Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aussie Censorship "Live Trials" Won't Be Live

Posted by kdawson on from the stepping-back-from-a-conflagration dept.

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."

8 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. While all the news is about Aussie censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship by iDav · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ...My Sig Sucks...
  2. Re:Its not such a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Surprise, Surprise! by z0idberg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. A lack of transparency by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    1. Re:A lack of transparency by PopeGumby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:What's the point? by daver00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. High speed National broadband Infrastructure! by daver00 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.