Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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. -_-
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
...My Sig Sucks...
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.
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.
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.
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