Slashdot Mirror

#define RANT_MODE

The Online Censorship Bill was the result of a grubby little compromise between the government and a independent Senator from Tasmania who happened to hold the balance of power in the Senate at the time. The guy is a fanatical Catholic and is constantly trying to ban porn, restrict access to abortions and contraception, and generally demonstrate what a wowser he can be. The government was trying to get a tax bill through the Senate, and they needed this guy's vote. Hence, from absolutely nowhere, this ridiculous Bill was rushed through.

#endif

What most people in Australia seem to have conveniently forgotten is that Harradine (the Tasmanian Senator) is not the only backer of this legislation. A group within the current Liberal Party (conservatives) known as the Lyons Forum are just as much behind this. Harradine is a convenient smokescreen for their conservative (extreme religious) agenda.

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/lyons.html has more information.

#define RANT_MODE

The Online Censorship Bill was the result of a grubby little compromise between the government and a independent Senator from Tasmania who happened to hold the balance of power in the Senate at the time. The guy is a fanatical Catholic and is constantly trying to ban porn, restrict access to abortions and contraception, and generally demonstrate what a wowser he can be. The government was trying to get a tax bill through the Senate, and they needed this guy's vote. Hence, from absolutely nowhere, this ridiculous Bill was rushed through.

#endif

The local Internet industry didn't know whether to protest, laugh, or cry. Most seem to be taking a fourth option - relocating both themselves and their servers to the States, happily beyond this stupid law.Electronic Frontiers Australia is working as hard as they can to publicise the impact of the new law, but the mainstream media isn't interested.

In any case, I intend to treat the law with the contempt it deserves and set up a secure proxy connection to a US-based server. It's my guess that, before too long, the bill with either be quietly discarded through ignorance, or cause an uproar when people can't get to their favourite porn sites. Either way, watching the next few months would be fun if it wasn't so tragic.

...and, for a lighter take on the whole business, may we present this satire.
ÐÆ

You think that there will be a big messy fight do you? well, i certainly hoped so. When the US Government tried to pass the CDA, the whole WORLD cried out.

But when the Australian government successfully passed legislation to make Australia have the 3rd most restrictive internet laws in the world, there wasn't a peep from the main stream media about it.

actually the government passed it in 2 weeks, whilst discussion the GST lasted for MONTHS! (and continues still). The main (read "only") reason it was passed so easily and quickly (full support in both houses by both major parties) was so that the Liberal government could pass the GST.

they want to use a filtering system. ok... but how does it work. well the system endorsed and passed by our Hon Minister for Telecommunications, Information Technology and (wait for it) the Arts (mmmm... i get it, the arts ppl get the pizza for us IT ppl.... frowns) lets porn though, but bans many free speech sites including the bible. (read the press release from the EFA)

don't you love the fact that the source code for linux may now be illegal on the internet in australia because of some of the comments in it (read this for the /. article)

just my little contribution
\\||//
----ooo00ooo----

But I'm still not impressed. The people backing this scheme must still realise that this is bad legislation, and that the scheme itself, prima facie, is a nefarious one. It would oblige Australian internet users to accept censorship based not on the criteria decided by government (which would be bad enough, but at least allows for public scrutiny and a formal process), but by the private makers of censorship software. And the EFA's pages themselves provide an example of what happens when censorship decisions fall to private hands.

There is a long tradition in Australia of avoiding threats of government regulation by proposing a scheme of essentially unenforced industry self-regulation, allowing the government to wash their hands of the issue, which self-regulation the industry essentially ignores. But I can't help feel that this is a particularly craven approach for the Australian internet community to be taking, especially since it shifts the burden of dishonesty to all internet users, who now have to either allow (doubtless mostly US) proprietary software makers to censor their Internet viewing for them, or lie that they are doing so.

BTW, it seems to me that this article never made it to slashdot's front page. Last night (Australian time), the article on "The World's Smallest PII Motherboard" was at the top of the page, without the current article being there; this morning, the PII motherboard article is at the bottom of the page, and the current article turned up in yesterday's list. Or am I hallucinating?

Noone likes CyberPatrol, they are always missing the mark. Here's another complaint.


Abraham Lincoln said "no main is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent."

One serious problem the Australian government faced was that many `porn' sites are password protected, and perhaps the owners of those sites would not like to give Australian government agencies the right to access their sites so they can be prohibited.

So it may be necessary to hack the sites, or to fraudulently gain access to their copyrighted material, which contravenes Crimes Act Sect 76 (and elsewhere), which act provides for a jail sentence.

What to do? It's simple: suspend the operation of all Australian criminal law as it applies to the operation of the censorship act. So that's what they did, in Part 8 - Protection from civil and criminal proceedings. What does `Draconian' mean anyway?

What does this legislative provision actually mean? Well, for example, since you might have a password or cryptographic key deemed reasonably necessary to permit the ABA to obtain information, the ABA can hire a consultant to obtain the password by torturing you. Giving Spooks the right to hack.

What is also interesting, in this regard, is the suppressed content of the Australian Government's Walsh Report " Review of Policy relating to Encryption Technologies." The government tried to suppress its contents, including this paragraph, among others which demonstrate the same intent:

1.2.28 The Crimes Act 1914 should be amended to permit the AFP, NCA and ASIO to 'hack' into a nominated computer system to secure access to that system or evidence of an electronic attack on a computer system. (paragraphs 6.2.3; 6.2.22 refer)

People have been wondering why the Australian government would bother trying to legislate to turn back the tide of internet content and have laughed at their ineptitude in writing the legislation. I suggest that the censorship legislation is merely a Trojan horse as cover for the kinds of covert operations spooks have been begging for.

This Trojan horse should be seen in the context of such legislation as NSW Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 which enables police forces to break the law in order to catch criminals, after a case was lost on appeal to the High Court because the court exercised a judicial discretion to exclude evidence in a case where a criminal offence has been procured by illegal conduct on the part of police.

> No, it has no equivalent of the American Bill
> of Rights (e.g. the freedom of speech for
> ordinary citizens is *NOT* guaranteed by the
> constitution).

To a certain extent the rights of citizens are (supposed to be) protected by the constitution. You are correct in statting that there is no Bill of Rights; however, since the constitution does set down the system of government, it is considered by the courts to guarantee the rights of the citizens necessary for that system of government to function.

For example, since the constitution describes a parliamentary democracy, and freedom of (political) speech is necessary for a democracy, freedom of speech is considered by the courts to be protected by the constitution.

Recent rulings by the high court, however, have been somewhat selective in their interpretation of these rights. "Freedom of political speech" might be guaranteed by the constitution, but how do you differentiate between "political" and "non-political" speech? Apparently the courts consider the encouragement of civil disobedience (as in the editors of the Rabelais student magazine, charged for publishing an article on shoplifting) to be "non-political", and therefore not a protected form of speech.

Read more!

Danny.

Meanwhile, join in protest actions around the nation on May 28. If you can ring your local member this week to express your concerns about the Bill, that may also be effective.

Danny.

The sheep of Australia are no different than any other country; since they've abdicated personal and parental responsibility, they're demanding their own government do the dirty work. What a bunch of lamers.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what we want. This survey shows that less than 3% of Australian net users are worried about indecent content. What this is really about is the government trying to get the support of a single senator who happens to be very morally conservative.

Some useful Links:

Global Internet Liberty Campaign www.gilc.org

Electonic Frontiers Australia, www.efa.org.au

and of course
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, www.eff.org

The Electronic Privacy Information Center

And here's an idea: this sounds like a PERFECT reason to boycott the Sydney 2000 Olympics. After all, it always works best to get a country by the short-and-curlies if you REALLY want its' attention. . . .

Check out http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/may28/ and http://www.bofh.net.au/~gimila/poster.jpg for details on the rallys.

Typically, Australia is mirroring USA quite horribly, with a moral minority running the country and forcing us to live to their ideals. And this is supposed to be a democracy.

What a crock.

Details here - and protest rallies this Friday! (May 28th)

Danny.

Details here - and protest rallies this Friday! (May 28th)

Danny.

Unfortunately the moral conservatives in power think restricting free speech is a good thing in itself.

Danny.

You can read more about this here.

Danny.