Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government Backing Down On Censorship
Combat Wombat sends the news that the government in Australia has begun waffling on whether country-wide Internet censorship will be mandatory. "The Rudd Government has indicated that it may back away from its mandatory Internet filtering plan. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy today told a Senate estimates committee that the filtering scheme could be implemented by a voluntary industry code. ... [The shadow communications minister] said he had never heard of a voluntary mandatory system. ... Senator Conroy's statement is a departure from the internet filtering policy Labor took into the October 2007 election to make it mandatory for ISPs to block offensive and illegal content." The censorship plan, which has been called "worse than Iran," was bypassed even before trials started. A minister's defection may have effectively blocked any chance of implementation.
Keeping back dumb censorship plans, in otherwise democratic countries, is an eternal struggle.
It's so funny to watch a government make a huge mistake, and then try to back down from the decision without saying "sorry guys, we screwed up"
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
So he could tell their government how good incompetently implemented filtering mechanisms worked for them? Maybe, just maybe, they could learn a thing or two.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You knew it would happen.
I knew it would happen.
Things that live under rocks on the floor of the Pacific Ocean knew it would happen.
Something like this won't get off the ground as long as there are people willing to fight against it, and we've got no shortage of those around here.
How do you kill that which has no life?
The summary says "A minister's defection may have effectively blocked any chance of implementation."
But that link refers to Senator Nick Xenophon. He is an independent senator, not a Minister in the government.
This is why Westminster-style governments should never have a senate majority.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
I'm really pleased to read this story, but sadly I think the only reason this "backing down" has come about is because the politicians in question were so bare-faced and blunt with the proposals in the first place. I suspect that has a lot to do with the character and nature of Australians in general. I may get criticised for stereotyping, but most Australians of my acquaintance take pride in the blunt honesty prevalent in their culture, so I don't think I'm out of line.
Unfortunately this culture of an honest (if ineffective and ill-considered) approach to government implementation of web-filtering - and indeed of all privacy-crushing legislation - is rather rarer elsewhere. I'd love to see our ministers "back down" from the measures being artfully and insidiously emplaced under the auspices of all sorts of other harmless- or necessary-sounding legislation, but I just don't see it happening.
I'm not saying Australia is the land of enlightenment and open government or anything, but somehow the top-coat of bullshit and whitewash over there seems to be somewhat shallower on the whole.
Good on yer, Oz. Now please, expose some of the hypocrisy and skullduggery going on in the rest of the developed world for what it is - an ingrained attempt at tightening power and control over the voting public.
Meta will eat itself
This idiotic plan is not killed and dead. The Labor government in general, and Senator Stephen Conroy in particular, have been taken aback by the strength of the opposition. The article noted in the summary only covers some of the incompetent answers given to hard questioning by the main Opposition party and one of the minority parties.
Trials are still being underway involving 4 tiny ISPs, one medium ISP, one Christadelphian ISP and one large ISP majority owned by Singtel.
There is no engineering, vendor neutral specification giving trial design criteria or testing methodology as the basis for the trials. There is no requirement for the ISPs to disclose which method of censorship they selected. The ISPs have been supported to the tune of $AU300,000 but there is still a $AU887,000 consultancy contract for the testing and reporting of on a system to block up to 10,000 URLs. The IWF annual report lists between 1100-1300 sites blocked by their system. Rumour has it that much of the testing in the small ISPs is using equipment from the same censorware vendor but this is not confirmed as several censorware vendors have been lobbying for the windfalls. Watchdog, using the NetClean system was involved in some separate testing undertaken by another ISP, Exetel. The Exetel trial received a great deal of criticism in the Australian internet community and Exetel customers. The trial has not been cancelled and neither has the testing consultancy.
Any assumption that the scheme will disappear is premature.
A list of 1000s of banned films and publications is still in existence. The censorship regime has become more and more repressive over the last 10 years. Realistically the entire basis of censorship needs serious review. It is managed by more than one government authority under several different pieces of legislation. The proposed censorship of the internet is under the control of the telecommunications authority which is yet another government authority.
You would have to try very hard to find a more incompetent approach to anything to do with IT, networking or civil liberties all in the same package.
In Australia, we have a small enough population (and mandatory voting) that its not a wise option to piss off too many people while you are in power. Especially if you want to get back in. The ministers' defection was caused due to backlash in his region. It is my guess that the labor government will try and sweep whats left of the issue under the rug and we won't hear about it again (or at least until some other polly thinks it may be a good idea and may get some conservative votes and we will have to go through this again).
OpenAustralia.org is your friend.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Its already been decided by most people I have talked to that Conroy is the worst communications minister we have seen (to be fair, its a small crowd). Further to that, many think that he is the worst minister with a big portfolio.
I think its only a matter of time before he is dumped from the role, as he would be a large liability for Rudd moving into the next election.
They are not backing down...as the summary sais "...it MAY...". Big difference between "It has" and "It may".
given that the govt may be looking at an early election over alcohol taxation, im not surprised that they may be looking at shelving this unpopular policy and then probably bringing it back again if they are re-elected.
Thanks to all the people around the world who exposed the Australian Taliban who wanted to take us back to the digital dark ages. ;) Wait for the party van?
:(( :( ;)
Their evil backroom deals with the left and the right of Australian.
I still want to know if you get a pop up saying your IP has been passed onto a state or federal task force on the first attempt?
Start shredding cd's, dvds like an East German spy with a pile of files in the late 1980's or a US embassy worker in Iran
Or a "not found" and your IP is logged at the isp. When your user name reaches x attempts, will it be passed onto a state or federal task force?
Your web use is then logged, phone tapped and background looked into?
Time for a sneak and peek court order to see if you have kids at risk?
Be interesting if a telco worker could ever 'guess' the users under investigation
$X not to tell your neighbours
$Y if you want an unfiltered pipe
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Is it just me or is the shadow minister lacking some knowledge of common government policy.
Surely that'd be the kind of thing we get in the UK, and I'm sure other nations do, where the government goes "There is a problem and we think the industry should volunteer to solve it. If it doesn't then we'll mandate a fix." It's entirely voluntary to create the solution, but not volunteering leaves you with the option of being mandated to do something.
On the plus side, at least the Aussies have stopped the filtering (potentially). Here in the UK we still have that non-Governmental organisation monitoring our websites and arbitrarily blocking what they want - the Internet Watch Foundation - and I'm sure the Government has other things they can do in the name of stopping Terrorism/Child Porn/Guns/Drugs/Global Warming/Pension Scandals/Stuff.
would be a positive filter. Instead of trying to filter the entire internet for everyone, create a Government Certified Safe Internet that lists web sites deemed "appropriate for children" by a new bureaucracy, and make it available to anyone's private filter on a voluntary basis. Require all government internet terminals available to children (e.g. libraries) to subscribe to the filter. Yes, there are already private companies that offer this service, but the constituents driving this evidently trust a giant government bureaucracy more than they trust a somewhat smaller corporate bureaucracy.
There will still be a market for private filter companies because they can offer different censoring standards to parents. It could actually be a good thing to have a voluntary censoring standard backed by general consensus. Private filters could start with the government database as a baseline, then add sites that "really should have been approved" or subtract sites that "my kid(s) can't handle". (For instance, my daughter had nightmares about "ducks biting her" after an incident involving a goose. She was not allowed to view "Jurassic Park" until she was much older, even though it was appropriate for the other kids.)
Hang on a sec!
Labour never announced this policy beforehand, or at least not in the form it came up as. The core announcement they made was that they would abolish the former conservative government's near-useless web filter software scheme and "investigate options" for parents to choose blocking at an ISP level. (Which several ISPs already provided as a viable commercial service for those who wanted it.) It was only afterwards, when a significant majority was won in the lower house and a sway-able majority in the Senate that they pushed a policy of compulsory industry-wide filtering.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
he had never heard of a voluntary mandatory system...
That's because he's Australian. Here in the US, filing you tax forms is "Voluntary, but not optional". I swear I wish I were making this up...
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
... to see if an information controlling measure is intended to empower citizens or to manipulate the choices of citizens by controlling what they can know is as follows:
a) Is it a mechanism where people are allowed to opt-in (for example, forcing ISPs to make available to their clients page blocking software which they can install on their home computers) or is it a default mechanism or worse, one from which the users cannot opt-out
b) How is the list of blocked sites supervised? Is it open for all to check or at least supervised by a non-governmental independent entity (members are not selected by the government, the funding is not controlled by the government and they have no economical or political reasons to bow to the will of the government)?
Applying this test shows that what the Australian government now proposes is still a measure to "manipulate the choices of citizens by controlling what they can know":
1) Citizens will get their information censored by default if it's so "chosen" by entities which are sensitive to political pressure (ISPs will do it if only to have a chance to win government contracts and to "avoid trouble" getting licenses for things like accessing/building infrastructure)
2) The list is still secret and it's contents controlled by a non-independent entity.
All you have to do is look at the UK - "voluntary" ("but we will make it mandatory by law if you don't implement it") filtering by the ISPs using a list made up by an organization which is 100% controlled by the government (both in terms of appointing the management and providing funds) although disguised as "non-governmental organization". The leaks that have popped-out show arbitrary censorship, including of sites that criticize that system.
When money is short in far more important areas... like food and education!
I often wonder why we should worry about some kids looking at smut on the net, when everyday they see war and death and violence (and bloody victims) all over in the news AT PRIME TIME!!!
It just makes my mind boggle...
I do think that like terrorism, the "protect the kids" is being used just as an excuse for harder and more restrictive laws all over the world.
O.o
Limiting government control, thus keeping our civil rights in otherwise democratic countries, is an eternal struggle.
Fixed that for you. While the government wants you to presume that they're in charge, let's not you nor I forget who's important here. To be pedantic: if the government's in charge, we struggle to keep our civil rights. If we're in charge, the government struggles to do, well, anything except what we tell it to.
I've read so many stories about that nation trying to seal itself off culturally on every media front that I can't bring myself to give a shit about that backwater hick country that has committed itself to cultural jihads. Yes, this measure went down - but don't think they won't try again, and again, and again. I'll be keeping my money in the northern hemisphere for countries that allow me to think.
But don't fret - have another beer and fuck another shrimp on a goddamn barby in the meantime - don't worry your pretty little empty head about anything. It makes such a lovely rattle.
Filtering is already voluntary.
Ask yourself this "Why not just drop the proposal?"
obviously something else is in the works.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Thanks, we in OZ have enough self righteous arseholes already, please please stay right where you are.
As an Australian citizen and having listened to Conroy speak in a number of public forums, my concerns over his filtering scheme have shifted dramatically.
Originally I was concerned that the proposal was what most people still seem to think it is: mandatory filtering at ISP level of a government-defined blacklist.
Conroy has made it clear a number of times that what he is trying to implement is quite different.
There is, and has been for 8 years, an existing process whereby Australians can request classification of a site by the classification board. If the board refuses classification (and there is some debate around the definition of RC, but that's another matter), then the board can issue a take-down notice and the site is added to a black list which is currently distributed to software filter vendors and ISPs to facilitate voluntary filtering.
Conroy is simply proposing that this filtering be made mandatory.
The reason this changes the focus of my concern is that during discussions in public forums, I heard comments from average, non-tech-literate citizens and families, who are supportive of Conroy's proposal because they are concerned about exposure of their children to unwanted material and believe that his proposal will help prevent this.
If we really want to encourage a groundswell of outrage against the proposal, we should focus on just how little content will actually ever be filtered by it. We should highlight how very marginally more 'safe' these families will be from unwanted material.
Some stark statistics might do it: There are x billion pages of content on the internet. Australians each day view x million pages (x% of the total). So far x pages have been submitted for review to the classification board (0.0000x% of those viewed). So far x pages (x% of those submitted) have been banned.
Your child is being protected from 0.00000000000000000000x% of internet content by Conroy's plan, at a cost of $x million, or $x,000 per page. 99.999999999999% of content will remain unfiltered for your children. Sound like a good investment?
It may be a small crowd but when you consider who is in that crowd it makes the statement even more damning. Consider the fact that the World's biggest Luddite held the post a number of years prior to it going to Conroy. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/28/this_man_must/
Its already been decided by most people I have talked to that Conroy is the worst communications minister we have seen
ROFL. Compared to Senator Alston, the man is a genius. But then, compared to Senator Alston, an Ecuadorian Marmot is a genius.
The fact of the matter is, a small number of extremely evil people have been colluding with the Australian Government to censor the news for nearly 50 years, and with the arrival of the internet, the power of this Cabal of Evilness is under threat.
So believe it, there are VERY powerful people committed to censoring the Internet in AU, but they don't have the technical competence to understand how it can be done (or if it can be done). The problem ,as they are just starting to realise, is that even in a totalitarian regime such as China, they were still unable to completely censor the internet, but they were able to monitor what people were looking browsing/reading, and send in the Public Security Bureau for harassment, beatings or imprisonment to those who offended.
Ultimately, censorship is just not possible without some kind of police state, or state control of the broadcast medium. Since they have lost the latter, they are still trying to work out how to implement the former (very difficult in Australia when almost everyone is a criminal, including most of the police and the majority of politicians they 'work' for).
I am sure we will see more teeth gnashing and hand wringing over this issue. The so-called 'National Broadband Network' was an attempt to address the criticism that filtering would reduce speed, the most contentious issue as Australia has probably the worst Internet service in the developed world, even worse than the US.
They will try again with a new Minister, of that I am certain. Power wants to remain in power.
"so where the bloody hell are you?"
Ooops... firewalled I suppose
"So where the bloody hell are you?" Ooops... Got firewalled I suppose