the age of masterpieces, when horror was how it should be. Sure they weren't always realistic, but that was part of their charm. Part of what made them greats; that separation from reality which reminded you it was just a film.

Cinema was created for escapism, a means for the common person to take an hour or two out of their lives and escape to somewhere else. For horror, this was a change to get a good, fun scare and have a giggle about it after the movie. Sadly, cinema seems to have lost it's way. The ideals which addicted us to film in the first place are lost or waining, and this is none more truthful than with horror.

Today's "horror" films have removed the safety net. They have chosen not only to turn their films more realistic but to ablitterate the classics as well. Gone are the cinematic greats, the super killers. Originals like Halloween, Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, ruined. Turned from horror to snuff.

And that is all horror has become; snuff. Filled with torture, gore and rape. The viewer is placed in the thick of it, close up, unable to turn away, unable to disassociate it from reality. Gone is the laughter from viewers when the movie ends, replaced by a sickening feeling and slight guilt, like perhaps you shouldn't have just witnessed that.

True horror, as the past has proven does not require gore. It should have a healthy balance of comedy, suspense and death. But it seems the new generation of horror film makers have failed to learn the principals of a good horror flick. Borrowing a classic title and a character may be a guaranteed way to generate some box office dollars, but turning it into these monstrosities only serves to annoy and frustrate people.

It is almost as if, somewhere in Hollywood 2 bets were placed, one for who could make the most horrific film and another for who could screw up a classic the most. Irreparable damage is being done to people by watching this new breed of horror. Their brains are literally being physically damaged! Will it be that at some point, someone will be able to sue the writers, directors, produces and studios behind these films for the brain damage they've caused? Will these films one day serve as reason enough to get someone off murder?

We need to remind ourselves what the purpose of cinema is, to escape reality. It is not, and should never be, to watch mindlessly as a freak realistically kills people in the most horrific ways imaginable. Horror has become sick, ill and twisted. A perverted version of the glory it once held. For what the slasher film did to revive the ailing horror genre, the staged snuff is reversing. All in the name of a quick buck, but I ask you, if horror dies, where will the next quick buck come from?

Martin Scorsese seems to have proven his worth as a director once more with his newest picture Shutter Island due to be screened in cinemas February 2010. Even Leo Decaprio's obvious lack of acting ability is made up for by the brillence for this film. Check out the trailer below.

Where previously HTC was the only manufacture we are finally seeing others join the Android party; with Motorola announcing it's new Android based Dext (Cliq in the US). But this is no ordinary device, it's a mobile designed to highlight the use of email and social networking through Motorola's Motoblur android app which will be initially unique to the Dext.

The Dext will automatically sync your webmail, pop mail, facebook, myspace and twitter with the device; every message, post and comment will be there. But it gets better! No need to open an application, no need to switch between apps to read or reply to different bits and pieces. It's all there, together, right on your home screen. You can even reply directly from your home screen!

The Dext isn't just a 1 horse show though, it comes packed with features. For starters it's a touch enabled device with a 320 x 480 display and a slide out full qwerty keyboard. Just what you need to interact best with your social networking sites.

Connectivity doesn't fall short with Wifi, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, USB and A-GPS. The phone is 3G compliant, compatible with both HSDPA and EDGE networks. It'll even work on WCDMA networks! This is a phone that can be used anywhere, meaning you'll never lose contact with your friends if you're so inclined.

Inbuilt Media player takes care of AAC, AAC+, AAC+ Enhanced, AMR NB, MIDI, MP3, WAV formats while the Inbuilt Video player handles H.264, H.263, MPEG 4, 3GP and even YouTube direct from the player! Standard with a 5.0MP camera capable of stills and video, it comes with photo editing software and GeoTagging.

Sadly as far as I know serious memory for this device is limited to the microSD card you have, which is upgradable to 32GB. The lack of memory built into the phone is a real misgiving by Motorola in my opinion.

Being that it's an Android based phone it of course comes bundled with masses of Google software, such as Google Voice, Google Talk and Google Maps. QuickOffice is installed, as is LastFM, Amazon Music store, imeem, Shazam, and Accuweather.

Still this is a phone built for Gen-Y for sure, and while it lacks inbuilt memory you can simply purchase a 32GB microSD card and have all the memory you need. It does come bundled with a 2GB microSD which may suffice for some people.

First impressions are that this is a great phone which shows us the tip of what Android can do in the mainstream. A phone certainly for Social Network Addicts and Generation Y. Pricing is yet to be announced but given the lack of inbuilt memory I would think it priced mid-range.

Links;

Motorola CLIQ/DEXT Site
ITWire Article
Phandroid

The following is a list of my favourite movies of all time. The are presented in no particular order. Please note, this is my opinion only and is no way meant to be an official best movies of all time, nor represent any collated data. It is simply movies which I quite enjoy. This is an evolving list so please check back for changes over time.

Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 masterpiece; Psycho. In typical Hitchcock style the use of imagery to portray subtle moods, or parts of the story is brilliant. The plot is quite solid, with very little room for holes to appear. It's well written, directed and played. This is definately a much watch film.

In '63 Hitchcock succeeded with another of my favourites; The Birds. The typical social reform themes that hitchcock usually presents are definitely in this film. The main heroin is very much a woman of the revolution, but it is only when she comes to bodega bay that things start to go wrong. Sure the special FX are nothing like today's big budget cinema but the film manages to hold it's own.

Pierre Morel struct a winner when he directed 2008 film taken. While admittedly the film has quite a few plot holes (some of which gape wider than the grand cannon) the film certainly has some charm. Liam Neeson plays the main character superbly, and it's the energy he brings to the screen which makes you suspend reality. It's the sort of film which, while is not particularly deep, does strike you in an emotional sense.

Starring Bruce Lee's son Brandon spawned a cult classic in the 1994 Alex Proyas film The Crow. Brandon Lee who shared the ill fate of his father (dying on set) preformed his role splendidly. The use of light to symbolise how good or terrible things in the city were only heightens this flick to another level. The themes of social injustice and sin are prevalent.

In 1995 Damon Wayans kept me laughing in Nick Castle's film Major Payne. This movie is about as deep as any good comedy should be, but it certainly keeps you laughing. With themes of trust, team work, unity and understanding the movie really is quite a little gem.

Batman, released in 1989 showed us how The Dark Knight should be. A close interruption of the original DC Comic, Batman was a delight to watch. This dimly lit movie Directed by the one and only Tim Burton showcases the talents of Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. Of which, Michael Keaton is arguably the best screen adaption of Batman ever. Certainly Jack Nicholson does a far better job with the role, than Heath Ledgers half baked attempt in the 2008 film The Dark Knight.

The 1992 sequal Batman Returns was just as dark and witty as the first. With Michael Keaton now playing opposite Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer and Christopher Walken this film makes you all tingly inside. Again Directed by Tim Burton the film continues along the storyline of the comic book franchise. The thing about these 2 films I like the most is their mix of cartoonish comic book styling with reality. The characters aren't quite real, often doing extraordinary things.

Released in 1994, The Shawshank Redemption is another of my favs. It's a clever film with themes of institutionalisation, racism and hope. I must say Writer/Director Frank Darabont did a wonderful job with the screenplay, being that I found no plot holes in the film. The use of placement and imagery was wonderful, and was a very touching film.

Many years ago we were promised 100mbps wireless internet in the form of the 802.16e (WiMax) standard. Unfortunately only select countries ever had this promise fulfilled, for the rest of us, wireless internet has been confined mostly, to the 3G networks of cellphone providers.

With 3G HSDPA (High-Speed Downlink Packet Access) and 3G EDGE (Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution) we seen speeds of up to 3.5mbps and 7.2mbps respectively. This was great for most web applications, but no good for streaming high speed, High Definition video on the go, or for multiapping across the web and uploading/downloading large files.

Now there is a new kid coming to the block and he's about to kick 3Gs ass. I predict 4G LTE (Long Term Evolution) will be the talk of late 2010 and into 2011. With promised theoretical download speeds of up to 160mbps it'll easily out do your home fibre optic connection. It's important to note also, this speed is considered stable traveling at up to 120km/h

Expect 4G to be released on mobile handsets and USB dongle modems to start with. But as this technology takes hold and blankets an evermore larger area expect other 4G enabled devices to be released. With a stable, super fast internet connection, while traveling at high speeds, there is no reason why internet radios, or car radios with internet radio capabilities can't be released. Nor is there a reason why the same can't be said for IPTV.

With faster mediums like 4G coming into play I can see no reason why eventually handset manufactures won't start to favour VOIP over traditional telephony signal mediums. But that again is only on the assumption we have a united developed world uptake of 4G.

With that said, such data through-put rates, in a mobile setting has to be enticing to ISPs and Mobile Carriers alike, and assuming they are able to get hold of the technology through a suitable reseller deal with a Mobile Carrier, I'm sure we'll see more ISPs entering the mobile internet and mobile phone markets. Yep LTE are the 3 little letters you need to remember, they're the next mobile future and could, if implemented right, spell good things for us all.

Links;

Wikipedia
iTWire Article
Nortel LTE site
Gigaom post

Consumerism. Marketing teams and companies alike would have us believe it will make us happier; that it will somehow improve and fulfill our lives. But deep down I think we all know that is an outright lie. Yet for some oddity, some of us, nay most of us, get sucked into the game. We consume at ever greater rates, products and services which fill us with empty promises of better, more exciting lives. Of more friends, a better job, more sex appeal, the list goes on..

Why do we do it to ourselves? What tricks are used on us? And is this limited to just adults? How much of a consumer whore have you truly become? These are just some of the questions I hope to explore in this multi-part series on consumerism. Expect the first addition to be released 6pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (GMT+10).

It is rare that I come across a modern day movie that I like, but french film À la folie... pas du tout (He loves me, he loves me not) certainly makes the cut. It is a movie that is well thought out, leaving plot holes tiny and scarce. The clever script is taken to another level both with insightful direction and divine acting on behalf of the lead roles.

À la folie... pas du tout tells the story of waitress/student Angélique whom is madly inlove with Cardiologist Loïc and plans to run off with him. Almost needless to say Loïc is married, and his wife is pregnant with their first child. Add to the mix, student doctor David whom himself has fallen for Angélique and you have a mature paletted thriller. The exploration of Angélique's erotomania indeed takes this film to another level.

Audrey Tautou plays Angélique exquisitely with her odd, but innocent look barely hinting at the world that lives inside her mind. The film is of course in french and thus subtitled, but I hope that will not put you off this masterful work. It plays in two halfs, first telling things as Angélique see's them, then once more from the perspectives of everyone else. Writer/Director Laetitia Colombani has certainly out done herself with this film, it will jerk your heart strings then send you on a white knuckle ride.

Links;

IMDB
Cinephilia

As we head ever closer to the Digital TV switch, consumer demand for lower cost LCD televisions has born a reduction in prices and I predict it's only going to get better. This week Big-W announced a price drop of $200AUD on their Sanyo 40" LCD 1080p televisions, now retailing for $996AUD it's capable of receiving and viewing True HD Digital TV all for under a grand.

Previously to get a TV of that size, for that price you had to buy Plasma, but as we all know Plasma is a poor investment as the gas runs out within 6 years and you're just left with a rather expensive paper weight. We are finally seeing the beginnings of a reduction in LCD prices such that the average Joe Blow can enjoy the technology previously only available to the wealthy or debt inclined.

In an economy which is springing back to life again after a government induced downturn, the timing for LCD prices to drop couldn't be better. And I predict it's only going to get better as we draw closer to the deadline. Over the next 12 or so months, as Digital TV take up increases and the Movie studio's push Blu-Ray expect the price of LCD TVs to drop in general another 2-3 hundred dollars if not more.

This will put the average 40" LCD TV at around $800AUD, which is a very reasonable price and inside the budgets of the average Australian (even if they do have to lay-by it). As the pushers of these new technologies get evermore desperate to upgrade everyone, expect some good things to come.

Last night I watched a Documentary on Dominick Dunne entitled "Celebrity: Dominick Dunne" and he struck me as an idiot. For those whom have no idea whom Dominick Dunne is, he is a writer for Vanity Fair magazine whom writes about the judicial system and celebrities in trouble. The thing about Dominick is that he always presumes they are guilty.

The man has undoubtedly had a hard, but impressive life. Some of the things he has done most of us can only dream about, but that gives him no excuse to slander others. Nor does the fact that O.J Simpson most probably killed his daughter, give him an excuse to decide all celebrities are bad. His articles are almost always filled with rumors, lies and fiction but that never stops him entertaining them as fact.

He is also a man whom has turned on some of his celebrity friends when they have landed in hot water. His own son has nothing positive to say about the man, and quite obviously despises him. While Dominick maintains they have a great relationship. Where will the lies end Dominick? Where?

Links;

Wikipedia
Celebrity: Dominick Dunne (Video)