Australian Internet Filter Enters Trial Phase

blake writes "News.com.au reports "The Government's plan to have internet service providers filter pornography and other internet content deemed inappropriate for children is going full-steam ahead. [...] The trial will evaluate ISP-level internet content filters in a controlled environment while filtering content inappropriate for children." It all sounds in good taste, and we are told that you will be able to opt out at any time, but will putting this filter in place simply give the powers that be the ability to block access to content for their own agendas. Censorship may be necessary, but should it be overseen by Government."

Comments

No, no, a thousand times no.

[KublaiKhan]

Government is the -last- entity that should oversee any censorship--because it has the most to gain from having such control.

Re:No, no, a thousand times no.

[KublaiKhan]

Or even just take the step of making it an opt-IN rather than an opt-OUT service. That alone would make it far less suspicious looking.

Re:No, no, a thousand times no.

[Brian Gordon]

Or even leave it up to *gasp* the private sector to provide censorship software. Buying services from a company is the obvious opt-in solution. It doesn't make any sense to have the government provide opt-in services since everyone who's not opting in is helping to pay for it.

Re:No, no, a thousand times no.

[gnick]

*WHO* decides what "must" go in .xxx. We may be straying a bit off-topic here but, IMHO, there's no reason to force anything onto the .xxx domain. Just make it available so that "legitimate" pornographers can opt-in. Then, those who are offended by such content can filter it easily and ignore it. And, it would be easier for concerned parties to focus on sites that remain on the .com side that are acting irresponsibly (failure to do age verification / illegal content / etc.)

Censorship Is Never Necessary

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Censorship is never necessary. Ever.

But fighting it always is.

Re:Censorship Is Never Necessary

[kestasjk]

Everyone is referring to the "Australian Government", I feel I have to point out that this is the Australian Labor Government, which was recently elected.

The Australian Liberal Government had a different idea on how to stop kids running into unsavory characters; tell them about the risks and what to look out for. There was a widely run and very successful ad campaign, which just gives kids the message "weird old guys will lie to you online, so don't believe everything you're told". Problem: Guys tricking kids online. Solution: Let all the kids and parents know that guys will do that, so watch out for it. Makes sense right?

The Australian Labor Government, shortly after being elected, decided that the impossible task of making the internet pre-school safe was a better solution.

Unfortunately we have to wait a few years while Australia realizes Labor is a big step backwards, Rudd said whatever he needed to get in (a pro-coal government who pledge to ratify Kyoto, there's sincerity for you), and we can go back to Liberal.

Re:Censorship Is Never Necessary

[N3wsByt3]

This argument is also known as the "OMG! Thinkofthechildren!"-argument.

I'm always struck by the inherent hypocrisy of it. At the same time, I believe people should be able to raise their kids as they see fit (at least, to a large degree), and the government shouldn't come into the picture anyway.

I guess the best solution would be to be involved with your children, talk to them about certain things on the internet, and if necessary, show your disapproval of certain things... but leave them SOME choice, even when you have the tendency to block all of it.

Because, let's be frank: WHO didn't start to get to know about "it" when they still were kids. I remember - in my days when the Net wasn't around - in the school some kid or another brought a Playboy with him, and we were all watching with big eyes what was in it. It's just the way things go; one learns about these things BEFORE one gets 18, and well...we all know how; by watching it 'under the radar' of parents and the like. Why? Heck, because we knew they would 'censor' it if they could - even if they themselves learned it the same way.

This never-ending cycle of hypocrisy is what bothers me the most. People constantly get in the 'savethechildren'-mode, conveniently forgetting - every damn generation - that they did JUST the same, and it was that way they got to know about it.

Of course, you have exceptions; like in China, where a married copple of over 20 didn't even know how the basic things. And I'm sure in the ever-more prude USA things are also really getting hysterically absurd in this regard...But the fact is, it's just a normal way of getting to know about it. The 'prudeness'-hysteria (including censorship) is doing more harm than good, sometimes.

Yes, yes: the net has also some extreme stuff, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. But by some people, that line is drawn pretty damn hypocritical. And the self-appointed 'childsavers' have their field day because of it; exaggerations abound to scare people into thinking the only possible response is censorship. Sometimes to the detriment of a more objective truth. The 'the net is full of porn where our kids just happen to stumble upon and were traumatised by it' is one example of such utter BS. Sure, that can happen, but the truth is, especially for teenagers, for 90%, when they come at 'dirty' sites, it's because they were *looking* for it.

*gasp*

Well, yes...in our time, we went looking to get our hands on Playboys and the like, nowadays, they search the net for it. Heck, if the Net had existed back then, I'm pretty sure I would have been trying to peep on those sites too. Is there any dude here (prude USA'ers not counted) that can claim he wouldn't have done the same?

(ok, I know that such a question begs smart-ass remarks, but the point is; I think we all know the majority of guys would just do the same if they were a kid. Why try to censor something you did (or would have done) the same? Unless one deems himself traumatised by those experiences, it just doesn't make sense to have such a holier-than-thee approach, knowing it's actually not true and hypocrite.)

I think there are better options than bland censoring or forbidding youngsters to look for 'it'. It never really helps anyway.

Re:Censorship Is Never Necessary

[Alsee]

Censorship -within an individual residence

Isn't that kinda like talking about:
"Racial, religious, or gender segregation -within an individual residence"?

If someone does not order a monthly mail subscription to Playboy magazine to their home, I don't think that should really be equated with the word "censorship".
If someone orders a cable TV subscription, and does not choose to pay for the MilitaryBlood&Gore channel, I don't think that should really be equated with the word "censorship".
If someone orders a cable TV subscription, and tells the cable company please do not deliver the cooking channels because my spouse I and our children are on a diet, I don't think that should really be equated with the word "censorship".

I don't think someone's personal choice of which Blockbuster Videocassette Rentals they select to bring into their own home should be included under any reasonable ordinary meaning of the word "censorship". I think attempting to do that wildly twists and dilutes the meaning of the word, I think it fosters the harmful notion that of course there are obviously good and reasonable forms of "censorship", fosters the notion that objection to censorship itself is unreasonable, fosters the notion that all that's left is to have a majority vote deciding how much censorship we want and selecting which things we want to censor.

That certainly may not have been your intent, but the context here is absolutely about government censorship mandates and your context replying here can easily be interpreted as a "counter argument" against the grandparent. I found your post's concluding remark "[censorship] should be discouraged whenever possible" disturbingly weak and ambiguous. I think we need to do rather more than "discourage" the Crusader forces constantly trying to impose themselves as censors dictating what other people else may say or or read (or see).

The fact that Censors and other Crusaders imagine themselves be the good guys "helping" and "protecting" their victims only makes them all the more dangerous. Delusional self appointed heroes chaining and "helping" their victims to death are often worse than simple self-serving villains. "Helpers" who just keep escalating their "treatments" when their first fix fails to deliver some expected magic cure for all the ills of a "diseased society".

-

Re:Censorship Is Never Necessary

[swedd]

I hear this, and I've also heard all of Steven Conroy's announcements, but the TFA seems to suggest this has been in the pipeline an awful lot longer

It has been in Labor Party policy for at least the last two years, and was even detailed on their website. Didn't make it into many big public announcements, for obvious reasons.

I knew about it, despised it, and still voted for Labor (/Greens). As bad as the policy is, the Howard government had much more serious issues in other areas. Lesser of two evils, if you will.

It is my hope that this system will fail miserably in trials, but I accept the possibility that I may have helped vote in this monstrosity.

And you know what? I still think it was worth it.

Re:Censorship Is Never Necessary

[fabs64]

First, I didn't vote labor, I just recognise what an evil blight on the face of this country the howard led liberal party was. (WAS, thank god).

http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf

That's the election policy document, it pretty clearly outlines mandatory filtering, you can even scrounge around and find the announcement of the original policy by Kim Beazley as leader if you can be bothered.

Lol.. copied liberal policy... you haven't followed politics over the past month? Kyoto, Apology, WorkChoices, Iraq and the pacific solution. All clear differentiations between the parties before the election, that the liberals have changed their mind on and fallen in with the labor party on with only 2 sitting weeks of parliament finished.

Anyone who's still trotting out that ridiculous "me too" line obviously has little to say other than what he read in a liberal party pamphlet, what's next, you going to start yelling about interest rates?

This is a bad idea overall, but making it opt-out

[antifoidulus]

makes it even worse. It should be opt-in. How many people will be too embarrassed, or too shy to call up and opt-out or not want their name recorded as a potential Pr0n lover..... If parents want the service, they should be able to call and opt-in, but don't make the default mode censorship.

Opt-out?

[Thondermonst]

So you have to opt-out? Great, so once in place, the Austalian Governement will have a list of all people who want to watch porn.

Start Small

[bky1701]

Sure, now it's optional and only in Australia. Soon it'll be in the UK, and then the US. After a while, they'll find some way to make it mandatory... I foresee something to the effect of "Kids could use your computer, and we must protect kids from the evil intertubes", and good luck to you if you speak up. "What, you want to hurt children? What kind of monster are you? Pervert!"

Hopefully I am overreacting, but I don't think I am.

Re:Start Small

[garett_spencley]

"Sure, now it's optional and only in Australia. Soon it'll be in the UK, and then the US."

Just like communism ?

Ok, I'm not saying don't be concerned. I'm not saying don't write your representatives to tell them just how opposed you are to the US following Australia's lead. But the US was so terrified that communism was going to spread through the pacific and hit Hawaii and then the continental US that they went to war in Vietnam to stop it from spreading.

Keep things in the realm of reality, please. There's a lot of things you can, and should be, doing to make your voice heard. But rampant paranoia, and how it hurts rather than helps, was already discussed on slashdot today

Simpler solution

[MikeRT]

In those households where parents actually give a rat's posterior about raising their kids, protect them from being prosecuted for child abuse for spanking or whipping their kids with a belt for consuming pornography and such.

If parents can't punish their kids worse than yelling at them or taking away their computer for breaking the family rules on not watching porn, how can you expect parents to keep their kids under control?

When my wife was in high school, she did a study for a class. She went around and asked the girls she knew if they had been spanked or otherwise physically disciplined when they broke the rules growing up. Those who had, the majority of them were the well-adjusted, decent girls. The rest fit many negative stereotypes...

There was an ironic article about outlawing such discipline in California. The state representative said that she'd never support such discipline because she would never spank her cat because some ill-informed vet told her it would do no good. Heh. I grew up with cats, and can tell you that if you spank them when they break the rules, they tend to behave well like any other pet. The reason we have most of these parenting issues is because many families treat their kids the way that they would treat a cat based on common behavior toward cats.

Re:Simpler solution

[cptdondo]

So when you're old and your kids are taking care of you, should they beat you when you don something they don't like?

Re:Simpler solution

[apathy maybe]

So you have no problem with a man beating their wife?

Saying that it is OK to whack a kid, is on par with saying that it is OK to whack a women (or a man). "But she/he/it didn't do what I told them to do..." Bullshit, domestic violence, of any kind, should not be tolerated.

If your partner just happens to over-cook your dinner, whipping them with a belt is A-OK?
After, it is simple "cause and effect".

What happens if your partner simply forgets to get the mail, or perhaps forgot to get the milk when shopping. Is it OK then to give whip them? After all, if you do it enough, they won't forget again!

Anyway, what is wrong with children looking at porn if they want to? What right does the parent have to restrict their children from viewing images? Pornography is a victim-less crime, whether it is viewed by children or adults. Children have rights, too.

(The first few paragraphs were copied and pasted (with slight changes) from a discussion at RevLeft on the matter. That's why they might not seem to quite fit.)

Re:Simpler solution

[apathy maybe]

I never said I considered children to be the same as adults.

I said that hitting children was domestic violence which is never acceptable, and I said that children should be able to watch porn if they want to.

As to work, children are legally not allowed to work are they... They are forced to go to school, a place which most of them find boring, the teachers are often useless, and the other pupils sometimes vicious.
I'll direct you to a great essay on the subject of what children should or not be allowed to do.
http://peacefire.org/info/why.shtml

Yes, it's true that teenagers don't pay a lot of taxes and are usually freeloading off their parents. But that's not because teenagers are lazy or dumb, it's because they're forced to work all day in school for free. If you took a bus driver's license away and made him study Biology and American History for 10 hours a day, he'd have to move back in with his parents too.

As for hitting them to get the point across...
What point? That they shouldn't watch porn? Why shouldn't they watch porn? Because it is sinful? What is sin and why is it bad? Because the bible said so? Why should I pay any heed to a book that is full of contradictions? Because you told me to and you will hit me if I don't... Great way to get your point across Dad.

Parents who use violence against kids are lazy parents and bad parents. They are lazy because they don't want to explain to their children why they should or shouldn't do something. They are bad parents because they are in effect teaching their children that violence is an acceptable substitute for rational dialogue.

Well, violence is not an acceptable substitute for rational and logical discussion, and it should not be a way of enforcing values and morals on children.

Wrong reason

[EvilNTUser]

"Government is the -last- entity that should oversee any censorship--because it has the most to gain from having such control."

No, the government is exactly the entity that should oversee censorship, because it's the only organization that's accountable to the voters. No corporation should ever have the power to censor anything.

Of course, I don't think even the government should have that power, but voters have always been clueless.

Re:Wrong reason

[magarity]

No, the government is exactly the entity that should oversee censorship, because it's the only organization that's accountable to the voters
 
Think this through: what happens when they censor reports of censorship? Government is the ultimate monopoly more than any mere corporation could ever be. While it is technically possible to switch governments via either enough votes or armed rebellion, the both rely heavily on lack of censorship to effectively get the message out in order to be effective. No, censorship is an insidiously powerfull tool of government. Do not wish they have it.

Re:Hmmm...

[garett_spencley]

We have 3 computers in the house and 2 children. My computer is in the basement in my "office" (I work from home). I'm the only one who uses this computer. It's a Linux box and I lock it when I leave so I know this for a fact.

My wife's computer is in the family room simply because we don't have any where else to put it. The kids computer is also in the family room.

I'm not saying that I will never allow my kids to have an internet-accessible computer in their bedroom. But for that to become a reality I will have to believe that they are mature and responsible enough to keep their personal information private and not get "too close" to anyone that they meet online without safeguards in place. In other words it will be when they're well into their teenage years and have had many a long talk with me and their mother about privacy and personal responsibility, and that I am comfortable believing that it has sunk in.

After all, our job is to raise them into mature and responsible adults. So keeping their Internet use "public" indefinitely is directly contradictory to that belief.

Who does the "deeming"??

[moeinvt]

The article states that they want to filter pornography AND . . .

"OTHER INTERNET CONTENT DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN"

It's never really about pornography, it's always about that "other bad stuff", like dissident political opinions.

So, who's in charge of deciding what is and is not appropriate for children? Think of ALL the content that certain people and organizations have wanted to ban at various times and you'll get the idea of why censorship is fundamentally incompatible with freedom. Think of Christians wanting to protect the children from Charles Darwin and "political correctness" extremists wanting to ban Mark Twain.