Slashdot Mirror
Dismal Failure of Internet Filters In Australia
An anonymous reader writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), the department responsible for implementing the insane Internet regulatory framework put in place by the current government, is about to drop a number of Internet Filtering packages due to their ineffectiveness. The full article is available here. There is also news that the Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston (whom The Register has labeled the Worlds Biggest Luddite :) ) is awaiting a review of the law with possible changes to follow. Be afraid Australia, be very afraid!"
Press release from the EFA (Australia's version of the EFF):
--------
Media Release: 3 March 2003
Censorship laws contribute to youth access to violent pornography
Australian censorship laws contribute to the problem of youth access to
pornographic material of the violent and extreme kind, Electronic Frontiers
Australia (EFA) said today.
The Australia Institute recently surveyed 200 youths 16-17 years old and
found that "teenagers view X-rated videos more than Internet sex sites",
although the sale of X-rated videos is illegal in all States.
"Apparently, Australian laws prohibiting sale of X-rated videos have failed
to prevent youth access to this type of video. It's even less likely that
government attempts to prevent access to content on the world-wide Internet
can be successful," said Irene Graham, EFA's Executive Director.
"Australian laws already empower the Australian Broadcasting Authority to
enforce deletion of any X-rated material found on Australian hosted
Internet sites and The Australia Institute's report does not suggest that
the laws have failed in this regard."
The Australia Institute said a "distinction needs to be drawn between
'mainstream' pornography (in commercially available X-rated videos) and the
proliferation of violent and extreme material on the Internet".
"Australian Internet censorship laws go far beyond the realms of community
standards and practicality," said Graham. "Mainstream pornography
containing sexually explicit X-rated material without the slightest
indication of violence, coercion or demeaning depictions, and also R rated
material that is not sexually explicit, is banned in the same way as
depictions of rape, bestiality and so on. Mere nudity, like a Playboy
magazine centre-fold, is banned. As a result, adults and teenagers seeking
mainstream pornography online, visit overseas sites where they are very
likely to be exposed to violent and extreme pornography."
EFA said relaxation of Australian Internet censorship laws would be more
successful in minimising access to violent and extreme kinds of pornography
than would more restrictive legislation.
"The laws should be changed to permit on-line provision of Australian
X-rated material, a category that has long prohibited violent and extreme
pornography," said Graham. "This would allow the small proportion of
Internet users who seek pornographic material online, whether adult or
teenage, to access strictly regulated Australian sites. At present, they
have no option other than to visit overseas sites that also contain
horrific material and that are not, and never will be, subject to
Australia's censorship laws."
EFA considers that minors' access to pornography online is a matter of
serious concern. However, given the global nature of the Internet, more
restrictive Australian laws would be no more effective than current laws.
... and then there were none
It's kinda weird. In the US a naked tit causes so much trouble it has to be pixelated out of TV shows. Here nobody is bothered by tits.
But we have this peculiar web censorship law to (try to) stop us seeing tits online. As far as I can (dimly) remember it was an offering to an ultra-conservative state senator to get him to vote for the privitisation of our telephone monopoly. We got the dud law, and he voted against privitisation. Oh how we laughed. Not!
I always thought it would just fade into obscurity over time, but now with Howard crawling up the bum of Dubbya, I expect every crackpot US idea to be imported, and none of our own crackpot ideas to be discarded. Sigh.
The ISPs are merely compelled to provide approved filtering software to their customers at cost.
No one is actually forced to filter content. As the article says only 17% of parents have actually bothered to install such filters.
Some groups are promoting mandatory filtering and some are dead against it which is pretty much how you'd expect things to be.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Unfortunately, what was being implied by the parent post is absolutely wrong. The internet censoring down here is NOTHING like the "great firewall of China" since this censoring effort is merely an attempt to black-list sites of questionable and illegal nature eg: online casinos, REALLY offensive pr0n etc...
Proxies have never been required to bypass such a system because, only some 11 or so sites (as of a year or two's count, and I seriously doubt this number has increased all that much) have been censored by this 'law', and may I add, at quite a considerable expense for each site (at least AUD$10k+ each IIRC)
As for the impact this filtering system has had on AUS net users? None whatsoever. The sooner it is out of operation, the better. The money would be better spent elsewhere
I beg to differ! The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is against reigon-coding DVDs because of the anti-compeditive aspects of it, but walk into any place selling DVD players in Australia and I guarentee you that better than %95 of them are reigon-coded. Because of ambiguity regarding the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act (Australia's version of the DMCA) and whether this makes reigon-free DVD players illegal "circumvention devices", most places will not stock (or admit to stocking) reigon-free DVD players.
Oh, and Electronic Frontiers Australia has issued a Press Release about this..
Just a note from a Canberran.
There are two governments in the ACT.
The Federal government...those on the hill under the giant lump of aluminium, and the ACT Legislative assemibly, the people that make decisions on behalf of the Canberra people.
Please don't say that decisions coming from the former are from Canberra, as they are not.
The federal government has shown that it doesn't give a shit about Canberra (The lodge is a big, expensive, empty house ever since little johnny got elected), and we, definitely don't want anything to do with them, and hate it when those in other states say 'Canberra said....'. Because we, as Canberrans definitely did not say.
Advanced users are users too!