Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aussie Gov't To Introduce Bill That Would Require ISP-Level Censorship

Posted by timothy on from the lovely-people-shame-about-the-government dept.

bennyboy64 writes "iTnews reports that the Australian Government has announced its intention to introduce legislation that will make ISP-level filtering mandatory for all refused classification material hosted overseas. The Government intends to amend the Broadcasting Services Act in August 2010 to enforce the filter, and expects the filter to be operational within a further twelve months. 'The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed' Senator Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said." This despite, as reader Sharky2009 writes, the trial run showing that "a technically competent user could circumvent filtering technology based on ACMA’s blacklist."

11 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. what the fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is there a way to vote this guy out of office or something?

  2. Wake up Australia by jack2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe you're still swallowing this bullshit by the buckets. It's time you did something. Get those people out of parliament, elect new officials!

    1. Re:Wake up Australia by BlortHorc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, sadly so, we need to introduce a new law. Must be at least this technically literate to hold a ministerial position governing technology. Sadly, that would exclude essentially all currently elected politicians, as well as the vast bulk of the potential electoral fodder.

      This is essentially the end result of having a technological society where technological education is not mandatory. They require you to learn English, so you can speak to people, but the don't require you understand technology, so that you can understand the society you live in.

      As a consequence, at best, the pollies are neophytes, and at worst luddites.

    2. Re:Wake up Australia by gknoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoever said "those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" was obviously crazy and/or making use of hyperbole and/or hadn't thought about his own position.

      Benjamin Franklin, one of the more influential thinkers in the American Revolution, was the one who said that. He was eccentric, but I don't think he was crazy. He certainly was aware of his situation.

      At the time, people living in America had relative safety (individually). The British crown generally tried to protect them, and wasn't out to kill them. However, there were certain injustices that the Crown perpetrated on them -- things like taxing them without letting them have representatives in Parliament, and the British military effectively forcing civilians to quarter (Feed+board) them for indefinite amounts of time. Franklin, and the other revolutionaries who drafted our Declaration of Independence, were very aware that they were making a choice to either revolt (and risk capital punishment should they fail or be caught) or continue sacrificing the Liberties which they felt were absolutely essential.

      Many of these liberties and related concerns are addressed directly in the first 10 amendments to our Constitution: the rights of freedom of religion, speech, a free press, and the right not to have troops quartered in your house are four examples. These are principles which Franklin and the others were absolutely prepared to die for.

      Franklin and his friends knew a lot more about the matter than many of us do. Right now, we live in relative prosperity and comfort, so the risk and "temporary safety" are amplified in our minds. We're not likely to die to disease, cold, or raiding natives, for example. Our populace has basically been seduced by the bread and circuses (so to speak), and has willingly traded away freedoms which some of us consider essential (freedom to copy a DVD you own, freedom to communicate securely, etc) in order to have a more blissful and convenient existence. The security theater we see in American (and other) airports is another example of this: we've pretty much irrevocably squandered our right to not be treated like a herd of potential criminals, in exchange for "safety". This is absolutely the same sort of things over which Franklin and others were willing to shed blood over: tyrrany, however petty.

  3. 100% Accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry but done with 100% accuracy? I think that is an internet filtering first. I'd love to know what filtering technology they are using because it is far better than anything I've used to date.

  4. Re:national character? by zblack_eagle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Us Australians don't want this except for the lunatic fringes that exist (as they exist in every other country). However, like everywhere else politicians here like to pull the tough-on-crime/think-of-the-children card when it comes to appeasing the large number of voters that favour 'shoot first and ask questions later' responses to perceived problems

  5. Of course... by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone (or at least, most people) here at Slashdot knows that on a network as large as the internet, no blacklist method will achieve 100% accuracy.

    This, of course, means that Senator Conroy is either completely ignoring the technical results, or the technical results are being flubbed to match Senator Conroy's agenda.

    Are others in your parliament actually going to vote for this bill, or is he more of a rogue senator who isn't actually supported?

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  6. Re:Conroy is a Traitor. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How would it make Abbott a hypocrite if he opposes internet filtering?

    This is politics. There will be posturing.

    If Abbott opposes the filter, various family groups will be trotted out to express horror that he endorses pedophiles having access to filth on the (uncensored) internet.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  7. Re:What happened Australia? by hierofalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Things changed here? Sorry. I missed it. Perhaps you could enlighten us on what you think really is significantly different now.

  8. clearly a humbug reason for filtering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Why did the Government cease providing free PC filters when ISP filtering will not be available until 2011?
    The PC filter program experienced low take-up and very low ongoing use. It was therefore closed to new users six months earlier than originally planned.
    Only around 12.5 per cent of the approximately two million households with dependent children and an internet connection are estimated to have tried one of these filters, and less than one per cent of these households continue to use their filters."

    1% of the population still uses this filtering ...
    12% has tried it out ...
    this means:
      88 % of all people didn't even want to try it out,
    out of the remaining 12%, 90% of those who've tried it out dumped it afterwards ...
    conclusion: 99% of your population do not want filtering, the other 1% can still filter their own PC by installing the software on their own PC.

  9. Time for heads to [politically] roll... by Smegly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Send a clear message in next Aussie elections... Pirate Party Australia.