Aussie Censorship "Live Trials" Won't Be Live

Xiroth writes "In what could be the first step to backing down on the plans to censor the Australian Internet, Communication Minister Stephen Conroy has made it known that the live trials of the Government filter will not, in fact, be live, instead being downgraded to a closed network test. Given that this would provide no further information than what Government tests have already provided, this may prove to be a face-saving measure before the plan is quietly scrapped. Nonetheless, concerned Australians are encouraged to attend protests planned for this weekend to ensure that the Government gets the message."

Comments

While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns out the UK has been censoring the web all along.

I'm surprised this hasn't been on Slashdot already as it's been on the news quite a bit here.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[iDav]

It's new here because our supposedly left-of-centre Labour government is trying to impose a decidedly right-wing policy on the public. That and the (dis)Honourable Senator Conroy responsible for the plan shows only complete disregard for the truth and logic, and utter disdain toward the general public and ISPs.

The primary reason for the protesting and media coverage is the fact that the blacklist that would be used is to be secret, and there will be no transparency or public accountability in regards to the content of the list. The fear is that the government could easily, and quietly, block ANY content they want at any time. This simply cannot be allowed. In the UK, they only use a ratified international blacklist of 1,300 sites. In Australia there would be those sites, plus anywhere up to 10,000 sites of the Australian Governments choosing.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

... this has been on Slashdot.

As well as the fact that IWF have now backed down from it...

Where in gods name have you been?

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Xiroth]

In fact, they've already indicated that they're looking to ban illegal but morally grey information such a euthanasia methods. Independent special interests in the Senate such as Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding have indicated that they're interested in banning sites where the legality hasn't even been settled, such as gambling websites and hardcore pornography.

The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech. Euthanasia, in fact, falls under that, as the Greens and Democrats have indicated their support for legalising it - in fact, if memory serves, as a precautionary measure a Greens state senator read out methods of euthanasia in parliament under the protection of parliamentary privilege with the knowledge that the proceedings of Parliament must be recorded and be made freely available to the public, rendering the government unable to block the publishing of the material. If material regarding euthanasia and other controversial topics is blocked, could that not soon lead to the blocking of political speech of minor parties and political activists that wish to overturn the bans on the material?

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[iDav]

Exactly!

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

>In fact, they've already indicated that they're looking to ban illegal but morally grey information such a Euthanasia methods

Well, looks like Australians won't be going to 4chan anymore.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[PopeGumby]

Actually the primary reason ill be at the protest is not the fact that the blacklist is secret, but the fact that there is a blacklist at all.

If they were to come out and say "we're going to blacklist sites, but at least we'll tell you who and why", I still would not find that acceptable.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Miseph]

No, 4chan is only a method of sterilization, not euthanasia. Although it does from time to time consider sloughing off the mortal coil just to end the pain in my frontal lobe.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[daver00]

Blanket bans such as this one proposed come directly from the left-wing handbook on public policy. The left has always sought for government to have greater control over individuals lives, individual freedoms and responsibilities are the traditional calls of the right.

I always thought that Howard was one of the most left wing conservatives we have ever seen. He greatly expanded welfare programs into the realm of every day middle class families, and used this carrot and stick approach to attempt to control the way families budgeted. Take through the tax system and hand it back to those who live 'approved' lifestyles, see family tax benefits A and B. This is textbook socialist policy.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Conroy responsible for the plan shows only complete disregard for the truth and logic

Well he is a Roman Catholic...

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[smegged]

I love the viscious attack on the Right because of something that the Left are doing.

This is exactly where the Left/Right methodology breaks down. Many on the Right are actually anti-censorship and are libertarian in their viewpoints. Many on the Left are authoritarian and pro-censorship.

In this country we have more than two major parties anyway. We have Labor (center-left/union focus), Liberal (center-right/business focus), National (center-right/rural focus), Green (far-left/environment focus), Democrat (center-left), Family First (far-right/"family" focus) and One Nation (far-right/rural focus). Even now, the arbitrary divides I have given these parties are merely labels and are not good at describing their policies.

For instance Labor, as one of their first acts of government cut funding to the CSIRO. The Liberal party, as on of their first acts of parliament impelemented tight gun control laws.

Right =/= censorship. Left =/= intelligence. Elements of both sides want to censor and elements of both sides are intelligent (though Conroy is not one of those elements). In Australia it more boils down to the focus and emphasis on the community groups that the politicians listen to. Those on the right listen more to the businesses and church groups while those on the left listen more to the unions and gay groups.

So in short, please do not slander people with your doublethink in future. I know it's cool on slashdot to pay out those on the Right, but pigeonholing them is a very limiting way to look at any group of people.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[spudda]

So am I, but it is embarrassing to share the faith with some of the clowns that think this it is their duty to impose God on the world. I dont blame Senator Conroy for this as much as I blame Senator Fielding whom is the puppetmaster of this law. Conroy is just a puppet

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me how he is not acting in the interests of his faith? How many Roman Catholics decide that their morals trump other peoples rights? (Abortion, euthanasia, etc)

Tell me why we should have any Roman Catholics in the parliament, are they serving the public or the Vatican?

For God's sake man SPEAK UP. Society needs people who can call a spade a spade without feeling like they must stick with their friends in faith.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[aaron alderman]

Please. Labor shifted to the right with Rudd to ensure they could oust Howard who dragged the country right.

Suddenly "centre" became slightly-right and no one seemed to notice. Its simple to explain really - age creep. The population is getting older, which generally leads to conservative ideologies.

The only left party left are the Greens. Now if we could only get rid of the old hippie element in the Greens there would be a decent alternative.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[aaron alderman]

You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried.

Howard and Rudd are pandering to the religious right. The censorship in question is the type of "think of the children" mentality the religious want to impose on others. There is nothing progressive or liberal in censorship.

Howard was one of the most RIGHT WING Prime Ministers we have ever seen! It's almost as if you are living in reverse world where up is down and left is right. (Almost like you are down under or something)

Don't forget that in Australia our financial policies and social policies do not match onto the hardline USA system. (Our right wingers aren't small government and our left wingers aren't socialistic)

Socially our centre is right. Economically our centre is left. Confusing, isn't it?

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[TapeCutter]

Mod parent up. This reccuring political theater is played by BOTH major parties and is all about winning senate deadlocks, specifically this 'project' is the price KRuddy is paying for Fielding's vote. KRuddy & Conroy do not belive in this anymore than Howard's mob did when they tried the same thing a few years ago.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it was done in SA, but IIRC it was deleted from Hansard anyway!!!!!!!!!

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[daver00]

Mate, get yourself straightened out. Yes Howard was right wing, but the vast expansion of welfare under Howard was socialist policy. Left wing. Many in the media made this criticism.

The conservative or right wing approach to this problem would be to offer up the censorship service to those who want it (Howards policy). Note here individual freedom and responsibility is emphasised.

Here, I'll quote Jack the Insider on this very topic for you:

mandatory filtering is straight out of the leftist handbook on public policy: impose a blanket ban, clap your hands together and pronounce the problem fixed.

Note: Stalin ran a left wing government, the Chinese run a left wing government. The only thing wrong here is that you (and a bloody lot of others) seem to equate opression and control with 'right wing' and freedom, happiness and bunny rabbits with 'left wing'. This is what is completely wrong! Left and right wing government can each be opressive or liberal, that is not the point of left and right wing.

Please read up on it, left and right wing are economic positions, not social ones. Left wing means the state favours state run institutions over the private sector, a right wing government favours free markets and private enterprise. Forcing regulation like this on private enterprise is left wing policy.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[aaron alderman]

You seem to be confusing economic policies with social policies which I clearly stated on the last line of what I wrote.

The problem with Stalin's communism was that it was not socially left wing too, but authoritative. (The opposite of freedom) This is why communism has never been given a "fair go" and why simpletons believe communism is the greatest evil ever and can never work. Show me a failed state based on communism and democracy. (You are mistaken if you think these are incompatible) You can't find me such a state because it's never happened before and the closest things we have (Scandinavia, UK, Australia) are thriving in terms of indicators of social prosperity and equality. You just need to look at the social dysfunction of the US to realise their "free market" economic philosophy is flawed.

You've taken a multi-dimensional space of possibilities/ideas and projected it one-dimensionally. It's no wonder you miss the bigger picture.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[SeaFox]

I'm surprised this hasn't been on Slashdot already as it's been on the news quite a bit here.

But it was on Slashdot, didn't you see the article and long discussion for of insightful posts about how to counteract it?

Oh, wait...

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[daver00]

Left wing does not simply equate with freedom! To say that Stalins rule was authoritarian and thus not left wing is utterly wrong. You can't talk about left and right wing social policy because you are on flimsy ground, they are economic philosophies. When you talk about social policy you talk in terms of authoritarian and libertarian.

The thing is that it is often hard to distinguish economic freedoms from social freedoms in many areas (not all!) so in this sense the left wing policies (economics) lead to authoritarian social stances. This is not a hard rule and certainly the opposite is often true.

ou've taken a multi-dimensional space of possibilities/ideas and projected it one-dimensionally. It's no wonder you miss the bigger picture.

No, actually I am trying to correct your one dimensional "left or right" viewpoint, because this is not how the world is described. Read up on the Political Compass because this is exactly what I am talking about.

You are clearly blinded by ideology, you are obviously taking a stance that 'left wing' = 'good, freedom, liberty etc' and 'right wing' = 'bad, opression, authoritarian etc.' Now I'm sorry mate but I'm not the one here espousing a narrow world view. I'm not even pushing any agenda I'm simply correcting your technical error.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[smegged]

The funny thing about your post is that it very much proves exactly my point. If the new Center is actually Right, then what meaning does "Center" even have other than "what the public perceive as the least offensive government available to it at the moment"?

It seems to me that the Left/Right divide is most closely related to the way in which the individuals who form the party think. The Left seems to be more idealistic, full of big ideas while the Right seem to be more pragmatic attempting more to fix the problems of society than focus on the new big thing. This is why global-warming appeals as a concept so much to some of the Left - it gives them a big grand vision of what the future may be like unless their big grand ideas get implemented. Those on the Right tend to dislike the concept because it cannot be solved by any amount of pragmatism.

Ultimately though even this analysis is flawed as both sides of politics are made up of individuals. The right ideologies mean jack all if the individuals who are championing those ideologies are not intelligent or skilled enough to implement them well. Ideologies though are as fluid as the Left/Right divide. What was acceptable fifty years ago is not acceptable today, while something else that was not acceptable then today is.

The purpose of this post is to make people realise that good ideas and bad ideas are not solely the domain of any particular political or social philosophy. Trying to shovel one set of ideas from a political organisation you like into one you don't like is as foolish as it is ignorant.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[kubrick]

Labor under Rudd are no further right than they were under Keating & Hawke. His government hasn't sold any banks yet, for example.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[MicklePickle]

Typical. That's censoring for you.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[XDirtypunkX]

Actually, the terms "left" and "right" wing are much more to do with "conservative" values vs "progressive" values and originate from the 1700s, when mercantilism was the reigning economic ideology. In fact, anti-king/pro-king and pro/anti religious freedom (with the left being *for* religious freedom at time) was the original set of debates.

These other associations are much newer. The whole "individual freedom" thing is more an American attachment to the concept. It's a propagandist one at that, after all, everyone wants "freedom", so everyone says they're for "freedom", when really it's an abstract enough concept that you can argue anything makes you free (from or to) something else. The self same individual freedom ideology was very much a left wing philosophy when the term came about.

In fact, it's a fallacy that the right wing has to favor free markets and private enterprise. The right wing favors strengthening and concentrating the system of the day.

The fascists believed in many "traditional" values (racism, like it or not, is a "traditional" value in many cultures) and favored an economic status-quo where the ownership of production was concentrated in the hands of the governing elite. Inherently right wing. The true communists believed in continuous revolution, progression and struggle to make the system better (it's in the manifesto), which is an inherently left wing idea. It's a struggle for change. In this respect, Stalin was right wing (for a communist, if he was a communist at all), suppressing change and upheaval.

So in short, left vs right wing is relative to the area of debate.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[XDirtypunkX]

The whole left-right thing is much simpler than that.

The whole "conservative" and "progressive" thing should have given it away. The right likes things the way they are and wants to strengthen that foundation (or even regress to things that work), the left want to change what doesn't work for something new.

Both are positive at various times. Sometimes you are onto a good thing, you want to make it better. Sometimes you have a dog that has been hit by a car, it needs to be put down.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

err, I think you will find that right-wing political philosophy generally holds that individuals should have the right to make their own decisions without the government interfering. left-wing philosophy holds that people need to be regulated in order to stop them exploiting others.

This is a very left wing type of policy. Do not confuse loony religious conservatism with right-wing thinking.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[aaron alderman]

What's left to sell?

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[kubrick]

Australia Post, although it wouldn't make much difference.
SBS, ditto.
The ABC?

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[JohhnyTHM]

as a precautionary measure a Greens state senator read out methods of euthanasia in parliament under the protection of parliamentary privilege with the knowledge that the proceedings of Parliament must be recorded and be made freely available to the public, rendering the government unable to block the publishing of the material.

There's the answer! You just need a few politicians to get it on in parliment and then they won't be able to block you pr0n.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Smauler]

The ABC?

No! They can't! Selling the alphabet, now that would be really low.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Smauler]

Has anyone else actually tried going to the web page in question from the UK? Because I'm supposedly one of those blocked from seeing this page (with TalkTalk), and I can see it just fine. Also, I for one find this much more disturbing, but that may just be me.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[legirons]

It turns out the UK has been censoring the web all along.

Does this make the UK internet especially vulnerable to cyberattack?

If a single file (the IWF censorship list) is capable of blocking access to any domains listed in it, then that file becomes an effective WMD against the country's infrastructure.

If someone got into the IWF's network and changed the censorship list to *.*, would that mean a blackout for the entire country?

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[spikedvodka]

Yeah, but first you have to make sure you elect h0t politicians... otherwise /me scrubs his mental eye with pure bleach

EWWWWWW!!!!!!

What's the point?

[girlintraining]

How Things Work Everywhere Else:
1. Concept.
2. Pilot.
3. Evaluation. bad: Return to 1, or continue to 4.
4. Real world trial.
5. Evaluation. bad: Return to 1, or continue to 6.
6. Implementation
7. Fine-tuning
5. Evaluation. bad: Return to 7, or continue to 8.
8. Maintenance

How Things Work in Australia
1. Concept.
2. Real world trial.
3. Public relations debacle. bad: Return to 2, or continue to 4.
4. Implementation.
5. Drink beer.
6. Maintenance.

As you can see, everything is going according to plan. Just check your boots before you leave the server room. -_-

Re:What's the point?

[martinX]

7. No poofters.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, No, No. You have it wrong. The correct Australian sequence is:

1. Concept.
2. Real world trial.
3. Public relations debacle. bad: Return to 2, or continue to 4.
4. Drink beer.
5. Implementation.
6. Maintenance.

Every implementation goes better with beer.

Re:What's the point?

[hoojus]

Acually it is more like 1. Drink Beer

Re:What's the point?

[The Orange Mage]

You've never tried Censoring the Internet until you've tried Australian-Rules Censoring!

Re:What's the point?

[martin-boundary]

But that's.... that's.... upside down!

Re:What's the point?

[bane2571]

True, however if you're in Australian parliament, the process is:
1.Drink beer
2.Kneejerk reaction to public opinion
3.Concept
4.Implementation
5.Ignore public opinion about failed implementation.

Re:What's the point?

[MichaelSmith]

You've never tried Censoring the Internet until you've tried Australian-Rules Censoring!

With or without Tony Lockett?

Re:What's the point?

[daver00]

Guy guys guys, not even close, its more like this:

1. Drink Beer
2. Knee jerk reaction to minority public opinion
3. Implementation
4. Ignore public opinion, frame debate in terms of moral shades of black and white
5. Drink beer

Note the whole 'concept' part is where you have all been getting this wrong.

Re:What's the point?

[Samah]

You forgot:
6. Chair sniffing
7. Drunken night at a strip club
8. ???
9. ....I won't say it.

Re:What's the point?

[smegged]

Unfortunately it's because it generally is the minority who are swinging voters...

Re:What's the point?

[Dan541]

You got it wrong.

1. Idea is mentioned in a bar.
2. Everyone implements something different based on what they think they heard.
3. Throw money at it.
4. Give up, mothball the system because no one can be bothered shifting/dismantling it.

That's the Aussie way!

Surprise, Surprise!

[Abreu]

Who is willing to bet that the testing is done over "carefully controlled" conditions designed to hide all the faults of the system?

Re:Surprise, Surprise!

[BeerCat]

Who is willing to bet that the testing is done over "carefully controlled" conditions designed to hide all the faults of the system?

Or even easier - any conditions that show up faults in the system can be safely ignored as "statistical noise"

Re:Surprise, Surprise!

[z0idberg]

That might be the case if there was any chance it would even remotely work in the real world. But I think this is a sign of them finally coming to the realisation that it is going to flop spectacularly and this is a way to find that out away from the publics view.

A real world trial would have showed up all the problems that everyone has been pointing out, and it would have brought those problems right into the homes of voters all over the country.

This way they can continually have it in testing until it fades from the publics mind then mothball it.

Re:Surprise, Surprise!

[thegrassyknowl]

I was going to say just that.

They're limiting the maximum throughput of the system to 12MBPS and trying to say that a real-world load of hundreds of customers at that rate will also work.

This closed trial is carefully designed to further "prove" that their flawed system isn't.

Re:Surprise, Surprise!

[srjh]

Note that 12 Mbps is considered to be the absolute minimum for the other disastrous policy our embattled Senator Conroy is implementing (the National Broadband Network).

Even if that 12 Mbps is per user, under their own guidelines, it's practically obsolete already.

Re:Surprise, Surprise!

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah at the moment it looks like it will die like the Australia Card

Re:Surprise, Surprise!

[Hucko]

Not in Australia, it would be a huge improvement.

Re:Surprise, Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is my bet.

I am suprised stepping-back-from-a-conflagration chose to post that this was a sign of the Government backing down.

Far from it.

In my view, this is the opposite - a precursor to enable the Government to silently pass the trials in a controlled environment to ensure that the trial is a success and that all dissidents can be ignored.

Re:Surprise, Surprise!

[drsmithy]

This way they can continually have it in testing until it fades from the publics mind then mothball it.

I think you meant until the next election, at which point it will be rolled out again to garner the religious vote.

Yay, protest.

[Starayo]

I'm certainly attending, though my efforts to rally my friends have been hampered by their SHE-DEVILS of girlfriends who all have plans for that day. Damn their icy hearts!

Seeing as these filters are so ridiculously easy to bypass, a major concern for me lately is how they'll be handling people who use these methods, especially since they have perfectly legitimate applications *besides* bypassing the filter.

Re:Yay, protest.

[QuantumG]

I'm getting bored of saying it. The purpose of the filter is to shield people from material they don't want to see. The reason why the filter isn't "optional" is because the government's belief is that no reasonable person should want to turn it off. As such, people who "get around" the filter are of no concern to the government.

Re:Yay, protest.

[Xiroth]

Meh, get the girlfriends to come along too - it's not like this isn't attracting mainstream attention. The sign-up for the event on Facebook seems to be going reasonably well - here's the Melbourne one, and it's got links to the other capital cities' events too.

Re:Yay, protest.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting bored of saying it. The purpose of the filter is to shield people from material they don't want to see. The reason why the filter isn't "optional" is because the government's belief is that no reasonable person should want to turn it off. As such, people who "get around" the filter are of no concern to the government.

Therefore, by your argument, anybody who does get around the filter is by definition, unreasonable, and thus of great interest to the authorities, who want to prosecute 'unreasonable' behaviour.

Re:Yay, protest.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a jailable offence in Australia to have anything which may be considered a hacking tool on your computer.

It's a jailable offence not to provide your password when you requested.

You can bet your life it will be a jailable offence to circumvent the filter.

Re:Yay, protest.

[Michael Hunt]

They should be, because circumventing the filter (in a blanket fashion, as is likely to be done by most who attempt to circumvent it at all, rather than simply enabling it for sites which are known to be filtered) is going to require a connection to a host outside of Australia. For local content, a second connection back IN to the country will also be required.

This is problematic because Australia's connections overseas are nowhere near equipped to deal with this sort of traffic increase, either from an ISP cost-recovery point-of-view (expect Internet plan costs to go up if too many people decide to circumvent the filter) or from a sheer bits-in-the-pipe point-of-view.

Essentially, the Australian government is forcing citizens to act contrary to the way the Internet was DESIGNED if they want to get an optimal experience. When everything catches fire and melts, you can bet your arse this'll be of concern to Conroy.

Phase 2 of the filter will be blocking anything EXCEPT approved web/mail/etc access (assuming they don't throw it out completely after it melts our international pipes), but by this point it will be too late. It'll be the black box flight recorder debacle all over again.

Its not such a bad idea...

[balzi]

Aside from all the bugs which will block legitimate sites, I think censorship is a great idea. Just block all the crap that leads to depraved minds and sabotages the mind against women and children.

Speaking as an Australian - I would rather this than the "freedom" the US people strive for where the most immoral things are allowed to survive in the name of individual rights.

My only concession is that censoring has a bad history of blocking the most inane and harmless content because of someone's odd interpretation.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[iDav]

If the plan were only to block specified illegal content, then aside from technical issues, I would agree.

The problem is they plan to block "unwanted" content, with no definition of "unwanted" being offered. They can legally block anything they don't want. That is incredibly dangerous.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[negRo_slim]

Speaking as an Australian - I would rather this than the "freedom" the US people strive for where the most immoral things are allowed to survive in the name of individual rights.

Just as one mans 'freedom fighter' is another mans terrorist, one man's shitty scorpion cd is another mans child pornography. I'm sorry their is a cost to this game we call life, collateral damage and what have you. I'd much rather take the hits and be free to figure things out on my own and for myself.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[mrclisdue]

Who decides what to censor? Why do they get to decide? Put 4 Aussies (or, for simplicity, 4 humans),in a room, and you'll get 6 opinions. I'm in favour of censoring you. What if I were awarded that right by whomever you have chosen gets to decide? How would you feel about censorship then? cheers,

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[QuantumG]

It is defined, you're just too fucking lazy to read the legislation.

If you're not against censorship in principle then don't go complaining when the majority decides what you're not allowed to see.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Klootzak]

Speaking as an Australian - I would rather this than the "freedom" the US people strive for where the most immoral things are allowed to survive in the name of individual rights.

Speaking as another Australian - I built a Time Machine, would you like to use it for getting back to 1930's Germany?

Far be it from me to be rude normally, in this instance your commentary has stirred me to it - Sir, or Madam, you are an ignorant idiot.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Mountaineer1024]

Why bother to implement a system that will only affect the people that it is least aimed at?
Child pornography (and the other psuedo legitimate targets of this filtering) is already illegal, this should be an enforcement issue, not a censorship one.
Whilst ISP's may be reluctant to cooperate with the MPAA/RIAA to catch "pirates", I can't imagine any of them shielding a child predator for a single second.

As an aside, yes I am Australian, yes I've lodged an official protest and YES if implemented, I intend to bypass these retarded filters.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[iDav]

At no time, in any document, media interview, or Parliament Question Time, has Senator Conroy EVER fully answered any question regarding "unwanted" content. There had been a vague definition offered, but there has never been any SPECIFIC definition offered. Conroy refuses to inform us any further as to his definition of "unwanted" content.

As for your other comment - There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem. In this case, as is usually the case for censorship, it is the MINORITY that decides what the majority is allowed to see. My issue is when this minority is allowed to censor what they like, and the majority cannot intervene in anyway.

Thank you for your flame. It has allowed me to explain myself further.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship is never a good idea (or even "not a bad idea" ). You probably think that because you probably never lived in a country where real censorship existed (and often with "immoral" people "disappearing", after all, it's easier to silence the critics as they appear than to dismiss and censor all that they say).

If you let the government tell you what is "immoral" and what isn't , you go in a pretty slippery slope. Today you may have a "good" government; but no one knows if tomorrow the members of your government go insane and define that now you will live under a dictatorship which will allow them to filter anything they consider "immoral".

Now, what is a good idea is parents educating their children for the real world , teaching them that different opinions exist and some of them are (according to some societies, religious or political groups) immoral . Shielding children from the world will only lead to a mass of sheep that can be easily controlled by the media and the government and can't take their own decisions.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[QuantumG]

Yes, because Conroy thinks the question is as stupid as I do. There's a national classification system. Go read it.

There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem.

Really? You honestly believe this? Please, do explain.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[iDav]

Conroy refuses to answer the question because he doesn't have an answer for it! The national classification system does not apply to the Internet. It is designed for print and broadcast media. To attempt to apply it to the Internet is naÃve and foolhardy.

At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school? I'm not saying that it should be used as a magic bullet. As I've previously stated, it's the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that is more often than not the issue.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[QuantumG]

The national classification system does not apply to the Internet. It is designed for print and broadcast media. To attempt to apply it to the Internet is naÃve and foolhardy.

Again.. if you read the legislation, you will find that it does apply. I declare that you don't know what you're talking about.

At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school?

Sigh. What does restricting the material children are taught in schools have anything to do with the wanton censorship of adults. Do you have any actual opinions or are you just trolling?

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[chrome]

It's a good thing you don't get to speak for the rest of us.

Honestly, I am quite able to make up my own mind as to what I can read or look at. I don't need anyone making that determination for me.

As the great Frank Zappa once said, "There is no sound that you can make with your mouth, or word that will come out of your mouth, that is so powerful that it will make you go to hell", and in the same vein there is no image or word you can see or read that will 'sabotage your mind' against women and children. What you decide as content that 'leads to a depraved mind' might be classified by others as just simple harmless garbage which most people will just ignore and never seek out anyway.

It doesn't matter what kind of censorship they do, nobody can ever do a thorough job. There is simply too much garbage out there that would need to be filtered, and stuff will always slip through. Even the tests that showed they were blocking large amounts of legitimate content also showed that they were letting through some content that should have been blocked. So much of the truly abhorrent shit that they're wanting to block, child pornography, isn't even traded out in the open via the web anyway; it's traded via DCC on efnet or other IRC networks, or on private SSL secured boards that change IPs regularly.

One of the many stupid things about this is that given the above being true, the amount of money required to implement the government's plan will end up increasing our connectivity costs even more than they are today, for no discernible benefit.

So, in summary, whether or not you think censorship of the internet is a good idea or not, it's pointless because no matter what you do, you'll fail in your objectives, and end up just costing the public more money trying to force your morality on them.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Falconhell]

It may have passed youyr attention, but ,art of a ministers job is to explain their policies to the public.

  You can repeat your mantra "Read the legislation" as many times as you like, but Conroy should be able to explain his own legisaltion to we the Aust public. Most legislation is virtually incomprhensible to the genreal public anyway.

Please stop hiding behind your strawman!

I have an opinion that you are trolling, going by your posts.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[iDav]

The national classification system defines "illegal" content. It still does not define Conroy's "unwanted" content.

Restriction of material is by definition censorship. Censorship is not inherently bad. Again, as I've discussed earlier, it is the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that can be bad. In this case, I'm certain everyone will agree, it is a terrible implementation.

Censorship is not good or evil, it is a device by which we control what can bee seen. It is used everyday. It is when control over censorship is handed to a minority with an agenda that it becomes a problem. This is the problem we face with Conroy's filtering plan.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[QuantumG]

Huh? It's not his policy. The classification legislation has been on the books since the freakin' 70s dude. I really don't think it is too much to ask that people read it before commenting on policy that is just enforcing it. People should be reading the legislation and calling for its reversal. But, apparently, censorship is ok... fucking hell.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[QuantumG]

The national classification system defines "illegal" content. It still does not define Conroy's "unwanted" content.

I will say it one last time. You have clearly not read the national classification legislation. Otherwise you wouldn't be consistently making incorrect statements. Stop being ignorant, go read it, or shut the fuck up. I don't think this is unfair. You don't know what you're talking about, and you have the means to educate yourself, but you choose not to.

Restriction of material is by definition censorship.

I agree.

Censorship is not inherently bad.

I disagree. Would you care to make an argument? I really am interested in hearing it. You have an open platform. Please, let us know why you think censorship is not inherently bad.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[iDav]

I have argued this point already. Please read my previous posts before replying.

I did, in fact, visit the classification.gov.au website before making my previous post. I will concede that there is legislation there that convers Internet content.

If Senator Conroy wants to use this as a definition of "unwanted" contect, then whay has he refused to answer any questioning on the subject? I don't believe that The classification system covers all of the content he wishes blocked.

I still want a definition from the "horses mouth"

I would also appreciate that you refrain from personal insults. This is a very important debate, and by a)swearing and b)offering personal insults, you are subtracting heavily from the discussion. If you cannot voice your opinions in a couth manner, then you should keep them to yourself.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ignore him. If he hasn't posted anything of substance yet, he isn't going to.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[QuantumG]

I've read all your comments. You have said:

There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem. In this case, as is usually the case for censorship, it is the MINORITY that decides what the majority is allowed to see. My issue is when this minority is allowed to censor what they like, and the majority cannot intervene in anyway.

At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school? I'm not saying that it should be used as a magic bullet. As I've previously stated, it's the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that is more often than not the issue.

Censorship is not good or evil, it is a device by which we control what can bee seen. It is used everyday. It is when control over censorship is handed to a minority with an agenda that it becomes a problem. This is the problem we face with Conroy's filtering plan.

Repeating yourself and declaring your opinion to be correct does not an argument make. Why do you think censorship is "useful"? What are these "good reasons" you have for censorship? I believe that no-one has a right to decide what I can and cannot read. Convince me otherwise.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because Conroy thinks the question is as stupid as I do. There's a national classification system. Go read it.

And exactly where are we guaranteed that the filter is going to abide by current classification systems?

I'm in the games industry, I remember how we were promised a matching classification to the movie industry right up to the point the final draft was unveiled, with no R category, and several content categories shifted up one level from their movie equivalents.

For that matter, thanks to some NSW judges, we've now got legal precedent for internet cartoons to be considered the same as RL pictures.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I believe that no-one has a right to decide what I can and cannot read. Convince me otherwise.

I'll give it a shot.

Rights are whatever we define them to be. In an atheist's world of matter and energy, there are no rights inherent to human beings. There are only the rights we grant ourselves. That leaves the question: how do we choose what rights to grant for ourselves? We grant rights for a purpose. We grant them for our enjoyment, and for our survival. Everyone's needs must be weighed up when granting those rights, and granting exceptions to those rights. We have freedom of speech because we have concluded that flow of information is vital to the well-being of the majority of people out there. We have also concluded that there must be certain restrictions on free speech, or else it can be detrimental to us (example: libel). So too, despite any "beliefs" you may have on the subject, the right to decide what you can or cannot read is subject to the needs/wants of society around you.

Now I need to formulate what restrictions need to be placed on that right, and why they should exist. As an example, you don't have the right to read other people's private information. If an envelope is dropped on the ground saying "private and confidential", you don't have the right to read it, whether or not you personally agree. The reason? The information contained in that envelope could prove to be quite damaging to certain people, certainly more damaging than depriving you of reading it. You didn't decide that directly; you decided that implicitly, when you didn't demand that exception be lifted by your government.

And we don't have to stop at privacy. What about child pornography, where the child is raped in front of the camera? It's small comfort to the child in later years, if we acknowledged that the video should never have been made, yet don't do anything to prevent the image of their naked body being distributed freely. You would not be allowed to decide for yourself, on a case-by-case basis, what you view, because in doing so, you are already violating a child's right for a private body. (Just so you know, I know the issue is far more complex than that; this was an example.)

These exceptions open up the concept of censorship. If we have no right to view certain materials, surely we could be allowed to use some enforcement? Ignoring the multiple problems with censorship for now, the theoretical concept of blocking materials that a vast majority of people have deemed to be harmful if kept in the public eye doesn't seem too bad. It seems like a cheaper, more effective way of stopping the spread of certain information, than prosecuting, one by one, people who viewed the information. It could also help prevent the accidental viewing of such information. All in all, it sounds like a solid concept, that is, until you use it.

So there you go. My argument for the theoretical concept of censorship. Whether anyone can show me an implementation that meets my expectations is another matter.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[QuantumG]

Gee thanks. In school, did you do the other kids homework for them too?

If an envelope is dropped on the ground saying "private and confidential", you don't have the right to read it, whether or not you personally agree.

Quite simply, this is false.

What about child pornography, where the child is raped in front of the camera?

And completely unable to make an argument from first principles, you jump to the hot button issue. Think of the children!!!

These exceptions open up the concept of censorship. If we have no right to view certain materials, surely we could be allowed to use some enforcement? Ignoring the multiple problems with censorship for now, the theoretical concept of blocking materials that a vast majority of people have deemed to be harmful if kept in the public eye doesn't seem too bad.

And they say the slippery slope is a fallacy.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Hucko]

Aussie aren't like that... We all agree we can settle this over a drink, a blu, and it'll come out in the wash. That leave only one idea to argue over.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Do you always construct your arguments entirely from snide remarks?

Too bad for you. I'm in too much of a good mood today for a crotchety old slashdotter to bring me down. I do have one more thing to say, though.

And they say the slippery slope is a fallacy.

The slippery slope was always technically a fallacy, but then again so are many other useful arguments. When used properly, it's no worse than the rest of them. The problem is that slippery slopes are applied to just about everything that a person doesn't like, with little thought about whether or not it is a slippery slope. You really have to show that once the pendulum starts swinging, it's not going to stop and go the other way. You have to show that people truly won't be offended by the extremes towards which you are heading.

I'd also like to point out that what I was describing was not a sliding down a slippery slope, but sliding towards a happy medium.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Smauler]

Please, let us know why you think censorship is not inherently bad.

I'll chime in and give a simple example. If someone illegally took a photo of me or one of my family naked, using a hidden camera, I would like there to be legislation in place which allows me to control (ie. stop) distribution of that photo. This would be censorship, and I personally think it is entirely valid.

Copyright is a form of censorship, too, and though personally I believe it has vastly exceeded its remit, I do believe especially in many of its early implementations copyright law was beneficial to society as a whole.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Smauler]

Censorship is never a good idea (or even "not a bad idea" ).

I believe censoring child rape videos is probably a good idea, if only for the wellbeing of the child in question. If you really believe censorship is never a good idea, I don't want to live in your society.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[drsmithy]

You have to show that people truly won't be offended by the extremes towards which you are heading.

The burden of proof is (or should be) on the person asserting that the "extremes" necessary to offend people will ever be reached.

What you are describing is the reason the "slippery slope" is a fallacy to begin with. It's begging the question.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Falconhell]

You seem confused

The classification law was not put in place to apply to the internet. (Which did not exist at the time).

This is new legislation, as evidenced by the need for it to be passed by the senate.

That said, I am totally against censorship of anything at all.

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[QuantumG]

The filter is to enforce existing classification rules. The dude I was talking to, not you, said that exactly what the filter would be blocking wasn't well defined. It is. He just doesn't know because he gets all his information from the media instead of just reading the freakin' legislation. Most of the media get their information from, get this, the media, they don't read the legislation either. Some people, apparently, feel that reading legislation is something only lawyers can do.

Political horse trading

[dbIII]

Just like the previous government's token effort at web censorship, this effort is to win the support of a couple of hypocritical "for the children" senators. They may not need that support anymore (balance is shifting in the senate) in which case this silly idea will hopefully vanish. A problem may be that is once it is started some of the people involved will feel committed to keep it going despite the complete lack of a magic filter to do what is asked.

IMHO the "Family First" party should be renamed "Senator's Wallet First" after Senator Feilding's performance on an education bill. He is the nasty peice of work this bill is aimed at to win his future support.

Finally

[adona1]

Finally there seems to be some resistance to this stupid plan from people other than from nerds & libertarians. Major newspapers are against the filter (the scope of which the Governement altered after they were elected) and Telstra, the most corporate of corporations, are even telling them to take a running jump. The Communications Minister isn't doing his little scheme any favours by refusing to discuss it in Parliament. Maybe Australia can stop being the laughing stock of the internet, if only for a little while.

Smaller test group = confidence in the "solution"?

[MrKneebone]

Could it be that they're just reducing the size of the Test Group, to minimise any negative findings?? Either way, it sounds like they don't have much confidence in the system.

" gather no further information"?

[nurb432]

So it will just prove the government is 'right' and remove any reason not to implement.

Nice move there.

Streisand effect

[mangu]

In the UK, they only use a ratified international blacklist of 1,300 sites. In Australia there would be those sites, plus anywhere up to 10,000 sites of the Australian Governments choosing.

If you want to censor something, having a list of censored things only makes people more curious. It's much better (for the censors) to keep the censored list secret.

This reminds me of the anecdote of the old lady who went to compliment Samuel Johnson for not putting any "bad words" on his dictionary.

-- "Why, did you look up all of them"? was the answer.

Or, as this site so admirably puts it,

If the word "cunt" "is" unacceptable to the conservative's "God", why does the word "punt" not receive a 75% unacceptability rating? Why do we not see it spelled "p---" in the daily press?

Re:Streisand effect

[Malekin]

If you want to censor something, having a list of censored things only makes people more curious. It's much better (for the censors) to keep the censored list secret.

This reminds me of the anecdote of the old lady who went to compliment Samuel Johnson for not putting any "bad words" on his dictionary.

-- "Why, did you look up all of them"? was the answer.

That doesn't quite follow because the list isn't the actual content being censored, but the addresses to the content. I can view the list and be satisfied (or not) that it's not being used for political censorship without actually viewing any illegal content - or, I could if it weren't a crime as it currently is.

Re:Streisand effect

[Sique]

You are lacking fantasy.

Wenn Austria under Empress Maria Theresia in 1754 published its own "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" (list of forbidden books, a 40 volume work), the index grew so successful and was in so great demand, that Austria in 1777 put the Index on the Index.

It's the same with all lists of things that are forbidden. They give you ideas.

Re:Streisand effect

[Sique]

Ah yes... a more recent example:

The Bundespruefstelle für jugendgefaehrdende Medien (the german Federal Control Institution for Media Deemed Harmful to Minors) prohibited publishing its own list of indexed media in 2003. For exactly the same reasons.

Editorialism?

[Vexorian]

"Anti-content-filtering rebels take to Australia's streets"

Spidey and Ock rob bank.

To demonstrate how wide ranging this filter is...

[SigmaTao]

There has been a recent court decision in New South Wales (a state in Australia), where images of Bart and Lisa Simpson engaged in sex acts are considered child porn and a citizen has been fined for having such images on computer he owned. If the national filter is to prevent child porn the scale of filtering is just mind boggling. (There are various references to the court decision... here is one example http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24771973-16947,00.html )

A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

In fact, they've already indicated that they're looking to ban illegal but morally grey information ...

Of the greatest concern is that the list of what is blocked is secret. Most Australians, myself included, would not disagree with censorship to some degree. However this is a power which in the hand of executive government (or indeed a private organisation) has a great potential for abuse. Consequently what is required is complete transperancy. The secrecy of current plan achieves the opposite of what our system of government requires.

The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech.

Exactly! And given the decisions of the High Court regarding the "implied right to political communication," inherent in the Constitution, it is also beyond the power of government to do so. If, however, we are to be kept in the dark as to what is being banned, how can we have any confidence a government is not indulging in such unconstitutional behaviour?

Re:A lack of transparency

[PopeGumby]

Of the greatest concern is that the list of what is blocked is secret.

The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech.

Exactly!

You should decide which one is the biggest concern, because they are seperate things. If the greatest concern is that the blacklist is secret, then you're saying that if the Labour party just came out and said "we censored euthanasia page waystodie.com, because we felt like it", you would be okay with that?

My greatest concern is that no other person should not be controlling what I can and cannot see on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter.

Re:A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

You should decide which one is the biggest concern, because they are seperate things. If the greatest concern is that the blacklist is secret, then you're saying that if the Labour party just came out and said "we censored euthanasia page waystodie.com, because we felt like it", you would be okay with that?

Firstly, don't put words into my mouth, "the biggest concern" line was a previous poster. Nor does it the "then you are saying" follow from anything I wrote. It's just possible that if I knew they were banning a pro- or anti-euthanisia site, I might not be OK with that. If I don't know what they are banning, I don't even have the opportunity of knowing if I'm OK with it or not. Dig?

Secondly, if they are separate, the are at least inseparable. Take your example. Since euthansia is arguably a subject of political debate, anyone who knows their "political communication" with regard to it is being banned, can take the government to court. If they don't know they are being banned, how could they establish a cause of action?

My greatest concern is that no other person should not be controlling what I can and cannot see on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter. [My emphasis]

Without wanting to put words into your mouth, I'm guessing you meant to write is that no other person should be able to censor information flowing to you. Sadly for you, you are in a very small minority and Australia is a democracy, we will be blocking your access to child porn (and note I'm not saying you want to access it) inter alia, on the Internet, or anywhere else.

If your concern really is that simplistic you are essentially excluding yourself from the serious debate on this issue. In Australia censorship is a given. The question is how to limit its excercise and how to ensure that executive government is accountable to us in what it chooses to censor. If we are kept in ignorance even about what is being censored we can do neither.

Re:A lack of transparency

[PopeGumby]

I never put words into your mouth.

You said, "Of the greatest concern is that the list of what is blocked is secret."

Then you quoted the parent to your comment, which said "The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech." and you said "Exactly!"

Thats why I quoted those three pieces of text in my comment. They were cut and paste directly from your comment. Regardless of how closely they may be linked, they are two separate issues.

Australia is a democracy, we will be blocking your access to child porn (and note I'm not saying you want to access it) inter alia, on the Internet, or anywhere else.

Except, of course, you can't. If you think there's any way for you or the Government or anyone else to effectively manage a list to block every single site on the Internet which contains material which is illegal in Australia, you're deluded. Especially if it's in the hands of the Government, who (and this is an insider's point of view), couldn't quickly organise their way out of a paper bag

In Australia censorship is a given.

Well thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. Me, I like to think that it's a given only because thats the way it's always been, which is not a good enough reason to maintain the status quo, and I'll be voicing my opinion at the protest in Brisbane on Saturday.

Re:A lack of transparency

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Australians, myself included, would not disagree with censorship to some degree.

Who do you mean by "most Australians"? You'd better get some statistics before making generalisations.

As an Australian, I am opposed to the filter on several points. While I wouldn't mind the filtering of extreme things such as child pornography, I am not under the delusion that it can be filtered effectively. You will still be able to get access to the same kind of content while filtered. And all it takes is a single false positive to ruin it in my eyes.

The government needs to make the list secret because it can be circumvented so easy. If they revealed the list, then they'd be making life easier for paedophiles who need only browse the list to go to all the best sites. On the other hand, making the list secret removes accountability.

But aside from any filters being useless, they will cripple the performance of the internet.

So no, I don't support any internet censorship.

Re:A lack of transparency

[CaptainDefragged]

Here's an idea - how about the government gets gets on with the job of catching the people making child porn etc and gets the fuck out of my life. I don't need you to decide what is good for me and my family. I've been well able to do that myself for many years. If I want a filtered feed, I will filter it. Indeed, the kids' computers are filtered with K9, which seems to be working quite well thank you very much. If I need to ramp it up, there is always Dan's Guardian & Squid and plenty of other options

Re:A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

Thats why I quoted those three pieces of text in my comment.

But in a misleading way that made it look like your comment "you should decide" was fair. Clearly I was agreeing that in focusing on the potential for political censorship the OP had hit the nail on the head. Given the logically garbled nature of your post it hardly falls to your to be that persnickety. For instance, I didn't point out that the UK parliament no longer governs Australia, there being of course no "Labour party" in Australia (or at least not one of sufficient importance for me to have noticed).

Regardless of how closely they may be linked, they are two separate issues.

As I said "If they are separate, they are at least inseparable." Clearly, as I wrote, the secrecy is of "greatest concern." Our ability to determine what information is being kept from us, and consequently to object, rests largely upon the contents of the list. Specifically the right to political communication (ie. to receive as well as publish), which is the only free speech/information right guaranteed (and that's probably overstating it) to Australians requires transparency in the excercise of censorship, at least on the recipient side.

Except, of course, you can't [block access to child porn]

You are not seriously suggesting that the amount of child pornography available in this country is as high as it would be in the absence of legislation proscribing it and of vigorous law enforcement? Again this is not saying that the current legislative framework is optimal. In some way current law sees things in the same simple black and white terms that you do (if on the opposite polarity), which in effect hampers policing. The heavy handedness of the law means the members of the public are less likely to come forward with information for fear of their own liability. All this can be tempered. If you mean that the blocking cannot be 100% effective ... well duh!

If you think there's any way for you or the Government or anyone else to effectively manage a list to block every single site on the Internet which contains material which is illegal in Australia, you're deluded.

Hey, you're the deluded one here, OK ;) Of course, I don't think anyone could block "every single site" containing illegal material. I'm not the one in this discussion who thinks in absolutes.

What I think is that the government would probably be able effectively to stop me from accessing specific (not every single) sites I might want to visit and/or site that I currently do visit and/or site I would not even know exist. I would like to have access to their list to know exactly what is being kept from my view and why, to know whether they have overstepped their power and I have any legal or political recourse to object. I want to limit censorship to areas where there is wide (not merely majority) public agreement that materials ought to be censored, and to make such censorship that occurs completely transparent.

And quite apart from that I don't want some lame-brained filtering regimen to slow my download speeds :)

Well thats your opinion and you're entitled to it ... I'll be voicing my opinion at the protest in Brisbane on Saturday.

Why bother, if the government can't block your access, manage a list, not organise their way out of a paper bag?

Seriously though, we're not entirely on different sides here. I'm not sure about the rallies, I worried the lack of attendance will merely embolden the government. I hope to be proven wrong about attendance. I think that we've got Save the Children on side counts for much more actually.

And don't write what I said off merely as "my opinion," it's political reality, which as an "insider" you should realise. You are, of course, entitled to indulge in some adolescent libertarian fantasy, but seriously, you may as well join GetUp. Until you develop slightly more realistic and nuanced arguments, your voice will remain marginalised.

Re:A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

Here's an idea - how about the government gets gets on with the job of catching the people making child porn etc and gets the fuck out of my life. I don't need you to decide what is good for me and my family.

If the government "gets on with the job of catching the people makind child porn" they are deciding what's good for your and your family. What's this about me deciding? Do you think child pornography should be freely available in Australia, whether on the net or elsewhere.

I've been well able to do that myself for many years. If I want a filtered feed, I will filter it.

That's pretty much how I feel about it to. But if the government is going to filter your feed, wouldn't you like to know how it's being filtered?

Indeed, the kids' computers are filtered with K9, which seems to be working quite well thank you very much.

Or direct supervision im my case. Anyway may 7 yr old is too busy in the dungeons of Angaband to worry much about the net.

The obvious objection here, is that it's all very fine, you and I being responsible, but not all other parents are (well in my experience hardly any are). If their kids come across some random website that turns them into instant serial killers, why should you have to wear the fact that your kid got killed because of some other parent's lack of control? That's a hyperbolic example, to be sure, but the point is that our decisions affect more than just us or our own families.

But returning to reality ... I think your missing something here. This isn't just (or even mainly) about what our kids get to see. This is about what you and I get to see!

Re:A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

Who do you mean by "most Australians"? ... I wouldn't mind the filtering of extreme things such as child pornography.

I mean "most Australians," including you clearly. Some generalisations can be made without recorse to stats, surely. "Most Australians think child pornography should not be freely available," are you in all seriousness demanding I prove that with stats? C'mon.

As an Australian, I am opposed to the filter on several points.

As an Australian, I am opposed to the filter on several points.

I am not under the delusion that it can be filtered effectively.

I am not under the delusion that it can be filtered 100% effectively.

And all it takes is a single false positive to ruin it in my eyes.

False positives should be minimised, but that's just being unrealistic. In any case I'm much more concerned about true positives. :)

The government needs to make the list secret because it can be circumvented so easy ... On the other hand, making the list secret removes accountability.

That is the reason the list is to be secret, but with a bit of technical nouse they could make circumvention non-trivial and perhaps more importantly, detectable (eg. by being the suppliers of the Tor gateways etc). But the issue remains that the list cannot possibly be comprehensive. The lack of accountability, obviously, is of especial concern to me.

But aside from any filters being useless, they will cripple the performance of the internet. ... So no, I don't support any internet censorship.

I wouldn't go so far as "any", but for all the reasons you mention, I would not support this scheme. I'm sorry if anything I wrote made anyone think anything else.

Re:A lack of transparency

[Siridar]

What, exactly, do you want censored? What is it that you don't want to see? I'm genuinely puzzled. If your support of "some degree" of censorship is based on things you find personally objectionable, then the answer I have is simple - don't look at them. Don't go looking /for/ them. What you don't see, you won't be bothered with. This only applies, of course, if you're seeking to stop yourself from seeing something you don't want to see - if you're seeking to stop *me* from seeing something *you* don't want me to see, then we have a problem. Why do you care what I look at?

Re:A lack of transparency

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Australians, myself included, would not disagree with censorship to some degree.

I guess it's out of the question to just, you know, not type in URLs to sites you don't want to visit.

I guess you pretty much have to be able to make that call on everyone else's behalf, huh.

Re:A lack of transparency

[the_xaqster]

Just a small point to consider. Supposing you have access to this list of blocked sites. Supposing it also contains a reason why each site is blocked. Unless the URL is very descriptive, how can you be sure that the reason for blocking it is accurate? After all, you can't access the site to perform an independant check, can you? Unless you are one of the pirates using illegal methods to get round the filter....

Re:A lack of transparency

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but URN12.

By my understanding, "implied right to political communication" is an incorrect rewording of the right. Implied in the Australian Constitution, you have the right to protection from the government interference of your political speech. You do not have protection from non-government interests who may freely do so (e.g. a radio station cutting you off for politically undesirable converstaion).

This is

Re:A lack of transparency

[skarphace]

I would like to have access to their list to know exactly what is being kept from my view and why, to know whether they have overstepped their power and I have any legal or political recourse to object.

I believe this would be a bad idea. Since no blocking is fullproof, all this would do is give free advertising to people who are looking for these types of things or to people that are curious(like kids).

All you'd have to do is hit a US proxy or SSH tunnel to some country that does not block. All you need is this nice shopping list of sites. I say you may as well go through normal law enforcement means and leave the sites to their current level of obscurity.

Re:A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

IANAL, but URN12

Well I am actually.

By my understanding, "implied right to political communication" is an incorrect rewording of the right.

The phrase Brennan J used in Australian Capital Television was "freedom of political communication." The usage of "right" instead of "freedom" is not uncommon. I wasn't quoting, and I'm not sure that the use of 'right' in place of 'freedom' has the legal effect you seem to think it does (though I would not be so bold as to state it has none). Since most legal 'rights' are negative.

... you have the right to protection from the government interference of your political speech. You do not have protection from non-government interests

Did I say you did?

It's an implied constitutional right/freedom. The Constitution provides the framework for the C'th government's legislative power, not (at least not directly), the power of private individuals to broadcast (though it gives the parliament the power to legislate with respect to such broadcasts). Arguable even the State legislatures would not be subject to this "freedom" section 109 notwithstanding. From memory that may even have been argued in Lange, but I don't think it was determined, since the majority there prefered to cast the case in terms of an expanded version of the traditional 'duty to communicate - right to receive' defence to defamation. You'll forgive me if my memory is a little hazy, it's been some time since I have read this series of cases.

HOWEVER, since we are dealing here with something the C'th government is doing, I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your post.

Re:A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

What, exactly, do you want censored?

How about the log my ISP keeps when I go pr0n surfing? :o

To take an actual example of where censorship was applied, how about Hezbollah Children's TV where 4 year olds are taught (repeatedly) how glorious it is to become a suicide bomber? While you may have no problem with it, many people would. If there is truly widespread belief that people don't want the children of a particular ethnic group in our midst instructed to grow up and kill us, then in a democracy it is possible for the people to get their government to do something about it.

What is it that you don't want to see?

Huh? If I don't want to see something I don't look (I do plenty of not looking). We are talking about censorship here. That means nobody seeing it (bar the censor of course).

This only applies, of course, if you're seeking to stop yourself from seeing something you don't want to see

Don't be so dull! If it only applied to that, why would censorship be necessary? Do try to stay on topic!

Why do you care what I look at?

Because I may have to live with the actions you take as a result of what you see? Because I don't want you perusing my browser history?

Your thinking is far too indivdualistic. This is not about what I would want to censor. Damn, give me carte blanche and I'd ban anything stupid, meaning almost everything on TV would go, and people would end up having to read books for entertainment. A sure fire recipe for dystopia! This is about the censorship of matter for which widespeard public agreement exists (however you measure that). More specifically it is about complete transparency in regard to censorship so we (the people subject to executive power) can make sure only matter for which widespread public agreement is censored.

What I am genuine puzzled about is why so many posters are taking umbrage at the fact that I want to limit the extent of censorship and to provide safeguards to ensure the executive don't excercise this power arbitrarily?!

Re:A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

Just a small point to consider ... how can you be sure that the reason for blocking it is accurate?

While true, I don't find a particularly good reason for keeping the list secret. In any case, you don't really believe the govt. would lie to you? ;)

Re:A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

I believe this would be a bad idea. Since no blocking is fullproof, all this would do is give free advertising ...

That's the reason for keeping it secret, yes. My contention is that secret censorship is so corrosive to democracy that the damage this scheme does to our system of government outweighs any possible social good it might achieve.

Re:A lack of transparency

[Anonymous Coward]

You should decide which one is the biggest concern, because they are seperate things.

Actually no, it isn't. One point is simply the extenstion of the other.
The advertised plan was that if you attempted to access a blocked site, it would silently fail. Nothing but a 404 error. If you don't know what is on the blacklist, you have no way to appeal or contest this listing. If the Government of the day wished to keep this listing secret they could easily deny the listing and, either explicitly or implicitly, blame "the Internet" or your connection.

Lack of transparency allows for lack of accountability. This in turn allows for the silent control of information and by extension, the influencing of thought. This issue is not about protecting the children, it is about controlling the populace.

Digital Economy

[Skythe]

The Australian Government has also launched the first of potentially many blogs blogs asking for input on key issues, including Senator Conroy's "filtering" initiative.

Re:Digital Economy

[srjh]

And surprisingly, they're accepting some strongly negative posts as well (an overwhelming majority of the posts there, actually). There's just a backlog of about 12 hours worth of posts that need to be approved first.

I'm quietly hopeful that this means they're looking for a quiet excuse to drop it (and Senator Conroy).

Protest: Now in Canberra

[renegadesx]

There is now also a protest organized for Canberra.

Garema Place, Civic from 12pm-2pm

Re:Protest: Now in Canberra

[mabinogi]

Not quite - it's on City Walk, by the fountain outside the Canberra Centre

Re:Protest: Now in Canberra

[renegadesx]

The email I got said it was at Garema Place, haven't been on Facebook lately

City Walk does make more sense though.

How incredibly naive

[PaganRitual]

"In what could be the first step to backing down on the plans to censor the Australian Internet

You really believe that? Surely more likely is that this is being done to further remove the possiblity of yet more criticism of what is universally regarded to be a stupid idea so they can go ahead with it regardless.

Not that it really matters because we all know, as Senator Conroy has already revealed, that anyone that against this idea is in support of child porn anyway. I wish I could find the article to quote.

Re:How incredibly naive

[bh_doc]

A google and some link digging gave me this, which is probably what you're thinking of: http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/labor-warned-on-porn-filters/2008/01/02/1198949855875.html

"Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Mr Conroy said yesterday. "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."

Re:How incredibly naive

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual quote was:

Illegal material is illegal material. Child pornography is child pornography. I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.

Re:How incredibly naive

[Anonymous Coward]

This one? from December 31st 2007:

"Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," he said.

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/labor-warned-on-porn-filters/2008/01/02/1198949855875.html

High speed National broadband Infrastructure!

[daver00]

Where is it? Come on Rudd, where the hell is the broadband infrastructure promised during the campaign?

This is what gets to me the most of all in this debate, they have not even begun to build the infrastructure they promised to build, and here we are bogged down in this utter waste of time instead! I am dead set against the censorship plan, but what I am even more pissed off about is that the national broadband scheme has taken a back seat to this bullshit!

The one reason this government appealed to me is that they appeared to understand the importance of infrastructure to the digital economy. But it seems like they are not even close to getting it.

Re:High speed National broadband Infrastructure!

[Gadget_Guy]

Where is it? Come on Rudd, where the hell is the broadband infrastructure promised during the campaign?

Well it's been in the news recently: the tender deadline just closed. Telstra were holding out because they didn't like the conditions - probably that the Government would even consider any other provider in the first place! They eventually submitted a tender that was supposedly 12 pages long (compared to the hundreds of pages for the others).

Here's a place to go to for some recent news stories.

Re:High speed National broadband Infrastructure!

[Lunzo]

Tenders for the building the broadband were submitted to the government a couple of weeks ago. It hit the media because Telstra was chucking a hissy fit. Construction will probably start some time next year, after the government chooses the winning bid.

Re:High speed National broadband Infrastructure!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't blame the current government for that, its all down to Telstra delaying and trying to ruin the scheme as they want to remain in control of Australia's communications infrastructure (so they can charge ridiculous prices). (Which is a combination of previous governments faults for not separating the infrastructure from the company when they sold them off for a profit a long time ago and leaving it in the hands of a monopoly.)

And the national broadband scheme is finally moving ahead (a bit), maybe you just aren't hearing as much news about it cause this is taking the limelight.

Axia have apparently put in a bid to put Fibre to the home (rather than fibre to the node as the others want to do), as well as setting their initial pricing to the customers at something like $15 per month (instead of the $85 per month telstra would like to charge for a much lesser service).

Bill of Rights?

[sc0ob5]

Where the fuck is it? I'd vote for any party if they promised to create a bill of rights. Currently Australians have no rights whatsoever.

Labor needs to hang Conroy and this not only stupid but totally wrong idea. If they don't I will be voting liberal next time if I'm still in this fucked up country.

I am ashamed to be Australian right now.

Re:Bill of Rights?

[Monsuco]

I am ashamed to be Australian right now.

Well, it could be worse, you could be French or Canadian, then you wouldn't just be ashamed right now, you would have your whole life for shame.

Get out there and protest!

[Ninth Marion]

Details of the planned protests are here:
http://sites.google.com/site/stopthecleanfeed/protests

Let's kick against the pricks!

Re:To demonstrate how wide ranging this filter is.

[Anonymous Coward]

The most ridiculous part is that anyone can google image search for 'simpsons sex' and find thousands of example pictures, most of which look like they were drawn by a child in the first place.

Freedom is not easily regained... ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

ISP's should -have- to provide several categories of filtering, and customer should be able to switch them on an off at will. That way everyone is happy! Why on earth don't they do this?????????

Be very, very careful when someone wants to take something away from you without choice, (eg. freedom of speech) as you may never -ever- get it back, you or your kids...

-How come the law is so lopsided anyway? so much attention is given to some areas, but almost none to others? Have you watched tv lately??? - What about all the sexual stuff on there? - I find it objectionable!

And what about the (apparent?) incredible acceptance within our society of youngsters of almost any age experimenting with each other? - Ever heard anyone complain about that one? Children should be taught at all ages to avoid inappropriate behaviour, or they will still be in bad behavioural habits as they mature, -and likely get sent to jail for it!

Move! Take Action Now!

[a.ameri]

Taking part in the protests is the first (and very important step). Here is the list of places where protests will be held:

Melbourne:
Saturday 13 December
State Library
12pm-5pm

Sydney:
Saturday 13 December
Town Hall
11am-4pm

Brisbane:
Saturday 13 December
Brisbane Square
11am-3pm

Adelaide:
Saturday 13 December
Parliament
12pm-4pm

Hobart:
Saturday 13 December
Parliament Lawns
11am-1:30pm

Canberra:
Saturday 13 December
Garema Place, Civic
12pm-2pm


Please also consider taking the following actions:

1) Call Senator Conroy's office on 03 9650 1188. Do not be rude, do not swear, just in a very reasoned and rational voice, express your disapproval, and in a few short sentences, say why you disagree. It matters a lot.

2) Write a letter to Senator Conroy, make sure it's between half a page to one page (no more than 400 words). Again, in a polite tone (that doesn't have to be formal, and doesn't have to have letterhead, etc., just your name and address) let him know why you disagree with him. His address is:
Senator Stephen Conroy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002

3) Write a letter to your local MP. It doesn't matter what party he/she is from, Liberals will use your letter to back up their claims in Question Time, which gives publicity to the whole issue and will bring it to mainstream media's attention. Labor members will also express their criticism, privately, to him. This specially matters if your local MP is a Minister and serves in the Cabinet. To find out who your local MP is click here.

4) Write a letter to Prime Minister Rudd. Let him know that when the Australian people voted him in office last year, they didn't know "Education Revolution" means censorship. Rudd's address is:
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

5) Donate or become a member of Electronic Frontiers Australia . Right now the EFA is the sole organisation fighting this. They need all the help they can get.

6) Write a letter to your ISP. It doesn't matter if it's the Evil Telstra; on this, we're all together. They are fighting the battle for us right now, but it would help them to know that what they are doing is a good business practice, that you expect them to fight this to the end.

Don't just sit around and do nothing and then complain about how evil governments are. We, the citizens are the ones who allow governments to become evil, by our political apathy. Move! Take Action! Now!

Re:Move! Take Action Now!

[electrons_are_brave]

Maybe you can answer this question. I'm having a lot of difficulty finding details about this protest. It can't seriously be a FOUR HOUR protest? I'm trying to encourage friends, family and collegues to go, but there is no way that people in Brisbane (which is in the middle of a heat wave) are going to be standing around on a Saturday in the sun for that long. Should I tell them they can drop in at some point between 11.00 and 3.00 and sign a petition? Or is there a march? I've gone to the GetUP website but can't find anything so a link would be good if you know of one.

Re:Move! Take Action Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

EFA are not the only organisation fighting this. Also check out GetUp.

inspired

[Anonymous Coward]

These people aren't stupid; they know that if they did the trial as a live trial, there are a number of people that would find hundreds/thousands of websites blocked that shouldn't be. In their confined demo, they will find considerably fewer unintentionally blocked sites with their far more limited testing, which will allow them to declare the trial a success. This will in turn allow them to push the filter onto everyone. This was a truly inspired idea.

I'm sure it's been said before, but...

[mgiuca]

You have the right to remain silent.

The power of Facebook

[Midnight Thunder]

Given the power Facebook had in making Canadian copyright didn't get out of hand, has anyone in Australia started a Facebook group to invite all their friends to the cause?

Internet Filter

[|>>?]

An internet filter such as Senator Conroy is proposing is at best a misguided attempt to provide a safe environment for children and at worst a totalitarian tool to placate the population.

The internet is a social tool that will continue to grow in its scope and penetration. As the internet evolves from the teenager that it is, filtering will become less and less effective - despite developers best efforts, just look at how SPAM filters have failed to meet the raising tide since 1993.

A better use of the proposed funds is to provide education to the population about how to deal with inappropriate content, rather than attempt to construct a centralised solution for a decentralised problem.

Two Words: DOS Attack

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with spare bandwidth this weekend should point it at http://australia.gov.au/ and soak the fucking site

Alternative point your bandwidth at any christian site you like, because those are the rat bastards that started this fascist bullshit

Jesus didnt die to save us (from anything, not even porn), he died because he was just an ordinary fucker who bleeds like the rest of us and some right thinking people nailed him to a lump of wood.

Hands off my internet you catholic pinheads