next »

[bella]

An interesting read on the issue.

"Finally, to what degree are citizens and Internet users able to participate in decisionmaking about these restrictions, such that censors are accountable? Legitimate censorship is open; transparent about what is banned; effective, yet narrowly targeted; and responsive to the preferences of each state’s citizens."

His verdict is pretty damning as far as Australia is concerned. While it just about gets by on the first of these criteria – the incoming government did make mandatory internet filtering a plank of its election campaign – it is deemed to have failed outright on the other three issues.

"On transparency, the government keeps resorting to wild generalisations, talking about the blocking of material that is inappropriate or, as Bambauer observes, "other unwanted material". This is key to the debate that Australia isn’t really having"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/13/internet_regulation/

[Defylar]

The trouble is that child pornography will not stop because of this without blocking off software such as MSN and YIM as well as file hosting sites like Rapidshare. This is because child pornography is not hosted on websites as they are too easy to track down who hosted the site. Rather it is simply hosted on a file host website or transferred over MSN. The trouble with a file host website is that it's contents cannot be searched properly without administration access with the exception of one or two of the more minor offenders in regards to child pornography. Which means that the entire original purpose of this website is pointless and will simply irritate the majority of Australian's while the offenders still get away with their crimes.

[bella]

Update.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/16/2492571.htm

[bella]

Looking good to be defeated.

The final nail in the coffin of the great Australian Firewall was hammered home last week when independent Senator Nick Xenophon withdrew support for the measure. This takes the voting arithmetic in the Australian Upper House beyond the point of no-return, as there are now 43 votes stacked up against the proposal with just 33 in favour

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/02/oz_firewall_finished/

[bella]

Rudd's internet blacklist includes dentist, kennel, tuckshop

THE websites of a Queensland dentist, a tuckshop convener and a kennel operator have been included on a secret "blacklist" of sites to be banned by Australia's communications watchdog.

The seemingly innocuous websites were among a leaked list of 2300 websites the Australian Communications and Media Authority was planning to ban to protect children from graphic pornography and violence.

Several Queensland businesses yesterday expressed dismay at their inclusion on the Government's mandatory internet content filter.

Dental Distinction practice manager Kelly Wilson said the business had never been contacted by the ACMA and she was struggling to understand why the website appeared on the list.

"I am quite shocked and slightly amused that our name is on it," Ms Wilson said.

She said the practice's website had been hacked once, redirecting visitors to a website that sold sex enhancement products, but the problem had been fixed 18 months ago.

"People were automatically redirected to this website in the US that sold things like Viagra and sex toys," she said.

"That's the only thing I can think of as to why we're on it."

As well as the dental practice, a website for Maroochy Boarding Kennels and a Brisbane tuckshop convener were named.

Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy yesterday said the leaked list included proposed banned sites but denied it was the ACMA blacklist.

"There are some common URLs (links) to those on the ACMA blacklist," he said.

Senator Conroy said ACMA could refer the leak to the Australian Federal Police for further investigation.

"The leak and publication of prohibited URLs is grossly irresponsible," Mr Conroy said.

"No one interested in cyber safety would condone leaking these addresses."

The ACMA has warned people caught distributing the list or accessing child pornography sites on the list could face criminal charges and up to 10 years in prison, as well as fines up to $11,000 a day for linking to sites on the secret blacklist.

But yesterday the ACMA itself distributed the list, sending an email to one of the prohibited websites named in the blacklist, providing a direct link to the entire list of contents.

As well as links to child pornography, rape, incest and bestiality websites, up to half of the sites on the list are believed to be legal content, including a tour operator's website, links to online encyclopedia Wikipedia, legal adult material, online gambling sites, even a page with images of cats accompanied by amusing phrases, colloquially known as "LOL cats".

Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin said the Rudd Government would be best served ensuring law enforcement agencies were adequately equipped to address the problem.

"The Coalition also maintains that adult supervision is the most effective way of keeping children safe online and people shouldn't be led into believing, by Labor, that expanded blacklists or mandatory filters are a substitute for that," he said.

 

Link

[bella]

AUSTRALIA'S third largest internet service provider (ISP) has pulled out of the Government's web filtering trials, saying the plan is "no longer just about stopping child porn".

The Government's plan involves a nation-wide filter that stops "unwanted material" from appearing on Australian user's computer screens.

iiNet says the ambiguity of "unwanted material" is what caused it to pull out of the trials.

“We are not able to reconcile participation in the trial with our corporate social responsibility, our customer service objectives and our public position on censorship,” iiNet managing director Michael Malone said in a statement.

“It became increasingly clear that the trial was not simply about restricting child pornography or other such illegal material, but a much wider range of issues including what the Government simply describes as 'unwanted material' without an explanation of what that includes."

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,,25229239-5014239,00.html

THE Federal Government's proposed internet censorship regime is not the silver bullet to stop child pornography, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said.

  http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25262960-5014239,00.html

[neonwizard]

Did anyone else watch Conroy on Q&A on the ABC?
If not Video Here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm

[oldyella]

it takes numbers of people making it clear to their representatives that
if they support this action they will be looking for work come next
election, that is where the power is, but we each have to do this,
otherwise the polititians think all is well if they dont hear from their
constituents.

[neonwizard]

I think your find that Conroy will not be doing this portfolio much longer, wait and see.

[bella]

Update:

Australia's controversial Internet filter, now in testing, would block all material that has been "refused classification" by the government. Because the highest rating available to video games is MA 15+, any game intended for people over 15 will be blocked.
   

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/australian-net-filter-to-block-video-games-too.ars

[bella]

The prime minister's website has been hacked into in protest over proposed reforms of internet censorship.

The website, www.pm.gov.au, was brought down at about 1920 (AEST) on Wednesday night along with that of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, but both were back online about an hour later.

A message posted on the Inquisitor website by the hacker, known as Anonymous, stated that the action was in response to a federal government proposal to introduce mandatory internet filtering.

The posting complains that the proposal to introduce internet filtering would block legal content, and take censorship to levels like that seen in China.

"Not only will your rights be at stake, our Internet speeds will slow down by 70 per cent, be mandatory for all Aussies and will not protect us from evil AT ALL," the posting reads.

The posting, titled "Anonymous vs the Australian Government",

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/pms-website-hacked-20090909-fhl8.html




Love this too. Someone's idea of how it might work.

http://search.censordyne.com/


I haven't seen or heard anyone who agrees with this policy. While it may sound a fine idea from the lofty heights of Canberra, we will have no idea of what the Govt intends to block..what are the criteria?
There will be faceless people deciding what we can or can't access on the internet.
And anyway, the technology moves at such a rapid pace...by the time this lot have got anything in place...there will be ways around it.