Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government To Mandate Internet Filters
ratzmilk writes "The Australian government is mandating the creation of 'clean' internet feeds. To be optionally made available to schools and homes that request it, the feed would offer built-in filters of 'pornography and inappropriate content'. Said Senator Controy: 'Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road ... If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.'"
Stephen Conroy was on the TV talking about this tonight. It looks like they will make a list of sites which "promote violence and distribute child pornography and instruct ISP's to redirect http requests to them.
There is a lot of handwaving in this. Don't mention torrents or proxies. I would be very surprised if they try to block major porn sites which have a mix of content. Conroy has had his photo opportunity. Probably nothing more to see here.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"To be optionally made available to schools and homes that request it, the feed would offer built-in filters of 'pornography and inappropriate content'"
If they really stick to that deal, then maybe there won't be a problem.
However, if the "control" is optional, why is it called regulation? Last time I checked regulation was not optional. Furthermore, why even start in this first place. People can apply their own filters. It's called free will.
Right, because looking at ANY "inappropriate" material (and who decides what "inappropriate" is, anyway?) is the EXACT same as looking at child porn. No difference whatsoever.
Granted, you can opt out of this service, so I'm not 100% incensed that such a thing is being called for (but I'd be much happier if it were opt-in instead of opt-out). However, I am very pissed that people can make statements like the above and not get laughed out of office. When did false equivalency become acceptable? It makes my head asplode sometimes.
I can has sig?
To silence critics. If you are against the proposal you like child pornography and aids terrorists.
How is it false? If your neighbor jacking off in his basement to pictures of 8 year olds really harms you, then so does him jacking off to pictures of women sucking off donkeys, right? But how is that not like him taking pleasure in shooting cops, or watching videos of people shooting cops? What about talking to people about how he likes jacking off to pics of 8 year olds? Or talking to people about how he likes shooting cops on the tv? Doesnt that just reinforce the behavior?
How you folks continue to justify one step down the slippery slope is beyond me. How about the idea "stay the fuck out of my home and I'll stay the fuck out of yours?"
This is a good place to employ a whitelist. Allow a very limited number of sites. Everything else is blocked. Blocked sites can be unblocked on request.
Of course, the first blocks should go on lines servicing Government agencies. After all, they shouldn't be surfing pr0n at work.
I figure a week of virtually no internet would turn the heads of the lawmakers.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
If you are a Labour party senator you have bought valuable votes to tuck away for the next election, and got your face on the evening news. That is well worth the millions of dollars.
And if you want to bypass a filter, a 13 year old is definitely the person to see about it.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The main problem with this legislation is that it is based on a slippery slope fallicy; The fact that you can tell the difference between group sex among consenting adult and forced sex between adults and children means that you can tell the top of the slope from the bottom.
The issue with 'child pornography' is whether you define the veiwing/possesion/dissemination of it to be a lesser/equal offense to creating it. Clearly, the act of creating it is counter to our current collective sociatial morality, but the problem with our current laws is that they equate possesion/dissemination with creation. The problem here, is that the laws are written so broadly, that they can be used against minors as in this case http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm where the minor charged with possesion and dissemination of 'child pornography' (along with child abuse) was the minor depicted in the aforementioned pornography.
Add to this the problem of the label 'sex offender,' and you have a recipie for disaster. The biggest problem with the label 'sex offender' is that it is so broad, encompasing everything from raping and murdering an adult, to molesting (a) child(ren), to public urination. Add to this that politicians make laws abridging the freedoms of these so called 'sex offenders' all whilst waving the 'protect the children' banner. The best example of this are laws requiring 'sex offenders' from handing out candy on Halloween. The issue here is that the 'sex offender' label does not differentiate between granny-rapists and child-rapists, thus unnecessarally abridging the freedoms of those who have never sexually exploited children.
I have little problem with laws that punish certian offenders equally and equitibly, but I feel that current laws restricting 'sex offenders' are so broad, that they associate such completely different crimes (public urination has as much to do with intercourse as my use of a car to get to a bank has with a bank robber's use of a car for his getaway) with one another thus causing it to fall into the realm of "cruel and unusual punishment" as people automatically assume that 'sex offenders' have sexually exploited another human (usually a minor) resulting in those so labled having difficulty living 'normal' lives.
At first I was going to write a post saying how this is a pretty decent solution and they're offering an opt-out option, but after thinking about it more:
Why does the government have to require this? If the consumer demand is for filtered access, there are tools already in place to help parents "protect" their children. Many of them are free. If the demand were high enough, an ISP could also offer their own filtered service (it would probably not cost them any extra since those users are less likely to use lots of bandwidth).
This will suck for people who want to access filtered material. They'll either have to call the ISP or register somehow, possibly in writing, which goes in the face of privacy.
The ISP will have a database of users with the "pervert" bit and who knows what might happen with that. Will that data be confidential? Or can the ISP sell the list to its "marketing partners" and send users direct mail offers for porn?
If subpoenaed, can that data be brought up in court? "Your honor, the only evidence we have that this man committed the crime is that he is - pause for effect - an unfiltered user. And you know what that means."
The filtering service needs to be opt-in, not required of the ISPs, and controlled via the market.
-David