<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: EFA: money &#8220;wasted&#8221; on Internet filtering</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stilgherrian.com/politics/efa-money-wasted-on-internet-filtering/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stilgherrian.com/politics/efa-money-wasted-on-internet-filtering/</link>
	<description>All publication is a political act. All communication is propaganda. All art is pornography. All business is personal. All hail Eris. Vive les poissons rouges sauvages!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:24:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Meloni</title>
		<link>http://stilgherrian.com/politics/efa-money-wasted-on-internet-filtering/#comment-12797</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Meloni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 03:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stilgherrian.com/?p=1619#comment-12797</guid>
		<description>Although I didn&#039;t read it as being a criticism of the funds being allocated to cyber safety (just that of which would be wasted on filtering), I can see how it could be perceived that way and used as easy ammunition against EFA&#039;s argument. 

Cyber safety is important and anyone opposed to mandatory filtering must be careful not to confuse the two. Filtering has nothing to do with safety. 

Maybe an interview with a Sydney EFA&#039;er on Stil Live next week...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although I didn&#8217;t read it as being a criticism of the funds being allocated to cyber safety (just that of which would be wasted on filtering), I can see how it could be perceived that way and used as easy ammunition against EFA&#8217;s argument. </p>
<p>Cyber safety is important and anyone opposed to mandatory filtering must be careful not to confuse the two. Filtering has nothing to do with safety. </p>
<p>Maybe an interview with a Sydney EFA&#8217;er on Stil Live next week&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

