Australian Internet Filtering Position

[halloz]

With sites like this appearing everywhere: http://www.dontfilterme.com

Just trying to get a general opinion with what everyone thinks of the filtering situation in Australia. Whether you believe its a good thing or a bad thing or you don't really care. I'm writing a letter to an Australian MP (Member of Parliament) and I want to get some actual opinions of what other systems administrators think of the internet filter, even if they are not in Australia. Not only at a technical aspect but at an opinion aspect as well.

Either reply on list or pm me. I just want to get a general idea.

Thanks,

Ryan.

[Bachstelze]

I would rather keep my gmail conversations, banking details and other information my business.

>my gmail conversations
>my business

http://iori.fkraiem.org/stuff/lol.jpg

[Spike-X]

My position is thus:

I am an adult human being. I do not need anyone else deciding for me what I should be able to see or read on the Internet. I will not vote for any government who decides it is their role to decide these things for me.

It is my job to decide what my children see or read on the Internet. I will not vote for any government who decides it is their role to decide these things for me.

The proposed filter will, like all available censorware, inevitably end up blocking perfectly legitimate content, while letting undesirable material slip through the net. And the bottom line, for all the WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! types, it will not prevent one child from being harmed in any way. Including the adorable little lass whose picture has been posted above, for I'm not quite sure what reason.

[Dustin2128]

My position is thus:

I am an adult human being. I do not need anyone else deciding for me what I should be able to see or read on the Internet. I will not vote for any government who decides it is their role to decide these things for me.

It is my job to decide what my children see or read on the Internet. I will not vote for any government who decides it is their role to decide these things for me.

The proposed filter will, like all available censorware, inevitably end up blocking perfectly legitimate content, while letting undesirable material slip through the net. And the bottom line, for all the WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! types, it will not prevent one child from being harmed in any way.
I agree completely.

As for some of the more pathetic examples of failed censorship, most schools in the U.S. have content filters which block perfectly legitimate sites, including wikipedia articles. For instance, when I was doing some research for a project on rome, the wikipedia page for Julius Caesar was blocked for 'martial arts'. It just gave me the mental image of roman ninjas... come to think of it, that probably would be an interesting idea for a movie... :popcorn:

Strange to think Australia was once a penal colony.

[sandyd]

and welcome to the new reality.... -> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html

[seenthelite]

Will not bother me. I am a law abiding citizen living in the best democracy in the world. ;) :D

[earthpigg]

When I am feeling disappointed by things going on in the US regarding technology & the internet, I often stop and say to myself "Thank God, at least, I don't live in Australia."

No joke.

Given the recent troubles you guys have had, I fear for the general collective future of your tech-savvy youth.

I realize there are plenty of places much worse for a nerd to live, but not many that can make a credible claim to be Democracies.

Not that we don't have our own very critical problems, of course, but they aren't as directly oppressive to nerds.

It's hard to make a post like this without making it too political and wandering into 'thread closed' territory. Please bear with the ambiguities in my post, and lets not turn this into a US/AUS ******* contest. My opinion was sought, and it has been provided.

[Old Marcus]

Yeah, the censoring in Oz appears to be pretty bad. In the UK it's not nearly as bad, any filtering that does happen is at the whim of ISPs and schools. And like others have said filtering software is utterly useless. At my old school, it was too easy to find an accessible 'adult' site (just to see if we could, you understand :P) whereas a wikipedia article on the Pope was blocked under 'Porn'.

On the general ethics of censoring, I choose what I want to see, not anyone else. Telling people what they can or cannot see is akin to a dictatorship, except a dictatorship is better, because it is honest. This is just pretending to 'protect the poor little children!' when it does nothing of the sort. Not saying that that isn't their goal, just that it is pointlessly draconian.

Sorry if this is straying into the realms of politics, if it is I will refrain, but that is just my thoughts on the subject.

[seenthelite]

We are about to have a Federal Election and if the average Australian does not want Internet Filtering it will not happen.


The Australian government (cough cough, Stephen Conroy) want to filter and monitor our internet! I don't know about you, but I don't like being watched by big brother! I would rather keep my gmail conversations, banking details and other information my business.

If people are concerned now is the time to make it an election issue.

[earthpigg]

In the UK it's not nearly as bad, any filtering that does happen is at the whim of ISPs and schools.

If consumers still have a choice, and if the filtered service is the more expensive option, then I have no objections to ISP-provided filters being available.

(Though using OpenDNS would still probably be a better option for concerned parents with kids in the house. You know, since parenting is now apparently obsolete.)

Zero objections to school filters. Ditto for public library filters, and filters in the workplace.

[Rodney9]

What will they censor next ???

[cascade9]

When I am feeling disappointed by things going on in the US regarding technology & the internet, I often stop and say to myself "Thank God, at least, I don't live in Australia."

No joke.

Given the recent troubles you guys have had, I fear for the general collective future of your tech-savvy youth.

I realize there are plenty of places much worse for a nerd to live, but not many that can make a credible claim to be Democracies.

Not that we don't have our own very critical problems, of course, but they aren't as directly oppressive to nerds.

It's hard to make a post like this without making it too political and wandering into 'thread closed' territory. Please bear with the ambiguities in my post, and lets not turn this into a US/AUS ******* contest. My opinion was sought, and it has been provided.

At risk of, to use your phrase, 'turning this into a US/AUS ******* contest', when people here hear about the drug laws, gun problems, etc in the US, its common to say 'thank god at least we dont live in US'. Everywhere has 'issues' of some kind......

IMO, a 2 party system is not a democracy. I'll leave it at that, or else I will getting too political.


If consumers still have a choice, and if the filtered service is the more expensive option, then I have no objections to ISP-provided filters being available.

(Though using OpenDNS would still probably be a better option for concerned parents with kids in the house. You know, since parenting is now apparently obsolete.)

Zero objections to school filters. Ditto for public library filters, and filters in the workplace.

Choice? LMAO. Our Overlards Know Better Than Us.


We are about to have a Federal Election and if the average Australian does not want Internet Filtering it will not happen.

If people are concerned now is the time to make it an election issue.

An 'election issue' like it was last time? ;)

Sorry, but politics is more complicated than that. Even if it does pop up on the media 'radar' its still going to be a bit player in where the votes go.

I am betting that labour says NOTHING about the filter, and if reelected will then sprout on about how they have a 'mandate', etc..

*edit- if australia does get an internet filter, lots of other places will follow. Not just 3rd world countries.

[seenthelite]

@ cascade9. I agree with you, the sad reality is that they need to consider a filter because some people use the internet inappropriately.(in the governments point of view.)

[Dustin2128]

Well, I'm pretty sure that if Australia gets this passed (IIRC they're trying a rush-it-through strategy), the US will probably be the the first to follow suit. I'm seriously considering building a list of backup countries... Needless to say, a locked down internet is a huge step back for freedom everywhere (and computing). When an authority has the ability to censor anything whatsoever, it is no longer truly a democracy. I sense closure in this thread's future... it is kind of political.

[handy]

I wrote Conroy a letter some time back detailing that the filtering system won't work for anyone that wants to get around it & that it was therefore a huge waste of the taxpayers money. Money that would be spent far more wisely & effectively in education programs that gave parents who needed it, an understanding of how the internet works on the client side, so that they would be able to communicate with their children in a more effective manner on internet related topics, & to therefore be able to incorporate that part of our society into into the multifaceted nurturing/protection that I think it is safe to say is part of a healthy family.

Many months later I received a reply containing 17 pages of meaningless technobabble from Conroys office.

I have also written to other members of State & Federal Parliament, receiving the expected replies from all of them.

I think that Conroy is just the front man for a government that is being manipulated by the likes of Rupert Murdoch. There are entities that want ownership of as much of the internet as they can, as they know that it is THE mode of world communication & that it will become THE prime means of controlling people's minds & is supplanting the old means very quickly.

[cascade9]

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html

*Too annoyed at this to even try a reasonable post*

[seenthelite]

I am curious about how these guys were caught if some governments are not monitoring internet usage now.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/email-superspammer-fined-16m-20091201-k1sc.html

[handy]

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html

*Too annoyed at this to even try a reasonable post*

These RRs holes, totally forget what their job is supposed to be, they are OUR representatives!!!

Further, she said that although she had acknowledged the public's right to "participate in and influence the processes of government decision making and policy formulation ... the premature release of the proposal could, more than likely, create a confusing and misleading impression".

(my highlight)

Don't tell the people anything until it has been packaged in just the right way & the lights have been set to show it at its best, hiding the grotesque in the shadows.

If this country goes too far down the tube due to corporate controlled government policies I'm moving to the South Island of NZ.

[Viva]

I have absolutely no argument against filtering at the ISP level. Most ISPs are, after all, private organisations. Filtering by the government is unacceptable though, unless the filtered content comes under obscenity laws. Filtering political opinion is a no-no though, no matter how ridiculous the said opinion may be.

[Dustin2128]

I am curious about how these guys were caught if some governments are not monitoring internet usage now.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/email-superspammer-fined-16m-20091201-k1sc.html
I always find it funny when they put quotations around a well known or accepted computer term. To me that's like "hard drive" or "RAM".
...allegedly controlled a "botnet"...

[Spike-X]

Will not bother me. I am a law abiding citizen

Good for you. So am I, which is why I don't want or need Nanny Conroy looking over my shoulder, assuming I'm going to look at something naughty unless he's there to stop me. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions.


living in the best democracy in the world.

That's debatable.

[seenthelite]

Good for you. So am I, which is why I don't want or need Nanny Conroy looking over my shoulder, assuming I'm going to look at something naughty unless he's there to stop me. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions.


I do not support or agree with the proposed Australian Internet Filtering. If Labor is returned and the Opposition controls the Senate I doubt they will support or pass the legislation. :D

[randomizer101]

and welcome to the new reality.... -> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html

Funny how just a week or two ago they made a Declaration of Open Government: http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/07/16/declaration-of-open-government/


We are about to have a Federal Election and if the average Australian does not want Internet Filtering it will not happen.

Why wouldn't the average Australian want the Government to stop child porn and protect children? That's what this is about... right? ;)


IMO, a 2 party system is not a democracy. I'll leave it at that, or else I will getting too political.

It is a democracy, it's just a failed democracy. The problem is most people think that voting for a party that will "never get in" is a wasted vote. On the contrary, voting for a major party is a wasted vote, because it means they have no reason to be accountable to the public. After all, both the ALP and Coalition/LNP have a 50/50 chance of getting in. Why would accountability be a requirement?

I plan to vote for minor parties and independents and put the Big Two at the bottom of the list. Independents can only survive by listening to their constituents. Major parties survive just because being at the polling booths is like being at a football game: everyone votes for their team (or in this day and age everyone votes for the team captain which is really sad because policies never cross peoples' minds any more).

Vote below the line. Voting above means your preferenced party votes for you.


I do not support or agree with the proposed Australian Internet Filtering. If Labor is returned and the Opposition controls the Senate I doubt they will support or pass the legislation. :D

Why wouldn't the Opposition want control over information flow? It's a grey area. The Shadow Comms Minister is a moron and completely silent on the issue and politicians will typically do anything to gain and/or maintain control over information. On the flip side, the Opposition had Senate majority during their last term in Government and decided not to pass filtering legislation because they didn't think it could work according to their evidence.

The difference between the former and current Governments' positions is that the former was evidence-based policy while the current Government prefers policy-based evidence.

[km6xz]

I find it interesting that you people down there are even discussing this as a policy choice, as if you have any say in the process. I also find it rare and refreshing that some democracies still have a element of citizen discussion that is civil and reasonable, despite the odds against it...i.e. isn't Murdock still in charge of public information as he is in the US. The only thing I have against Australia is that you guys somehow convinced Murdock that he could fry larger fish if he left you alone and focused on destroying the US. Thanks a lot.

Actually, as a positive sign, while traveling around the world I find that there is more citizen participation in their governments than ever, particularly in places where that is a new concept. The only place where it has gone from bad to inconceivably bad is the US where the official policy is now that corporations have ultimate control of public policy, education, health, military issues and all aspects of the economy, foreign relations, and the systematic elimination of the middle class. Since you still have either the reality of or the illusion of a citizen dominated democracy, debate away and make a reasoned, informed decision......good luck!

If I was a citizen down there I would not want the government involved at all in information exchange. Nothing good can come of it. But I am in favor of many roles for the government, with proper oversight by the people, in establishing and maintaining the "commons" such as universal education and health services, national defense, and regulation of industry for the benefit of the people. None of that requires government supervision of information.

[lisati]

At the end of the day, the ISPs and ESPs are accountable to their paying customers, not the government. If enough people talk with their wallets.....

[KiwiNZ]

Please keep discussion to Internet Filtering and keep general Political discussion out of the thread.

[chiliman]

I think its funny when adults have to tell other adults what they can hear say and see, on tv, internet, and radio. I dont like it when people go around and try to micromanage your life with their "I know what you want, you dont know what you want; and im going to make you have it" crap. When people start acting like that they go all gung-ho on telling you how they want YOU to live, and ignore any unforseen consequences of their actions.

[audiomick]

As I read the first post, I was all set to answer, but Spike beat me to it in post #3.

[Spike-X]

At the end of the day, the ISPs and ESPs are accountable to their paying customers, not the government. If enough people talk with their wallets.....
The proposed filter is mandatory, which means all ISPs in Australia will have to comply. We won't have a choice.

[seenthelite]

Conroy shelves net filter as election looms.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/conroy-shelves-net-filter-as-election-looms/story-e6frg6n6-1225889985524

[Dustin2128]

Conroy shelves net filter as election looms.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/conroy-shelves-net-filter-as-election-looms/story-e6frg6n6-1225889985524
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.

[t0p]

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 (http://*******ooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html) 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?"

[PhilGil]

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.

[seenthelite]

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]

[seenthelite]

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.