Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Australian Internet Filtering Position

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Death Star IV
    Beans
    492
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Australian Internet Filtering Position

    Quote Originally Posted by seenthelite View Post
    Conroy shelves net filter as election looms.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225889985524
    This is good, but I hope the goal of this isn't to have people forget about it so they can sign it behind their backs.
    I had to do it.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    over there
    Beans
    2,426
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Australian Internet Filtering Position

    I've been living with censored internet access for a few weeks now (I'm using a Vodafone UK "mobile broadband" dongle, and Voda won't remove the content control filter because I don't have a credit card or photo ID) and it stinks! Sure, there are plenty of ways of getting round a block; but those who maintain the censorship are often only a step or two behind us.

    I can see no justification for restriction of access based on content. Of course child pornography is foul and evil and those who make, distribute and use it should be punished. But child abuse is not a technological problem, so it's a waste of time trying to find a technological solution for it. And it's just the thin edge of the wedge: if we accept filtering for this purpose, it won't be too difficult further down the line to accept filtering for other reasons. This kind of thing needs stamping on now before it's got out of the box and scurried out under the door. People who burn books would torch entire libraries if we let them. So man those hoses, dammit!!

    EDIT: I came across this some while ago, and I thought this is an apposite time to share it with you. The stuff "they" think needs censoring is always considered oh-so-horrid at the time; but a few years later we say "So what's so terrible of that then?"
    Last edited by t0p; July 26th, 2010 at 10:50 PM.
    "All people are scum. No matter what they look like." ~ Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan #4
    blog


  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Beans
    329

    Re: Australian Internet Filtering Position

    Those of you who think this can't happen in the US are very wrong. Numerous attempts have already been made to control our online activities and access to content, with only the federal courts holding the line on first amendment grounds. If the corporations that own our legislature and judiciary decide it's in their interest to enact these laws, restrictions will be in place faster than you can say "Citizens United decision."

    For my Australian friends, I'm glad to hear the government is reconsidering. It is never, ever, ever a good idea to give government control over the free exchange of information, no matter how repulsive that information may be.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Queensland
    Beans
    174
    Distro
    Kubuntu Development Release

    Re: Australian Internet Filtering Position

    Policy of current Federal Government
    On 31 December 2007, Stephen Conroy announced the Federal Government's intention to introduce an ISP-based filter to censor "inappropriate material" from the Internet to protect children. In this announcement, it was stated that adults could opt out of the filter to receive an uncensored internet.[34]
    In May 2008, the government commenced an $82 million “cybersafety plan” which included an additional mandatory filter with no opt-out provision. This ISP-based filter aims to stop adults from downloading content that is illegal to possess in Australia, such as child pornography or materials related to terrorism.[35]
    In March 2009, Stephen Conroy dismissed suggestions that the Government would use the filter to crack down on political dissent as "conspiracy theories". He stated that the filter would only be used to remove "refused classification" (RC) content, using the same rationale as existing television, radio and print publications, and that the Senate could be relied upon to provide rigorous assessment of any proposed legislation.[36] However, Labor's policy statement on the issue [37][dead link] contradicts this. It is also contrary to an earlier ministerial release in 2008.[38]
    The most recent explanation of the government's position on this issue is provided on the ministry website.[39] This clearly states that only ISP-level filtering of (designated) refused classification (RC) material will be mandatory under their policy. However, ISP's will be encouraged to offer ISP-level filtering of 'adult content' as an optional (commercial) service to their customers. Such an optional extra service is aimed at parents trying to protect their children from 'undesirable' content that would otherwise be available, because it would not be RC (e.g. it might receive a classification of "R").
    Labor Senator Kate Lundy said in January 2010 that she is lobbying within the party for an "opt-out" filter, describing it as the "least worst" option.[40] In February 2010 she said she would propose the opt-out option when the filtering legislation goes before caucus.[41]
    Stephen Conroy has stated that 85% of Internet Service Providers, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iiNet, welcome the Internet filter.[42] In response, Steve Dalby, iiNet's chief regulatory officer, stated that iiNet as a company does not support the Internet filter, and never has.[43]
    On 9 July 2010, Stephen Conroy announced that any mandatory filtering would be delayed until at least 2011.[44]

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Queensland
    Beans
    174
    Distro
    Kubuntu Development Release

    Re: Australian Internet Filtering Position

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilGil View Post
    Those of you who think this can't happen in the US are very wrong. Numerous attempts have already been made to control our online activities and access to content, with only the federal courts holding the line on first amendment grounds. If the corporations that own our legislature and judiciary decide it's in their interest to enact these laws, restrictions will be in place faster than you can say "Citizens United decision."

    For my Australian friends, I'm glad to hear the government is reconsidering. It is never, ever, ever a good idea to give government control over the free exchange of information, no matter how repulsive that information may be.
    According to information freely available on the internet, Some Internet censorship (filtering) is already in place in the US.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship

    Of course it may not be accurate.
    Last edited by seenthelite; July 27th, 2010 at 12:56 AM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •