TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Australia to implement mandatory internet censorship
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Australia to implement mandatory internet censorship
Wow, just incredible. I fear more are soon to follow suit after this.
Australia to implement mandatory internet censorship
October 29, 2008 12:02pm
AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.
The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.
The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.
The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.
Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".
Mr Conroy said trials were yet to be carried out, but "we are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material."
The net nanny proposal was originally going to allow Australians who wanted uncensored access to the web the option of contacting their internet service provider to be excluded from the service.
Human Rights Watch has condemned internet censorship, and argued to the US Senate "there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, (and) want to control it"
Groups including the System Administrators Guild of Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia have attacked the proposal, saying it would unfairly restrict Australians' access to the web, slow internet speeds and raise the price of internet access.
EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child pornography, as it would not cover file-sharing networks.
"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child pornography it would be a different debate," he said.
The technology companies' move, which follows criticism that the companies were assisting censorship of the internet in nations such as China, requires them to narrowly interpret government requests for information or censorship and to fight to minimise cooperation.
The initiative provides a systematic approach to "work together in resisting efforts by governments that seek to enlist companies in acts of censorship and surveillance that violate international standards", the participants said.
In a statement, Yahoo co-founder and chief executive Jerry Yang welcomed the new code of conduct.
"These principles provide a valuable roadmap for companies like Yahoo operating in markets where freedom of expression and privacy are unfairly restricted," he said.
"Yahoo was founded on the belief that promoting access to information can enrich people's lives, and the principles we unveil today reflect our determination that our actions match our values around the world."
Yahoo was thrust into the forefront of the online rights issue after the Californian company helped Chinese police identify cyber dissidents whose supposed crime was expressing their views online.
China exercises strict control over the internet, blocking sites linked to Chinese dissidents, the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement, the Tibetan government-in-exile and those with information on the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.
A number of US companies, including Microsoft, Cisco, Google and Yahoo, have been hauled before the US Congress in recent years and accused of complicity in building the "Great Firewall of China".
The Australian Christian Lobby, however, has welcomed the proposals.
Managing director Jim Wallace said the measures were needed.
"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access," Mr Wallace said.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/st...37-2862,00.html
wow, for once you and i might be on the same side of an issue!
im writing to my local MPs as well as the relevant senator. an absolute disgrace.
Yeah go nuts and write to them I am sure they will be censoring those outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Haha, most people in australia havent heard of the conspiracy theories 
This was going to be an optional choice for net users, but now they're making it mandatory. Our fucking internet speeds are already painfully slow, adding a filter is only going to make it worse. Fucking idiots.
Australia??
Where did this come from? WTF are you blokes doing down there? This is really terrible.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Australia?? Where did this come from? WTF are you blokes doing down there? This is really terrible. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Haha, most people in australia havent heard of the conspiracy theories |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN dont ask me, this crept up on me (as i didnt know they'd changed the implementation). im quite fucked off. stupid nanny-state labor party fucktards (and im a labor voter). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Of course Australians have no idea what is going on, I really bet you would like everyone to believe that nonsense. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 I'm pretty up to speed on these tech things and I've never heard of it. From what I'm reading its coming from the extreme right Family First Christian government you recently put in office. Way ta go! |
Completely agree. This thing will be largely useless and slow down an already appallingly slow internet. From yesterday's Media Report:
| quote: |
| Antony Funnell: Now there's been a lot of talk in the press over the last couple of weeks about possible unintended consequences of an internet filtering system in terms of slowing down internet speeds. What can you tell us about that? Mark Pesce: Well as near as we can tell, with the small test that they ran, it slowed down access speeds by about 86%, so it would take us from a nation that's not particularly fast in our broadband, to a nation that's much more molasses-like in broadband. Now whether this is going to be truly annoying or noticeable, it's going to be something that's going to be there, and the more aggressive that the government is about detecting things that are unacceptable, the slower that is, the more processing that's required. And that's essentially going to be a cat and mouse race, because not only is the filter going to be easy to get around using technologies like TOR, not only is the filter going to give you false positives, but it's actually going to ruin the quality of the internet experience. So it's going to be a lose, lose, lose situation. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Jesus, you have to turn everything into a BS conspiracy theory. The "truthers" in australia are even less numerous than in the US (and that is going by the number at turnouts estimated by aussie truthers). I guarantee you that 911 is completely irrelevant in australia. Virtually nobody knows of the conspiracy theories: fact. Im sorry if that hurts your feelings. i didnt say that 911truth didnt exist, just that almost no australians have even heard of them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN LOL, we just got rid of the extreme right government! |
| quote: |
| Liberal democracies aren't generally pleased with massive state-run mandatory Internet filtering schemes, but Australia's government is plowing ahead with just such a project. Stoking fears that such a scheme could easily blacklist legal content from all Australians, one national politician has now called for precisely that sort of a blacklist. Under the "Family First" party's scheme, hardcore sex and drug content would be added to the list of "illegal" content, even though they are actually legal for adults to view offline. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...banned-too.html |
Brought to you from an Australian 9/11 truther PKC,
Australians For A Free Internet
http://www.afafi.org
This will be a broad based, grass roots hub for social activism, with the focus on internet freedom.
The two main issues we will be confronting are :
1. Preserving Net Neutrality
2. Opposing the implementation of ISP based filtering systems.
The whole point of this website will be to educate and inform the general public and ultimately to change the policy of the federal government on internet freedom.
We will engage with all the arguments, and through intensive social activism at all levels we will attempt to gain the support of the Australian population to enshrine and protect internet freedom as a fundamental pillar of our society.
This campaign will not be directly tied to 9/11 Truth in any way. The aim is to make the membership as broad as possible.
More information will be provided soon.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut You should use google, it's your friend. The number of Aussies who believe the official story is horse shit is undeniable. Of course you live under a rock so..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Brought to you from an Australian 9/11 truther PKC, Australians For A Free Internet http://www.afafi.org This will be a broad based, grass roots hub for social activism, with the focus on internet freedom. The two main issues we will be confronting are : 1. Preserving Net Neutrality 2. Opposing the implementation of ISP based filtering systems. The whole point of this website will be to educate and inform the general public and ultimately to change the policy of the federal government on internet freedom. We will engage with all the arguments, and through intensive social activism at all levels we will attempt to gain the support of the Australian population to enshrine and protect internet freedom as a fundamental pillar of our society. This campaign will not be directly tied to 9/11 Truth in any way. The aim is to make the membership as broad as possible. More information will be provided soon. |
What ever troll, fight the power!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut What ever troll, fight the power! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wow, for once you and i might be on the same side of an issue! im writing to my local MPs as well as the relevant senator. an absolute disgrace. |
wow, this is... unexpected. Australia? WTF?
what gives? have there been some recent developments we haven't seen?
Start taking your http://www.speedtest.net/ snapshots now so you can compare later...
| quote: |
| yeah, me and my 59 buddies will get right on it! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ******** A couple points. 1. I am biased because I feel information and data should be free to exchange. Although I find the acts of child pornography and malicious data (viruses etc..) to be very bad. I think those things which are not directly malicious although potentially against some peoples tastes to do so. I think an opt in filter is OK. Eg. someone can say, no porn, or no child porn, or no viruses, or no illegal content etc.. However, quickly when people start asking for their child porn buffer to be lifted, it may be a clear indicator that maybe this person is somehow involved in child porn or a perv - but they could be writting a research paper on the subject. However, who exactly is building this filter, - and how much money would it cost. All in all I'm not in support of a filter--- but one must ask, well isn't reality filtered to begin with? What exactly makes life. Would this filter do anything to take down these sites? Why doesn't the government just knock down the truely illegal sites? Rather than censor them? |
Aren't the British implementing a similar system? I posted some articles on Britons' freedom plunge recently. And yes, it does include monitoring of the internet ... not as blunt as the Australian one, I suppose.
| quote: |
| Australian firewall trials start Digital Planet Alka Marwaha BBC World Service The Australian government is due to start a series of field trials this month in order to filter websites that are harmful to children. The 'cyber-safety plan', spearheaded by Australia's Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Stephen Conroy, will cost around AUS$126m (�55m) and will be implemented over a period of four years. However, opinion is sharply divided about how well the system will work, according to Radio New Zealand's Technology commentator Simon Morton who looked into the issue for the BBC World Service's Digital Planet programme. Many from the internet industry and freedom of speech groups fear that if the filtering system is implemented, then other illegal content as well as material the government deems inappropriate could be added and blocked in the future. A blacklist "This would see the government establishing a blacklist of websites it deems harmful and ISPs providing a clean feed of the internet," said Mr Morton. "The plan has support from groups like the Australian Christian Lobby, the Australian Family Association and Child Wise, a child protection charity working in Australia and the Pacific to prevent child abuse," he added. Mr Morton also spoke to the chief executive of Child Wise Bernadette McMenamin, who strongly feels that the internet needs to be regulated. Ms McMenamin notes that the public is divided among those who would like the internet left alone, and those "that say let's try some sort of filtering system that will at least reduce access to some of the most hideous and vile illegal images that nobody should be viewing". However, she feels that the new legislation still does not go far enough. "A home-based filtering will do absolutely nothing; it's ineffective and will probably only work for children up to seven years of age. "We estimate that 30 to 40% of child pornography images on the internet are contained on commercial sites. [This programme] will definitely restrict access to those images and that is better than nothing," she added. Countries like Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand have all implemented similar filtering systems, but they are all voluntary and not government-mandated. Such systems are also limited predominantly to blocking child pornography and are run by ISPs that customers can opt into. The internet industry has also raised concerns about internet slowing down, as previous filtering trials have reduced net speed by as much as 86%. "The only countries that really do have a widespread technological filtering or censorship regime are China, Iran and Saudi Arabia," said Colin Jacobs from Electronic Frontiers Australia, a group that represents online users' rights. "In countries like that, where free speech is a real issue, slowing down the internet is a secondary concern to blocking access to undesirable material," he added. Good in principle Senator Conroy feels that although the Australian government's idea is good in principle, the technology available cannot support it. "Unfortunately these filters only stop access to websites. Most illegal material these days is traded on peer-to-peer (P2P) or using other technologies that can't be filtered. "In terms of preventing access to illegal material, the policy is bound to be a failure," he added. This is not a new concept in Australia, as the previous administration trialled a free internet filter that people could use if they wanted. "The difference is that it was an optional filter, so Australians could choose if they wanted to use it rather than this latest plan for a mandatory filtering system," said Mr Morton. The field trials are due to start in December following lab-based tests that were completed last month. "If the field trial is successful, there would be a period of consultation, but at this stage there will be a blacklist of illegal sites," said Mr Morton. "The first tier, which internet users would not be able to opt out of, would block all illegal material. This could be scaled up or down, but control of the list, which would be un-published, is controlled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. "The second tier, which is optional, would have content deemed inappropriate for children, such as pornography and sexually explicit material filtered out completely," he added. Parental control "This is about establishing whether or not it is technically feasible. We're no further down the process than that," said Senator Conroy in a statement. "We have laws about the sort of material that is acceptable across all mediums and the internet is no different." Senator Conroy has since made statements in parliament saying the blacklist of sites is presently 1,300 strong, but the pilot will test up to 10,000 unspecified sites. However, Mr Jacobs does not think a filter is the solution. "Compiling a blacklist of sites that are forbidden is not really feasible because there are so many sites on the internet and that's just too much for a government bureaucracy to deal with," he said. "The risks that children face online aren't browsing material that's inappropriate accidentally or on purpose. It's things like cyber bullying, inappropriate chats and identity theft. "There are real risks that children face online and for that, parental supervision and discretion is required and there's no technological way to get around that," added Mr Jacobs. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/...ogy/7760996.stm |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.