Australia's proposal to filter the Internet

[soulslicer]

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/australia-joins-china-in-censoring-the-internet/

The Australian Government has announced that they will be joining China as one of the few countries globally that broadly censor the internet.

To be censored by the Australian Government is ?pornography and inappropriate material.? X rated pornography is illegal online in Australia, as are casino style internet gambling, certain forms of ?hate? speech and R rated computer games. BitTorrent would be a possibility, even if certain downloads for personal use may be legal under Australian law, sharing those downloads would not be. How far ?inappropriate material? may extend was not made clear, for example questioning Government policy where it comes to Aboriginal people could be deemed to be discrimination under Australian law and hence blocked by the censorship regime. Worst still, bloggers or those (such as forum owners) who allow users to comment or post could find themselves blocked under this proposal should someone say or post the wrong thing.

I read somewhere also that the Civil Libertarians slammed this move or something. Looks like this is not the only country, china, myanmar, and Arabia have done so too. I find this move rather stupid as such control of content should be left to the user itself using special software etc. Unless, it's the case of Myanmar where they actually ban hotmail, gmail and skype (totally retarded)

 

[Raziaar]

Australia just went on my stupid list. Porn and games aren't things you need to prohibit people from viewing. Geez.

 

[Hamsocks]

I've heard that Australia also has a mandatory lottery tax. You pay taxes, and that's where the lottery winnings comes from. If that's true, I'd make it my mission to stomp the hell out of any lottery winner and take my money back.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Oh shi-
Everyone, we should have a party for our Australian users here in hl2.net.
A good-bye party.
;(

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

It's on mah stupid list.

 

[Sloth]

I've heard that Australia also has a mandatory lottery tax. You pay taxes, and that's where the lottery winnings comes from. If that's true, I'd make it my mission to stomp the hell out of any lottery winner and take my money back.

False... We do however tax those who buy lottery tickets.

And don't worry, this will still have to go through the Upper House (the Senate) - its more like the House of Lords, but has the power to veto any Bill that is being passed.

However, Ruddy-Boy makes me want to form the Aust Pirate Party now more than ever.

 

[Narvi]

I'm unfamiliar with the Australian legal system, but this hasn't been passed yet, correct? It's just a proposal, yes? Then let's not worry about it. Stupid laws are proposed elsewhere too.

 

[mortiz-Redux]

False... We do however tax those who buy lottery tickets.

And don't worry, this will still have to go through the Upper House (the Senate) - its more like the House of Lords, but has the power to veto any Bill that is being passed.

However, Ruddy-Boy makes me want to form the Aust Pirate Party now more than ever.

muwhahaha, no porn for you!

 

[Steven]

Oh God I hope not.

 

[Tagaziel]

False... We do however tax those who buy lottery tickets.

And don't worry, this will still have to go through the Upper House (the Senate) - its more like the House of Lords, but has the power to veto any Bill that is being passed.

However, Ruddy-Boy makes me want to form the Aust Pirate Party now more than ever.

As I recall, you are still heavily based on the English Common Law system, court-wise, right?

 

[Naph]

OH F- *The Australian Government wishes to advise that this word is not suitable for the internet.*

 

[Parrot of doom]

I'm ashamed they're considering doing this.

Then again, they're all criminals we chucked out years ago anyway.

 

[Naph]

I'm ashamed they're considering doing this.

Then again, they're all criminals we chucked out years ago anyway.

.7% of the population have connections from convicts.

 

[Avoidist]

Oh this is ****ing great. If this site gets blocked I'm moving to America, land of the free-er.

 

[Kyorisu]

.7% of the population have connections from convicts.

Don't worry it's the generic Australia sucks because of what happened in the 1700s.

Techcrunch fails at reporting. Really they did a great job of pulling a load of crap from their arses. Blocked because of discrimination? Come on currently it's nothing even remotely like that. As is it's a proposed pron filter which one can opt-out of. That's if the proposal becomes legislation which is a fare way off from happening yet atm.

So, I hear on the radio as I'm getting ready for work today that our magnificant Labor overlords have decided to go one better than Howard's "install a filter on your PC" move, and are going to demand ISP's pre-filter our internet.

The ABC interviewer was questioning the minister, and everytime the repsonse contained the fact it was "for the children". The best part was his answer to the question of this filtering limiting "freedom of speech". He replied with "child pornography shouldn't be classified as freedom of speech" (or words to that remark). I whole heartedly agree, it shouldn't, but that's not just what this filtering will do or become. Past govt's have proven that they like to get things in place and then move the goal lines, look at the petrol tax.

Oh yeah, they say it's to clean up the pr0n, and even worse kiddie pr0n, but it wont be long before all p2p, newsgroups, torrent sites start getting filtered as well, all in the name of kiddies of course.

And really who can argue with saving the children? (maybe David Hicks, he is a convicted terrorist, and we all know terrorists don't seem to mind who gets terrorised, but that's another kettle of fish

Imagine the preasure music / movie / software associations will put on the govt to have some sites filtered. Especially with the new found US ties to copywrite law that are now in place. There's no way they'd get this sort of filter passed by the US, so why not talk to the Govt in Oz, the only "democracy" that is contemplating filtering the 'net.

Once a govt legislates something, it's a hell of a lot easier to modify the legislation than it is to getting it in place the first time.

Oh well, the majority of Australia did vote Labor in, now we get to reap the benefits.

- http://www.valhalla.net.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10798

Yeah great, now when the hot chick at the node signup desk says "Do you want to look at porn?" I have to look her in the eye and say "Yes, lesbian, shemale and horse, please... by the way - you want to go for dinner tonight?"

This is what is called a very, very slippery slope. (This is kinda long and convoluted, stay with me here )

I do not endorse kiddy porn and I wholeheartedly agree that filters for this specific kind of data is a somewhat reasonable proposal. HOWEVER...

I did moral philosophy for two years and we spent about a month looking at the very disturbing issues surrounding child pornography. Obviously child porn which harms actual children is completley and uttery wrong. However, there are a few interesting moral arguments regarding two kinds of child porn:

1. C.G. is now advanced enough to create 'realistic' child porn that does not involve anyone breaking the law or harming children.

2. There is a market for pornography which depicts youthful looking adults in child roles which is perfectly legal, disturbing, but legal.

Now. There are many arguments against these kinds of porn in general, namely that there is the possibility that even by having the presupposition of child-like figures acts as a stimuli for those people who would perpetuate acts on real children. These are the same arguments used in response to the facilitation of violent anti-social behaviors utilized in some video games. The main argument against censorship is called 'mental mediation' i.e. the person watching the act is only observing the act and in doing so is removed from the reality of the situation. The act exists as part of a fantasy and the observer necessarily suspends their reality to participate in the fantasy etc etc. As the law stands in Australia, there are definite grey areas of what constitutes child pornography. Hente for example depicts many childlike figures but is not considered child pornography because the medium is mediated by the animated setting, and so on. Will these grey areas be effected, probably. Should they be, maybe. Should people have a choice as repugnant as that is? Perhaps. We never came up with a solution, but just thinking about the intricacies of the argument is a good mental exercise.

What does this have to do with this argument? Well...

There are elements of pornographic material on the internet which are morally repugnant enough to the vast majority of the population for them to agree to censorship on a national scale. Indeed, there are serious issues with many facets of the availability of pornographic and otherwise subversive material through the internet. However, as heinous as these things may be, they are a necessary byproduct of the free speech enabled by the internet on a global scale. Since it's illegal to view it in this country anyway, there is already legal recourse to prosecute those people who choose to engage in illegal acts. To impose national filtering of child porn is something many people would be happy to deal with but it isn't necessary since there are already laws in place which cover this problem. The problem is that any kind of censorship that is implemented on a national scale opens the door for censorship in areas beyond those which are illegal to undesirable. Today it's child porn, tomorrow it's access to Islamic websites or anti-government material.

Time and time again the government slowly shaves away political and civil rights in this country, and this proposal is a step in that direction. The fact that they are beginning with censorship of an abhorrent facet of the internet does not detract from the future implications that this proposal might have.

As I said, it's a slippery slope and people shouldn't be blinded by the moral repugnance of the issue. Rather, they should consider that if they impose this on porn, they can impose it on anything, political ideas, religious organizations or anything which challenges government authority, and you can bet your ass they will. Maybe not for five, ten, twenty years, but if it can happen, it will.

 

[-Psy-]

Censorship. Sigh...

 

[Kyorisu]

I'd like to know who specifically is supporting this so I can be angry at them.

http://alp.org.au/download/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf
http://alp.org.au/media/1107/mscoit190.php
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

They will push it through on the back of child prons. Complete and utter bullshit we already have laws in place to deal with such things.

"The internet hasn't ground to a halt in the UK, it hasn't ground to a halt in Scandinavian countries and it's not grinding the internet to a halt in Europe.

I think he's forgetting the part where Australia's average Internet speed is slower than those places. If anyone can think of a nice angry e-mail to write here's his email addy [email protected]

 

[Avoidist]

Not to mention it costs more and has download limits. Their proposal to completely upgrade the broadband infrastructure was one of the few reasons that I was glad they got in.

 

[Kyorisu]

Telstra will always screw us over unless we go full Wimax or something. Telstra own the cable ducts and aren't going to just let competitors lay cable in them.

 

[Sloth]

Just to also put it out there for other Aussies, mate of mine's Dad is rather high up in Telstra; they had developed the Next G Network, then the Govt. gave the contract to someone else - thus loosing them money and giving them less ability to lay more cabling.

 

[Eejit]

Well if you're denied pron at least you have all those sheep to keep you company. And it'll be sure to improve relations with your kiwi neighbours.

 

[Kyorisu]

It'll be great once my country house has DSL2+ speeds it really is annoying whilst I'm there on weekends to have such slow speeds compared to town. Oh well. On another note heres a broadband survey for fellow Aussies. http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/

Well if you're denied pron at least you have all those sheep to keep you company. And it'll be sure to improve relations with your kiwi neighbours.

If it passes and I hope it doesn't I'll be one of the first to opt-out.

 

[Parrot of doom]

.7% of the population have connections from convicts.

Fraud was a crime in the 18th century too you know.

 

[Kyorisu]

My family chose to immigrate to Aus/NZ/US at some stage in the past As did many other families. We also have a massive Asian population being right next door to the place. Anyway heres my letter;

The Honorable Senator Stephen Conroy,
Federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy,
Suite MG70
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Honorable Stephen Conroy,

I am writing to you in your position as Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

I am writing to plead with you to stop this nonsensical plan for Internet censorship.

You have just hatched a hair brained plan to censor the Internet, under the guise of blocking child pornography. During the time that the Liberals were in power, Labor also had such an idea and luckily took the advice of experts that not only would it not stop child pornography, but it would slow the Internet to a crawl for the majority of us doing legitimate commerce online. Whether you believe it or not there will be a performance impact and any impact to our current level of broadband in Australia is not worth considering.

The current regime of AFP & State Police services' tracking, find and arresting child pornographers and their perverted consumers is bringing dividends in the forms of real-world arrests and jail sentences.

Furthermore, ACMA has enough wide-ranging current power to bring other types of "offensive" sites offline (eg: racist riot incitement).

You also claim to want to make the Internet a safer place for children. It should be the parents job to supervise their children not the governments. I fear you'll only create a false sense of security. Parents will monitor their children much less than they do now or worse stop monitoring their children all together when using the Internet.

There is no need to go overboard and put normal, law-abiding consumers in the position of collateral damage over some perceived political ambition, which is solely your goal.

I mean, you have been fresh in power for less than a month, have not sought any expert advice on this, and just like any new Manager in any new company, wants to flex his newly found muscles by taking aim at old traditions. However, instead of focusing on the real and present problem of Broadband penetration, your aim is completely wrong and you need to be brought into line.

Please reconsider your plans, I'll be watching for any amendments to Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Act 2007 with great fear for Australia's Internet users.

I am eager to read your reply, please post by mail to;

xxxx xxxx
PO Box# xxx
Freeling
SA 5372

Yours Sincerely,

xxxx xxxx

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Good letter, glad to see you didn't mouth off - though I doubt he will take you seriously anyway.

 

[Raziaar]

The xxxx's are actually curse words.

 

[<RJMC>]

I hear that the latest elected prime minister lived in china and such

that means

prepare for red australia