US-Australia Tensions Rise Over Net Filter

daria42 writes "Tensions between the US Government and its counterpart in Australia appear to be rising over Australia's proposal to filter the internet for objectionable content. The US government has raised its concerns over what it sees as potential censorship directly with the Australian Government. However, last night, Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy denied he had had any approach from US State Department officials."

Comments

I come from the land down under

[Anonymous Coward]

Where women don't shave and men chunder...

Re:I come from the land down under

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but our women can open beers using their belly buttons. Your move, America.

Re:I come from the land down under

[Anonymous Coward]

The Australian girls do pretty good. Among the best when it comes to drinking and dirty talking, but they have some learning to do when it comes to fighting for their rights.

Norwegian women is total pain in the .... for the Norwegian men! That is how we like them! :-)

US girls has been pushed down for a long time.

diode effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We can censor you but you can not censor us, we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us." --United States of America

Re:diode effect?

[FriendlyLurker]

"We can censor you but you can not censor us, we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us." --United States of America

Probably just another CIA "Red Cell" style case of manipulating public opinion similar to this case. Only In this example its just basic old Reverse psychology: Your citizens overwhelmingly do not want filters. If the US says don't do it, your citizens will rally against foreigners telling them what to do - and so be more open to implement filtering. Childish, but it probably works on some.

Re:diode effect?

[Chrisq]

"We can censor you but you can not censor us, we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us." --United States of America

Exactly. We can block online Casinos and anything elee we don't like, but how dare you block our porn sites.

Re:diode effect?

[deniable]

It'd probably work better than their attempts to make and distribute porn films starring fake foreign leaders. In this case, it'd be a funny take on the filters, but I'm not sure I want to see Big Kev in action.

Re:diode effect?

[Anachragnome]

I've always operated under the belief that the US government uses the internet as a means (probably the most effective means since we rely so much less operatives then we have in the past) to disseminate their own "form" of democracy. The US has invested heavily in this outlet of propaganda (news, if you prefer to call it that).

Australia jeopardizes all of this by possibly starting a trend that spreads to other countries, in effect, legitimizing filtering.

I think someone in the US government finally realized that would be a HUGE step backwards in terms of what the US government wants.

To be honest, I find it highly amusing that all of this, the use of the net as a means of disseminating propaganda, might actually be the one thing that ensures net neutrality.

Re:diode effect?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I was thinking the message was more along the lines of:

"We hate censorship, and you should too. Ask me how."

Never mind hypocrisy, this is cultural imperialism.

Re:diode effect?

[Fluffeh]

Possible title for the "adult movie":

The flood of the stud, Rudd, poking into the crud... thud thud thud.

Re:diode effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the US government for you. What did you expect?

It's the same with the EU and flight passenger information, banking data and laws and regulations that hamper immoral practices of US corporations. Orders go strictly one-way from the US to the EU and data only flows back one-way from the EU to the US.

Re:diode effect?

[aussie_a]

Australia jeopardizes all of this by possibly starting a trend that spreads to other countries, in effect, legitimizing filtering.

The problem is, EVERYONE keeps saying its impossible (which isn't a problem for those who don't want a filter).

First the ISPs joined the test-run specifically to prove the idea is infeasible.

Then Stephen Conroy kept pushing for it, so the company whose filters they were going to use stepped up and said "It won't work. Our filters are for small networks such as at a high-school. They won't work on a nation-wide scale."

A company, who the government wanted to throw money at, said "Don't give us money. We can't sell you this product because it won't do what you want it to do." They did this. PUBLICLY! That degree of honesty is just staggering and shocking. And if that company is sacrificing the chance to make so much money, the filter simply can't be done.

So no matter how much Stephen Conroy might want a filter, it won't happen unless he gets some technicians from China to help us out.

Re:diode effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of Aussies don't want the damn filter, and having the USA agree that it's stupid isn't going to change that. This isn't Asia, we don't subscribe to that 'saving face' bullshit

Re:diode effect?

[JasterBobaMereel]

What most people don't realise it the the great firewall of China does not work either ... it is only mostly effective because of the consequences of trying to get around it ...

If it was implemented anywhere in "the west" then most citizens would find ways around it, or bypass it completely ....

Re:diode effect?

[nedlohs]

Except the US doesn't block them, you can get to those gambling sites and play them just fine within the US. Of course you might be breaking the law and will probably have problems transferring money due to those laws but that has nothing to do with internet filtering.

Re:diode effect?

[TheRaven64]

I think you misunderstand the aim of the Chinese firewall. From what people I know in China have said, it's pretty easy to bypass and a lot of tech-savvy people do. The aim is subtler. It's closer to a party-sponsored news outlet like Fox News; it isn't to stop people finding things out, it's simply to make it easier to find party-approved information than anything else. It's not there to make it impossible to find information that the party doesn't want you to see - that's impossible - it's there to make it difficult to accidentally find such information.

Re:diode effect?

[elrous0]

The goal of most filters isn't to be completely impossible to bypass, it's to make it enough of a pain in the ass to bypass that only a tiny minority will do it.

Re:diode effect?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Hence the sarcastic argument earlier that the US was trying to reverse-psychology Australia into increased censorship by playing up the "The US can't tell us what to do! Censor us, our government!" card.

Re:diode effect?

[Shihar]

The US doesn't block online Casinos. It has declared them illegal to use and forbidden US companies to deal with them, but you absolutely can get to them via the Intertubes.

Re:diode effect?

[zuperduperman]

The problem is that it *may* work. As in, they will turn it on, filtering 500 web sites, tell the populace that they are now safe from internet child porn and the ignorant masses will notice nothing different and vote for the government for doing the right thing.

Nobody will notice that it is completely ineffective, or that it entrenches use of secure P2P channels by pedophiles so that it becomes infinitely harder to track them down. Nobody will give the slightest thought to the fact that infrastructure is now in place for a future government to do any kind of censorship or even monitoring and interception that it wants. It won't be for 10 years until anybody notices anything bad about this whole thing. And by the time bad things do happen, Conroy and the whole crowd who vote this thing in will be long gone.

Re:diode effect?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If it was implemented anywhere in "the west" then most citizens would find ways around it, or bypass it completely ....

Until the Daily Mail "named and shamed" people bypassing the filters and sandwiched their picture between a known paedophile and Jon Venables. Then you'll find the consequences for dissent are every bit as unpleasant as those available to the Communist Party.

Re:diode effect?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I read that before I posted my comment. Then I posted my comment. Do you know why?

Because just as it's juvenile to suddenly hate things because someone else orders you to like it, it's equally juvenile to start modifying your behaviour because someone points out a resemblance to juvenile behaviour. You assume here that I didn't have similar opinions before the US government decided to poke its nose into our business, which is simply not true.

The fact is, I'm no cheerleader for censorship myself, but not a censorship discussion goes by when I don't feel like the opinions expressed are paranoid, unrealistic, and completely overblown.

Like this for example. Why get into mud-slinging over this? It's not the end of the world if I don't think censorship is such a big deal.

Re:diode effect?

[ultranova]

Nobody will notice that it is completely ineffective, or that it entrenches use of secure P2P channels by pedophiles so that it becomes infinitely harder to track them down.

Is that a bad thing, thought? A pedophile downloads child porn to jack off to; you track him down. Why? What, exactly speaking, does that accomplish, apart from making life even harder for someone who's already dealt a shitty hand?

I understand people want to see someone suffer - that's what the gladiator games of Rome were all about, feeding OMG criminals to the lions - but can't you satisfy that urge with a violent action movie or something? That's what ethical people do, when they experience immoral urges. Or perhaps you're the type that would molest children, were that your fancy?

Re:diode effect?

[ultranova]

Never mind hypocrisy, this is cultural imperialism.

Some cultural values are better than others, and should dominate over them. For example, free access to information is better than censorship, and should dominate over it. This can be easily demonstrated by thinking whether you would want some entity preventing you from accessing information that entity has deemed contrary to its goals.

But hey, keep on lying to yourself that all cultures are equal, and specifically that ours isn't superior to any other; ours gives you that right. Plenty of others wouldn't.

Re:diode effect?

[GasparGMSwordsman]

Sorry mate but in no way are those casinos blocked. The US Federal Government closed loopholes in transfer of funds that were used to launder money that is all.

I myself continue to legally play poker online (for money). I pay taxes on the income from that online poker. A friend of mine gambles online as his sole income. Under IRS guidelines he is running a sole proprietorship (company) and has to keep extensive records for tax purposes. He provides thousands of documents listing what he played, what site, when and how much he won/lost on each session to the Government every year. He was even audited last year.

The change in Federal law basically makes how you get money to and from online casinos different than it was before (with more transparency in regards to the financial records). Other than that it is pretty much exactly the same as before.

Re:diode effect?

[AmberBlackCat]

It won't ensure net neutrality. They'll just ensure (what they want to get through) gets through, and allow (what they don't want to get through) to get censored. It's not so much a problem with filtering. It's more about who decides what gets filtered.

Re:diode effect?

[zuperduperman]

Well, you're engaging in a whole different argument about whether passive pedophilia is dangerous or not. You appear have a view about that. It doesn't really matter. Linking the argument against censorship to the notion that consumption of child sex abuse material is harmless would be horrifically destructive to the cause. It would alienate a substantial portion of people who are against censorship and validate the bizarre accusation that continually gets made that people opposing the filter are sympathetic to child abusers.

Re:diode effect?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Some cultural values are better than others, and should dominate over them.

Yeah, like the way that respect for other people's cultures should completely dominate cultural imperialism. When I say respect, of course, I don't mean you have to agree with them, but at the same time, you don't have to shove alternatives down their throats.

You wait. If China becomes big enough, you're going to get a huge taste of your own medicine. You're going to see exactly what it's like when a bunch of powerful idiots come in and start telling you how to run the show. Hey, they may even come up with some bullshit "proof" about how everyone should think that freedom is holding the US back!

For example, free access to information is better than censorship, and should dominate over it. This can be easily demonstrated by thinking whether you would want some entity preventing you from accessing information that entity has deemed contrary to its goals.

Stupid, narrow-minded little American. Thinking that his opinions are shared throughout the world, or that these opinions can be logically derived for everyone, when we don't even share the same axioms.

You say that a dislike for censorship can be derived from considering being censored by someone not in line with your goals. What about, for example, working? I don't like working under a boss who's goals are contrary to my own. Does that mean I should have a dislike of work? Does it mean I should shove a dislike of work down everybody else's throats?

Of course censorship sucks for you if the censurer's goals aren't in line with your own. The same applies to anything situation with more than one decision-maker. By considering only the absolute worse case, you haven't at all proven that censorship is evil.

But hey, keep on lying to yourself that all cultures are equal

No, you're right. Doing so would be far too charitable to you guys.

Are you an idiot? I never said all cultures were equal, and I never thought that. However, if it makes it comforts you that much that everyone that doesn't love the good ol' US of A is lying to themselves, then, well, you are an idiot!

And certainly I never claimed that your culture wasn't superior to some other cultures. Hell, I never claimed, before my sarcastic claim above, that your culture isn't superior to my culture. However, it is up to us, not you, to decide whether we prefer your culture or ours.

ours gives you that right. Plenty of others wouldn't.

Plenty of others would. Including ours. Does that mean you'll stop harassing us?

Re:diode effect?

[mjwx]

What most people don't realise it the the great firewall of China does not work either ... it is only mostly effective because of the consequences of trying to get around it ... If it was implemented anywhere in "the west" then most citizens would find ways around it, or bypass it completely ....

Forget the citizens, Australian ISP's would just not implement it. A VPN to Singapore or Sweden becomes standard part of the package, after this ISP's will just implement the filter in the cheapest way possible to comply with law (ancient white box in the corner of a disused lavatory). Why would any ISP shoot themselves in the foot by deliberately crippling their product.

Re:diode effect?

[Ninth Marion]

I can't see that attitude existing at all in Australia, most of us are glad for the support against our own government. Sad, but there it is.

However, you may have a point in a way. Make enough stink about other country's filtering and perhaps your own citizens won't think you're messing with, or spying, on their connections.

Re:diode effect?

[Meski]

I've always operated under the belief that the US government uses the internet as a means (probably the most effective means since we rely so much less operatives then we have in the past) to disseminate their own "form" of democracy. The US has invested heavily in this outlet of propaganda (news, if you prefer to call it that).

Australia jeopardizes all of this by possibly starting a trend that spreads to other countries

Australia started this? China's been doing tit for years.

Re:diode effect?

[ultranova]

Yeah, like the way that respect for other people's cultures should completely dominate cultural imperialism. When I say respect, of course, I don't mean you have to agree with them, but at the same time, you don't have to shove alternatives down their throats.

I haven't suggested shoveling anything down anyone's throat. I have merely suggested letting the Chinese people decide for themselves, rather than Chinese Communist Party deciding for everyone and hiding alternatives to prevent any of their subjects from disagreeing.

You wait. If China becomes big enough, you're going to get a huge taste of your own medicine.

Actually, wouldn't that be incentive for me to not wait, but try to convert China to my way of thinking?

Stupid, narrow-minded little American.

I'm not an American. Perhaps it's you who should widen your mental image of the world a bit?

Thinking that his opinions are shared throughout the world, or that these opinions can be logically derived for everyone, when we don't even share the same axioms.

The axiom I started with is that "nobody likes someone else forcing their will on them". If someone doesn't agree with that axiom, why would they disagree with that someone else being me? And if they do agree with it, it follows that democracy would be a better form of government to them, since it conforms to that axiom more closely.

Also, all your arguments seem to take that axiom as a given, so you clearly do share it.

You say that a dislike for censorship can be derived from considering being censored by someone not in line with your goals. What about, for example, working? I don't like working under a boss who's goals are contrary to my own. Does that mean I should have a dislike of work? Does it mean I should shove a dislike of work down everybody else's throats?

Nice rant. Dislike for censorship can be derived from the fact that censorship makes it impossible for you to decide for yourself, since you have no reliable way of getting information about your choices. That's the very reason censorship has been and continues to be such a valuable tool for various dictatorships.

As a side note, Chinese dictatorship certainly seems to consider Western culture superior to theirs, since they feel the need to hide it from their subjects. Why do that, if they believed said subjects would choose said dictatorship over democracy?

Of course censorship sucks for you if the censurer's goals aren't in line with your own. The same applies to anything situation with more than one decision-maker. By considering only the absolute worse case, you haven't at all proven that censorship is evil.

Indeed, the case of many decision makers requires negotiation of a fair and acceptable compromise between them and their goals. A censor attempts to sort-circuit that, by hiding information from other decision makers, and thus wielding power over them.

Are you an idiot? I never said all cultures were equal, and I never thought that. However, if it makes it comforts you that much that everyone that doesn't love the good ol' US of A is lying to themselves, then, well, you are an idiot!

Perhaps. Of course, I never said anything the like, so the lack of cognitive ability seems to better characterize the other party to this exchange. All I have said is that freedom is better than lack of it.

Also, if all cultures are not equal, then it follows that "cultural imperialism" is actually a good thing, as it spreads the superior culture and lets more people enjoy its fruits. You seem to fail to understand what you're saying, and it's logical consequences.

And certainly I never claimed that your culture wasn't superior to some other cultures

Re:diode effect?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I haven't suggested shoveling anything down anyone's throat. I have merely suggested letting the Chinese people decide for themselves, rather than Chinese Communist Party deciding for everyone and hiding alternatives to prevent any of their subjects from disagreeing.

I think they can make up their minds without you "letting" them. They may like the Chinese Community Party. If they don't, they have their own problems, and they will ask for help if they want it.

I'm not sure you realise how patronising you're being in your attempt to let them decide for themselves.

Actually, wouldn't that be incentive for me to not wait, but try to convert China to my way of thinking?

No, it's an incentive to strengthen your own culture and economy. It's quicker, cheaper, and easier than homogenising the world's culture.

I'm not an American. Perhaps it's you who should widen your mental image of the world a bit?

And I'm not Chinese. As it turns out, American's are not the only ones who are stupid and narrow-minded, and the Chinese are not the only ones who dare question the libertarian philosophy being pushed into every corner of the globe.

The axiom I started with is that "nobody likes someone else forcing their will on them".

What if the censurer is in line with the population's collective will? Then this, by and large, is not a matter of forcing wills. Naturally, there will be a portion of the population who don't agree with the censorship on certain points, but then it's a matter of weighing up whether the rest should suffer because of the few.

Basically, it's not possible from this humble axiom alone to derive a dislike for censorship.

Also, all your arguments seem to take that axiom as a given, so you clearly do share it.

Sort of. Right now, I'm using the distinct, but similar axiom of "not everyone else likes someone forcing their will on them." Actually, it's not even an axiom; it's a theorem. I am a counterexample for the alternative.

Nice rant.

Thank you.

Dislike for censorship can be derived from the fact that censorship makes it impossible for you to decide for yourself, since you have no reliable way of getting information about your choices.

It depends on the censorship. And even under the heavier censorship schemes, perhaps what you need to make a decision is to look at the communication pathways available to you, and decide whether you would prefer them the way they are, or cluttered with potentially offensive information. I take your point that you can't know what's being censored, but then again, you can't know what's being censored without being exposed to it. So, by receiving the full information on the subject, the decision is already made for you.

Indeed, the case of many decision makers requires negotiation of a fair and acceptable compromise between them and their goals. A censor attempts to sort-circuit that, by hiding information from other decision makers, and thus wielding power over them.

It depends on the censor. I think that would fall under the category of "abuse".

Perhaps. Of course, I never said anything the like, so the lack of cognitive ability seems to better characterize the other party to this exchange. All I have said is that freedom is better than lack of it.

Also, if all cultures are not equal, then it follows that "cultural imperialism" is actually a good thing, as it spreads the superior culture and lets more people enjoy its fruits. You seem to fail to understand what you're saying, and it's logical consequences.

Ha! That's the mistake that everyone makes: "Because not all cultures are equal, then some cultures are better than others". There is no absolute

Re:diode effect?

[JasterBobaMereel]

...this will be a very large edition of the paper, how do you name and shame a few million people

Of course he denies it..........

[allaunjsilverfox2]

He's CENSORING the output of his speech! :p

Re:Of course he denies it..........

[deniable]

He's probably telling the truth. Why would the Americans deal with him? They're talking to the foreign minister/DFAT or the PM's office.

Re:Of course he denies it..........

[dakameleon]

Yeah, but one would assume that as the minister in charge of the area being discussed he would at the very least be notified as soon as practical.

That or he's a lying slimeball. I'm not sure which is easier to believe.

Filters... What About ACTA

[Taliesan999]

One branch is expressing concerns about our lovely Internet filter while the other is trying to ram ACTA down our throats.

BOTH will have an effect on free speech... neither of them we want.

Re:Filters... What About ACTA

[dakameleon]

ACTA isn't being rammed down our throats, since we're taking an active part in negotiating it. Far more nefarious was 5 years ago when through the AUSFTA we had copyright extensions from 50 to 70 years, and the DMCA rammed into Australian law without any significant debate in the Australian parliament under the banner of the greater trade good.

Re:Filters... What About ACTA

[WNight]

Who's we?

I feel ACTA is being forced upon most people, despite what their country may say.

Re:Filters... What About ACTA

[dakameleon]

Who's we?

We the people of Australia through our elected representatives in government. If you don't like it, go speak up, or stand for parliament and make a change through the system. Most people won't care too much because they either don't know or are likely to believe it'll not affect them, unless we who understand the implications raise awareness and can argue a persuasive case.

Welcome to democracy.

Re:Filters... What About ACTA

[dpastern]

Or the average level of stupidity of the average Australian is lowered, so that they can comprehend things. Most Australians will also need anti-laziness pills, to counter the natural laziness of the average Australian. We'll also need some pills for the "she'll be right mate" syndrome.

We're a fucking lazy country, full of fucking lazy people, who don't give a shit about anything, other than our own little worlds. Anyone who tries to educate others is socially ostracised and called "weird", or a "troublemaker".

Until the masses understand what is happening, and why, and rises against it en masse, nothing will EVER happen. This is both true of Australia and the US of A. Governments now this, and play on it. They play on our fear (BS about terrorism), they play on our apathy, and also our laziness and inaction.

Dave

Re:Filters... What About ACTA

[dakameleon]

What natural laziness? Australians are, on average, amongst the hardest working in the developed world. The lazy perception and stereotype that persists is outdated and needs to be thrown out.

And until you stop referring to the majority of the populace as "the masses", you're not exactly going to be leading the change. No-one thinks of themselves as part of "the masses", so some language that is actually likely to engage would be far more useful.

Re:Filters... What About ACTA

[dpastern]

Oh I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings by telling the truth about Australians. My oh my, I'm sooo bad. The truth is, we're a friggen lazy lot. I could counter claim your comments by linking to URLs that say Australians have the largest rate of obesity in the world. Obesity is usually linked to 2 things - over eating and lack of exercise, i.e. laziness.

We work the longest hours because our government doesn't give a fuck about the average worker. Employers can do what they want here. Unfair dismissal? Businesses with less than 10 staff are immune to unfair dismissal laws (blatant discrimination anyone?). That's around 60% of the working population btw. Governments have been far more concerned with "oh, the poor little business" than the people who fucking vote them in - the ordinary populace. Yet, our average Australia is still too fucking stupid to realise this, let alone voice their thoughts and opinions.

More proof of stupidty? The Internet firewall - roughly 70% of our populace is happy with it, because they're too stupid and too fucking lazy to understand the reality of it all. They just happily accept the BS that they are fed by the government. Those damn pesky pedos, they're almost as bad as terrorist lol.

Don't even get me started. This country is pretty fucked up, and that's all down to the people.

As V says to Evey in V for Vendetta:

"people should not be afraid of their goverments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

There's also a nice reference in this very same movie about the government, and all the restrictive changes being down to the people themselves refusing to act (it's the whole premise of the movie really).

Dave

Re:Filters... What About ACTA

[Hurricane78]

He meant *our* throats, and by the *government*.

Both of them are missing the point entirely

[Whuffo]

Successfully filtering the net is impossible - that's been proven time and time again. If either one of them realized this simple truth then they'd know that their statements are somewhat nonsensical.

Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Of course! We just have to make politicians live in the real world! I wonder why no one's thought of that before?

Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is that Conroy insists that any blacklist must remain secret... on the basis that if it's released people will visit the sites contained therein. i.e. he *knows* that the filter won't work, and yet still insists on pushing for it!

Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely

[srjh]

I think it's extremely unlikely that Stephen Conroy isn't aware of this simple truth.

It's being pushed through for the same reason most policies are pushed through by governments -- because they think there is political capital to be gained in doing so. While I'm unsure whether their assumption is accurate, there is no way it would have come to this point without extensive focus group testing and behind-the-scenes calculations of exactly what they have to gain.

On the other hand, I'm struggling to see how it's a vote winner. It's not so much the level of support it has that counts, but how many votes are likely to be changed on this issue alone. Many of the strongest opponents of the filter are young, educated, tech-literate Labor voters and I have no doubt the policy is going to cost them dearly in that demographic. The strongest supporters of the filter are right-wing religious fundamentalists who are unlikely to vote Labor anyway, particularly with "Mad Monk" Abbott leading the Liberals (the Liberals are the conservative party for our foreign readers... go figure).

Which leaves lukewarm support amongst parents and others who aren't strongly involved, but two minutes conversing with them makes it clear that the policy they support isn't the one the government is proposing. Every time this comes up for discussion on talkback radio, blogs, letters to the editor and other forms of public commentary, it's the same arguments over and over. "I want the internet to be safe for my ten-year-old when I'm not around", "the government needs to do something about all this porn on YouTube", "I caught my son looking at hard core pornography", "there's too much porn on the internet". These people are going to be extremely disappointed when they realise that R-rated and X-rated material (i.e. up to and including hard core pornography) falls outside the scope of the filter, and that out of the trillion or so urls on the intertubes, only about a thousand will be blocked (i.e. about 0.0000001 % of the internet, and as most are probably aware, slightly more than that figure is currently porn). It doesn't even attempt to remove porn from the internet, let alone entertain the delusion that it is even remotely possible.

To those people, I keep saying it's like mandating the hiring of a babysitter who lets the kids drink, smoke, play with knives and have sex, but who is required to hang around and baby-sit Mum and Dad in their bedroom when the kids are asleep. Thankfully this is finally starting to gain some attention, and those pushing for the porn filter will realise this is nothing of the sort. Whether the U.S. Government's involvement in that helps or hinders our cause, I'm not too sure, but if it was important enough to the U.S., I'm sure a behind-the-scenes phone call or two would have it dropped in no time.

I really hope the minor parties (e.g. Pirate Party, Democrats, Greens and the Sex Party) clean up next election over this.

Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely

[chrb]

Successfully filtering the net is impossible

That depends on what your definition of "success" is. Successfully filtering the net completely - so that no single person is ever able to access some forbidden information even once - may well be impossible. However, filtering the net enough to be effective in manipulating the views of an entire population is entirely possible. I have met Chinese students who have been raised behind the "Great Firewall" and who had never heard of the Tiananmen Square protests until they relocated to the West. People who were convinced that the Chinese model of government was the best because (quote) "you vote and sometimes pick the wrong people. We select so we always get the best people." People who did not know that China had invaded Tibet (quote) "of course Tibet is part of China! (laughs) Tibet has always been part of China!"

These were intelligent, well-read students - why had they never heard of Tianamen Square? I imagine that making it illegal to publish information about the event, and imposing a firewall between the population and countries where it is legal to talk about the event, had a huge part to play in this. Censorship isn't an all or nothing thing - here in the West we censor certain types of pornography, and yet people who really want to find that content still find a way. Does that mean that this censorship is pointless? Not at all - because the behaviour of a population is not a binary event. Instead, consider what proportion of the population would view some content were it legal and unrestricted, versus what proportion would if it were illegal and banned completely. Clearly, if a law is actually enforced, then the legal consequences of accessing that content are going to dissuade at least a few people - possibly more than a few. And we know that this is the reality, because some well educated Chinese people have not heard of Tianamen Square, and the ones that have often don't believe it happened. Propaganda doesn't have to convince everybody in order to be deemed successful - just enough people.

Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

"Successfully filtering the net is impossible"

The Chinese say otherwise

Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely

[Bigjeff5]

Like a nation-wide filter, sensible politicians are a practical impossibility.

Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely

[dangitman]

(the Liberals are the conservative party for our foreign readers... go figure).

That actually makes sense. Liberalism is a fairly conservative array of political values. It's not actually "extreme leftism" or "socialism" or any of the other things the nutty right-wingers would have you believe.

Doesn't make sense

[countertrolling]

Both governments and many others would love to filter the net. Now, Google and Yahoo might not be so interested. It could cut into ad revenues.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Comrade Conroy has had a go a Google as well... http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-goes-to-war-with-google-over-net-censorship-20100330-r9bp.html/

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Joakal]

Many others? Possibly, but not all federal parties in Australia are supporting it: http://shockseat.com/communications/internet-filtering-scheme

Thank You USA

[domukun367]

Normally I disagree with USA foreign policy, but in this case I welcome US government sticking its nose in where it's not welcome. On behalf of all (thinking) Australians, thank you USA for standing up to our government and this facist policy. http://stephenconroy.com.au/

Re:Thank You USA

[LuNa7ic]

...except that they haven't done anything at all. There are just a few mumbles of 'concern' over something their voter-base is likely to disapprove of. I don't see that making a difference any-time soon.

Re:Thank You USA

[Boltronics]

Agreed. The USA needs to be more direct, as clearly their current approach isn't working if Stephen wasn't even aware until he read it in the paper.

I would love for the USA to make as big a deal out of this as possible.

Re:Thank You USA

[domukun367]

...except that they haven't done anything at all. There are just a few mumbles of 'concern' over something their voter-base is likely to disapprove of. I don't see that making a difference any-time soon.

True... we need a larger, more official push. If we get that, then the Australian government will cave as it always does e.g. FTA (Free Trade Agreement) between the USA and Australia.

Re:Thank You USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Phase 2 of the Australian Internet Filter is to intercept and substitute ads and suggested search links to favor domestic companies, or other countries Australia has signed a trade treaty with. Pharmaceutical advertising and online chemists are in their sights. If the blacklist is secret, the substitute and redirect list is even more so.

Bottom Line: US Businesses will miss out, its a sneaky underhanded way of getting around the Australian /USA free Trade agreement - now that Australia has found out it negotiated badly - negative 6 billion a year.

Some don't mind filtering - but to tamper with Google search engine and Google pushed ads is almost exactly what the Chinese are doing.

Re:Thank You USA

[jellyfrog]

It's actually rather sad that the government is more likely to listen to a couple of officials in the USA than its own citizens on something like this. It's absurd that the US saying "don't do this" should be more compelling than 90% of voters saying the same thing.

Re:Thank You USA

[zuperduperman]

I don't think so. I think even the bare mention of this at diplomatic levels will have more effect than all the protest from the Australian public put together. Censorship is a big deal in the US right now because of Google and China and Australia going ahead with it will make it measurably more difficult for US companies in China because China will (and already has) cited Australia as an example to defend their policy.

Remarkable...

[vikingpower]

...how both so-called "free" countries will crack down upon China for filtering the internet on what they claim to be important free-speech-issues, but in the same time will not hesitate to implement rather identical measures at home.

Re:Remarkable...

[Spad]

That's obviously because China is a repressive dictatorship, whereas the US and Australia simply want to protect their citizens from harmful material.

Re:Remarkable...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me this is sarcasm?

Re:Remarkable...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read this before here... what filtering/censoring takes place in the USA? Obviously some people think that there is some sort of government filtering being done but I've never read a slashdot article about it... was it filtered?

Re:Remarkable...

[JasterBobaMereel]

That's obviously because USA and Australia are repressive capitalists, whereas the China simply want to protect their citizens from harmful material.

Re:Remarkable...

[Bigjeff5]

The US has no nationwide government filtering of any kind, period. There is nothing available on the internet that I can't get to.

All government sponsored internet filtering there is exists at the state and local level, and only within schools and libraries (it's always "for the children"). Even some of that is getting pushed back, libraries in particular.

Invasion needed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The USA needs to be more direct, as clearly their current approach isn't working if Stephen wasn't even aware until he read it in the paper.

I would love for the USA to make as big a deal out of this as possible.

Invasion. p/.It's obvious hat Australia is controlled by a repressive regime and we have no choice but to invade and install a Democracy!

Re:Invasion needed.

[deniable]

More importantly, we have oil.

Re:Invasion needed.

[Fluffeh]

Also noteworthy: We have the worlds largest reserves of Uranium and we know how much the superpowers love that shit...

Re:Invasion needed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our American overlords!

Re:Invasion needed.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a little late, don't ya think?

Re:Invasion needed.

[mjwx]

Invasion. p/.It's obvious hat Australia is controlled by a repressive regime and we have no choice but to invade and install a Democracy!

Don't tell them we have a lot of LPG (natural gas).

/audience blinks

It's the next best thing to oil.

Re:Invasion needed.

[deniable]

LPG isn't natural gas. That's why we flog LNG to other countries.

Re:Invasion needed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in a thousand year's time that will become an issue (once we've used up the easily reachable stuff), but for now any country that wants uranium can get it easily enough if they so choose. Enriched uranium, OTOH...

Really hope they kick up as much fuss as China

[rubenerd]

This news isn't on the scale of Google redirecting mainland Chinese search results to Google.cn but has more in common than Senator Conroy here in Australia would like people to think. Wait, no, that isn't even right, he's openly compared the proposed Great Firewall of Australia to the filters in China.

When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Federal Labor won the last election and Barack Obama and the Democrats won the elections in the US, Australian newspapers reported their first meetings as being one with kindred spirits, in much of the same way as George Bush and John Howard. This filter is perhaps the first large(ish) crack in this relationship, and I'm really hoping the Americans kick up as much of a fuss about Australia's laws as China's if the filter in Australia goes through.

The problem for the voting public here is in our version of the two party system, the opposition are considered the more conservative party, and its new Christian far-right leader Tony Abbott has been fairly silent on the whole issue. One can imagine he supports it in spirit but doesn't want to seem as though he's agreeing with Labor. Either way, we're royally stuffed.

In the meantime if you're an Aussie, don't forget the Electronic Frontiers Australia is accepting donations for their Open Internet campaign.

Re:Really hope they kick up as much fuss as China

[domukun367]

In the meantime if you're an Aussie, don't forget the Electronic Frontiers Australia is accepting donations for their Open Internet campaign.

Tax deductible!

The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Waste

[hughbar]

Certain countries, including Australia support the Cultural Exception

I lived in France for 20 years, also a supporter of this, I wish we did in UK. In France, it meant that the continuous diet of brainless, braindead violent programmes and 'rich people behaving nauseously' (Beverly Hills xxxxxx) were present, but in limited quantity, There were and are a lot of local cops shows, Julie Lescaut, for example, more connected with the indigenous culture.

Finally, I have family in the West Indies and when the island switched from BBC to US channels (anecdotally, but many people said it) violence increased.

I know I'll get a lot of hate for posting this, but there is a category of cultural toxic waste and it does modify behaviour, however much we wish it didn't.

These people...

[MichaelSmith]

Today in The Age: Government goes to war with Google over net censorship

Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in terms of how content ends up on the blacklist, but last night he again refused to make the blacklist itself public, saying it would provide people instant access to the banned material.

Okay Stephen here is how it works: every time an Australian hits the black list they post the URL on a wiki somewhere so if anybody needs some porn or the libaral party website or whatever they just follow the link from there and access it through a russian VPN? Simple? Okay.

Re:These people...

[deniable]

OK, you take care of that end. I'll build the submit-bot to flood ACMA with requests to add to the list.

Re:These people...

[FatLittleMonkey]

Okay Stephen here is how it works: every time an Australian hits the black list they post the URL on a wiki somewhere so if anybody needs some porn or the libaral party website or whatever they just follow the link from there and access it through a russian VPN? Simple? Okay.

Won't work. ACMA can ban material which links to banned material. So the linker becomes banned, too.

When the filter trial list wiki-leaked, the wikileak page was banned; and when someone on a chat-site in Aus talked about it and included a link to wikileaks, that was deemed illegal and they got a take-down order. For posting a link to a page with links to pages, some of which had illegal material or links to it.

Your filter-wiki would just be banned for hosting illegal material. After which even a link to the wiki would get you banned if you're overseas, or taken down if you're local. They can recurse as far as you can. Plus one.

Re:These people...

[deniable]

So you're saying I can start reporting search engines to ACMA. Nice, now we've just got to get Google to pull out and redirect everything to their New Zealand site and we're all set.

Re:These people...

[zuperduperman]

You can do even better than that. I've reported the ACMA web site to ACMA because it contains a dangerous conspiracy to overthrow democracy in Australia by restricting free speech. The actually even processed the request and sent me a response. I think reporting their web site to themselves is a good way to protest. If we can get it reported some thousands of times by separate individuals then we can start to ask why this web site is still legal when it is offensive to thousands of Australians. Go do it.

Re:These people...

[deniable]

You then need to make an FOI claim for the documents relating to the classification decision. Put them online and then get them blocked. Repeat.

Re:These people...

[Bigjeff5]

Does Australia have a Freedom of Information Act?

Re:These people...

[DaemonDazz]

Yes, we do.

Hypocrisy without bounds....

[rts008]

Yeah, well, I wouldn't break out the bubbly just yet.

We [USA] are just waiting for the world to bend over, then we'll goatse you all with ACTA.

Nothing personal, as we USA citizens are getting gaped also.

Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was

[MichaelSmith]

I know I'll get a lot of hate for posting this, but there is a category of cultural toxic waste and it does modify behaviour, however much we wish it didn't.

So what do you propose doing about it?

Australia needs your support on this

[EoN604]

I really hope that the US put a lot of pressure on our Australian government to try and prevent this draconian Mandatory Internet Censorship. If it goes ahead in Australia, it will pave the way for many more developed Western countries. This is a serious attack on our freedom. There's not much left we can do at the moment - the internet community is kicking up a fuss, most polls & votes are >94% AGAINST the censorship, the US gov, google, local telcos, ISP's and all the technical experts are advising AGAINST it, but ignorant Senator Conroy and the government keep pushing ahead to censor the internet. If it goes ahead it will be bad news for everyone. The more people that support us on this VERY important issue, the better. Slashdot + its community probably have the potential to help make a difference. Please USA, and the entire international online community, show your support on this in any way you can!

Re:Australia needs your support on this

[techno_dan]

Wait, are you not in a democratic country? do you not have elections? No democratic country should interfere with another. If you do not like what your government is doing, vote them out. The U.S. getting involved in Australia, just shows you that the U.S. wants to be a world dictator. They always say "Our Way is best". Why not let the voters in those countries decide for themselves? Maybe voters in the U.S. don't like to hear it, but most Americans vote for $$$, and that is why they fall for election innuendo. Get with the program, Big Business runs your government, and that is why they are upset with Australia. I am not saying we are any better. In Canada, we too are run by business. But I vote knowing this, and try to support a balance Government. This is why many Canadians love the current minority situation, since it prevents the ruling party from walking all over everything.

Re:Australia needs your support on this

[EoN604]

I completely agree that we should vote accordingly, and I will. (I've been a labor/left voter my entire life. This will be the first time they'll lose my vote) But a couple of things: 1. The mandatory internet censorship filter will be put in place before the next election 2. I highly doubt the oposition party (in our two party system) would 'oppose' the legislation anyway. (if they can get the current gov to put it in place and take the flak, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to 'inherit' this drastic arm of control.. and scot free!!) To me, this is just SUCH an important issue, and such a dramatic and dangerous 'precedent' that we need to thwart it in any way possible, and I think that international pressure might be the last possible remaining solution. As I said before, ALL the tech experts, providers, and even international governments are saying 'WTF?' but there's obviously some other agenda behind it. This is censorship of the worst kind, and once it's in place, it's too late.. Once the framework is put in place, it opens up the avenue for god-knows-what abuse in the future. We need to do whatever it takes! I've written my letters & emails to both Conroy and my local member of gov, but to be honest I'm not too confident we can stop it. People are just too complacent, and also just too dumb/uninformed. I'm concerned that people are just going about their daily lives, then in a few weeks this will be in place, and that's the end of it. Internet censorship is in place, and once it's in it will NEVER be removed.

FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here

[syousef]

The Sydney Morning Herald had an informal web poll today with 3 choices: In Favour of filtering, Against filtering, Indifferent. Last I looked at it 96% had voted against! That's overwhelming. You usually get lots of indifferent here. How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me. He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes. He's one of few politicians here that's gotten public death threats (not that I could ever condone something as stupid as a death threat). Since he would seek to push ahead despite this he should be sacked. I have no idea if there's a legal provision for it in the Australian constitution (and I doubt there is) but there ought to be.

Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here

[MichaelSmith]

Since he would seek to push ahead despite this he should be sacked. I have no idea if there's a legal provision for it in the Australian constitution (and I doubt there is) but there ought to be.

I don't know if you are an Aussie but it seems to me that the Government is being pushed in this direction by the owners of media companies. This could be because of thoughts like "the internet competes with TV so it should have the same ratings system" or "first we block child porn, then those torrents of Neighbours and Blue Heelers" or "more people would watch A Current Affair if they weren't browsing 4chan one handed".

In any event it is doomed to failure and I am reminded of a science museum years ago which set up a termian (VT220 or similar) for kids to play on. It accumulated a lot of rude words so somebody wrote a black list but there had to be a command to print the black list out and some young geek found the key combination...

Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here

[Anonymous Coward]

How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me. He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes.

Here is a more in-depth survey telephone survey commissioned by the ABC. According to it, 92% are in favour of some form of ISP-based filtering, which lends at least some credence to Conroy's claim. But that's about where the consensus ends, 70% have concerns that the filter will be used to block free speech and 90% are against a secret blacklist.

Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here

[L4t3r4lu5]

I can just picture the questions now:

"Hi folks, here's the poll! If you are for the filtering of indecent images of children and violent sexual acts, dial this number! If you believe that everyone should have access to indecent images of children and violent sexual acts, dial the second number."

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Filtering does not solve the problem of child abuse: It just takes it out of the public eye.

Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here

[zuperduperman]

The problem is that web site polls are massively biased towards tech savvy people who understand what a load of rubbish this idea is. When they do more general polls they come up with 70% in favor. I really hope that it starts to change as people understand more of the details of the filter policy and just how bad it is (it's not just generically bad - it's bad even amongst censorship policies. Even people in favor of internet censorship should oppose this particular version of it).

Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here

[Anonymous Coward]

From The Fine Link:

"Are you in favour or not in favour of the government introducing an ISP-based Internet filter that would allow parents to choose from a list of content categories to be blocked from access by children."

Response: In favour 92%, not in favour 7%, unsure 1%

Further the telephone poll in question was conducted inbound to the respondants (ie. outbound from the call centre).

Slashdot, where the facts take a back seat to foamy-mouthed advocacy.

Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here

[fostware]

"more people would watch A Current Affair if they weren't browsing 4chan one handed"

You mixed that up with 'Today Tonight' viewers... ACA viewers would be protesting the existence of 4chan, while 'Media Watch' viewers would be outraged by the trailers for TT, without even seeing the episode...

Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here

[mjwx]

I don't know if you are an Aussie but it seems to me that the Government is being pushed in this direction by the owners of media companies.

I'd say this comes from the religious right in our nation. Conroy is just recently shmoozing up to the likes of Packer and Murdoch because he needs their support as no one else will.

Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here

[rdnetto]

I have no idea if there's a legal provision for it in the Australian constitution (and I doubt there is) but there ought to be.

There won't be. The Australian constitution doesn't have a bill of rights like the US does. There are some acts (e.g. the Victorian Charter of Human Rights) but they're more like guidelines then rules.

Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was

[hughbar]

Against all my instincts, I find myself for the right of governments to filter, as long as they are 'legitimate' governments.

That is, the 'people' can hear the arguments and throw them out, if they don't want the filtering.

Optimally, the production models would change so that no-one produced trash and education levels so that no-one consumed it. I'm mainly talking about TV which is a push medium and which may be dying anyway.

I'm 60 this year and I have seen a step by step decline sold as 'freedom' and 'free trade', code words for 'we're making a lot of money with this' don't take away that 'right'.

But you're quite correct to criticise, I don't have anything like a complete answer and it pains me to end up on the 'wrong' side.

Fir57

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of businees charnel 4ouse. The

Since every other story is Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Maybe it's time to give the Aussies (including kdawson) what they want, which is a Slashdot of their very own. You know, Slashdot.org.au, or something.

But then I suppose Aussies would fear losing the American audience they crave so desperately.

It's like Slashdot editors think the world now consists of the USA, Australia, and some shadowy half-forgotten realm known as "Someplace Else".

Seriously, shove these Aussie stories up your ass. We're fucking sick of the sight of them. Go beg for attention elsewhere.

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[domukun367]

Seriously, shove these Aussie stories up your ass. We're fucking sick of the sight of them. Go beg for attention elsewhere.

This is slashdot.org, not slashdot.org.us

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[ReneeJade]

Seriously, pull your head out of your arse, mate. This is about a developed, democratic country trying to blind its people even more than it already does by pushing its conservative, Christian views on its secular population. And, as usual, damaging the lifestyle of the majority of its citizens because no one in power here can grow some balls and find a way to actually punish criminals instead of hiding them away in hotels (prisons) that cost tax payers countless dollars every year and achieve nothing. Now you might not care personally, but these are issues that are relevant all over the world - Australia is just unlucky enough to be the example. So you don't live here? I don't give a fuck where you live. Go read some other site if you don't like it. It's not your Slashdot. We are members of this community and WE care, as do many community members who have never been to Australia. It is our rights and our future on the line - not just a collection of news stories.

I would personally like to thanks the Slashdot editors for continuing to run these stories. I get quite a bit of my info on this topic from here and I live in Australia. I'm 20 years old and I have never set foot outside this country, but if this plan goes ahead I will seriously consider leaving for good. I do not want to leave my home. So thank you, Slashdot, for continuing to promote awareness of our situation. /trollfeeding :(

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty insane. I'm australian and nothing happens in this country (especially perth, the city I am from) so I am
pretty sensitive to Aus-in-the-news. It just doesn't happen that often. Full stop, so where the hell you are getting this
aus-in-the-news hate from, I have no idea. And if you are american, that is pretty. fucking. rich. We get more american
culture here than anywhere else. We used to be half-british on that front, but it's getting more and more american in aus
than ever, so forgive me if you get a smidge of our news back. You can shove the attitude up your ass, why ever the hell
you hate it - i can not figure out. Did an australian kill your dog?

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[ReneeJade]

Wow! Someone else from Perth on Slashdot. Hi!

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[deniable]

Nothing happens in Perth, where were you last Monday night?

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[Cimexus]

Well, whirlpool.net.au fits the bill quite well already, although its scope is not as wide as Slashdot. I read and post on both. The point of the internet is to create global discussion, not partition everyone off into their own country.

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[fostware]

Internet was down resulting in a dazed Zen thoughts of "If there's no-one to blog/facebook it to, did it really happen?"

My car says otherwise though :(

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the OP's post is a result of certain "editors" crap-flooding /. with so-called stories from Australia.

Nobody has a problem with seeing genuinely interesting 'News for Nerds' from downunder, but the fact is that these "editors" are posting anything that mentions Australia.

Take a look at this list: http://yro.slashdot.org/tag/australia

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whirlpool is a hypocritical crap site that conducts censorship itself, anyhing related to doing your own network cabling is deleted by their asshole moderators.

Re:Since every other story is Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of Slashdot - or at least Slashdot editors - seems to be promoting certain countries.

There's no denying that Australia is grotesquely over-represented here. Very few of the many stories about that country which make it to Slashdot would ever be considered worthy if they were not about Australia and were submitted by someone from somewhere else. The bias is ridiculous.

There are many nations on planet Earth, but most go ignored by Slashdot, even though stuff is happening there which is at least as interesting as anything we're seeing in all of these news items from Australia, and usually far more interesting....Yet we never read about it here.

Freedom can require regulation of selfish actions

[doug20r]

within a community, so Australian's would be right to be very disappointed to see our friends in the US campaigning against our right to regulate. The bottom line is that the greatest threat to freedom on the Internet at present is the dominance of selfish US corporations. So unless the US government is prepared to tackle the dominance of these large companies in a significant manner such as splitting them to have no more than a 5% market share then please do not lecture Australia on freedom.

Technical Debate Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

To all those people who repeat the comment "censoring the internet is technically impossible" - If you are against censorship then say so, rather than saying censor ship won't work for technical reasons.

The purpose of the internet censorship in Australia is to mirror the existing censorship we have in other media. I think that makes sense. However, the opacity of the blacklist is totally unacceptable. It must be transparent.

Re:Technical Debate Wrong

[TheRaven64]

What? People who have one opinion should argue a different opinion because you say so?

Some people are morally opposed to censorship in all forms. A lot of people, however, are not. If it were possible to produce a filter that blocked 100% of child pornography and nothing else, then they would be in favour of it. The fact is that such a filter is not possible.

Re:Technical Debate Wrong

[Crypto Gnome]

Aha! So I see that you're in favor of sweeping the problem under the carpet? If online-trading-or-swapping-of-child-pornography is *such* a major problem to society (and I would argue that it is), WHY is the minister FORCING the entire country to pretend it simply does not happen?

Filter works

[DeBaas]

However, last night, Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy denied he had had any approach from US State Department Officials."

Filter must already be working then

Re:Filter works

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, deserve a medal :)

Re:Filter works

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the US State Department would not have contacted Senator Conroy or his office directly. They would have gone through "diplomatic channels" and thus through the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was

[MichaelSmith]

I followed your homepage link and I thought there was a lot of interesting stuff there. Previous trials of filtering in Australia have resulted in totally innocuous pages being filtered. The reasons for this always come back to incompetence on the part of the people maintaining the filter.

The open ended filter my government proposes can never be guaranteed to filter only illegal content because there is no adequate peer review. When you propose a filtering system you should think how it could go wrong. Somebody in government could read "Alternative Currency Software" and decide that it is dangerous for people to read your site.

Tensions Rise?

[RandomFactor]

Makes me think we're gonna go to the mat with Australia next...

Q Hillary, do we like censorship in China?
A No
Q ok, what about Australia then? (nyah!)
A Don't like it there either

HEADLINE - RISING TENSIONS WITH AUSTRALIA OVER NET CENSORSHIP!

Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was

[dakameleon]

Against all my instincts, I find myself for the right of governments to filter, as long as they are 'legitimate' governments.

The issue is that while you might be quite happy for a legitimate government to filter, they can quickly become an illegitimate government, perhaps especially because they control the filters and will filter any evidence of their illegitimacy from the public at large.

The biggest issue governments have is that there's no heirarchy to the internet - they can't speak to the owner of the internet like they could with newspapers or TV networks or radio networks - and that lack of a single point, or even a limited set of points of control freaks most governments out. Spin is awful hard to get out there when you need to spin hundreds instead of a handful.

For UK citizens only...

[Benson Arizona]

Don't you hate to see the children fighting?

Do you really believe that the US Govt cares?

[moxley]

Despite any posturing, It's their fucking wet dream to be able to do it here too.

Re:Do you really believe that the US Govt cares?

[TheRaven64]

Of course they care. A filter controlled by a third party could harm US commercial interests in Australia. Just because they're acting from selfish motives doesn't mean that they are wrong, however.

Australia IS AUSTRALIA (not the U.S..)

[Anonymous Coward]

"One branch is expressing concerns about our lovely Internet filter while the other is trying to ram ACTA down our throats. BOTH will have an effect on free speech... neither of them we want." - by Taliesan999 (305690) on Tuesday March 30, @04:38AM (#31667752)

Personally, I feel that our government should take care of ITS OWN (like spurring job creation as job #1 more than ANYTHING), rather than stick its nose into anyplace it has NO PLACE BEING!

Once more: Australia, IS AUSTRALIA (& not the United States of America) - Thus, the Australians are free to do AS THEY PLEASE, & not what WE tell them to do (who the hell does our gov't. think they are, especially in THIS CASE?).

I mean, lol - that'd be like me telling you guys, in your OWN HOMES, "what to do & how to live"... yea, right, that'd "go over like a lead balloon".

So, per my subject-line above? Agreed, 110%!

APK

P.S.=> Additionally, & ESPECIALLY - Above all else: If this filter of theirs cuts down on KNOWN BAD SITES &/or SERVERS (that serve up malware and other exploits of a system for illegal thievery & control, via for example, botnets)?? YEA, CUT IT OUT! Block lists??? They work!

E.G.-> I have been using custom HOSTS files for this, & for ages (since 1997), as well as giving the same HOSTS files to my family & friends - I've watched them go from (not in ALL cases, but many) 200++ malware infestations a MONTH, to 1 maybe every other month, tops (& they know where they got their infestations from, usage of javascript on untrusted websites or downloading .exe files from a site they do NOT know well either)...

Heh - 1 pal of mine, a P.I. no less, tested running Windows 2000 without:

----

1.) Service Packs or hotfix patches

2.) Antispyware

3.) Antivirus

4.) Firewall

----

He had stayed CLEAN too, for months, just by using my custom made HOSTS file!

HOWEVER - He has a "tendency" to use javascript on sites he has NO IDEA what they're truly about (& javascript IS what hits you this way, a good 99% of the time & websites like SECUNIA.COM &/or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can attest to this much by reading their content) - this is his downfall, he even admits it to me!

Thus... he FINALLY turned up a trojan (for the reasons noted above), for the first time in 4 months, yesterday... it was, of all things, a .reg file (not an executable) that was flagged by AVG as a bogus file (he never clicked on it or loaded it afaik, it was in his webbrowser cache for FireFox).

SO - Why'd he run "naked" like that list above?

Well - He actually wanted to see how WELL this HOSTS file of mine (811,000 entries currently) worked, & he found out it did, but his own unrestricted usage of javascript indiscriminately got him "hit"... because there really is NO WAY that I could cover every new bad server or site that pops up (because prior to his usage of my custom HOSTS file, he was the one turning up 200++ viruses a month too, by the by)...

Folks, and new BAD SITES &/or SERVERS? You may not believe this, but, they pop up, literally, around 100-500 a day!

(This is the trend I have been seeing since July 2008 in fact, yes, the new ones pop up, that fast... incredible, isn't it?).

Thank goodness I have RELIABLE & upkept sources vs. them that spot them for me & then I integrate them into my HOSTS file.

Thus, I rest my case that internet filtering, when done right & FOR THE RIGHT REASONS AGAINST WHAT OUGHT TO BE BLOCKED (malware laden sites for example)?

Works quite well!

Now, on the subject of "net filters" again, also - if the usage of such filtering cuts down on the pr0n content (& other lunacy in like kind) kids could get exposed to? Yea, then CUT IT OUT too!

(Because one way or another, they'll find out about that type of thing, soon enough, just as we all did @ some point.... but, there's no point in allowing it to occur through something as easily controlled as the internet really is in this capacity)... apk

The ABC Radio interview link, and opinions

[MWP-AU]

Last nights ABC Radio Interview download/stream

I dont get it...
Its meant to block *very* objectional material (ie, kiddie porn & beastiality), but what about all the other porn & violence our kids should not be looking at on the 'net?
Im sure plenty of parents will get the idea this filter will protect their kids from all non-kiddie-safe material. Thats very far from the truth.
Sure, let kids view thousands of hours of kinky, watersports, scat and BDSM porn, but dont let them see one of those 400 beastiality sites, itll corrupt them forever!!

So they want to put in place a system that will cost tens of millions of $AUD, complicate ISP filters, reduce reliability, increase latency, to just block those ~400 specific URLs.
Sure, more URLs will be added, but how many out there that should be on the list will be missed?

Fucking stupid.

Re:The ABC Radio interview link, and opinions

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally, and dont forget all the free proxy services that will make the filter nothing more than a very expensive speed bump. If only Conroy realised that if the filter was optional and not manditory (ie for families with small children, etc) then it may actually be of some use. But as you pointed out it is far from being porn, etc watertight so really why bother. My guess is hes done some closed door deals with a few religious groups and other like organizations. There was some interesting candit interviews with people off the street around Australia about the filter. Most people who were not geeks thought it wasnt a bad idea but hadnt really thought about it. Unfortunately there is alot of those kinds of people.

Re:The ABC Radio interview link, and opinions

[Riplakish]

but what about all the other porn & violence our kids should not be looking at on the 'net?

First of all, as a parent, it is my responsibility to make the decisions about what my kids should and shouldn't have access to. It's not their responsibility to decide what is best for my family, and it certainly not yours. If I want to censor my kids' internet experience, I can buy net nanny software and select the categories and sites that I decide are important. Also, the more you tell someone that they can't have something the more they want it, especially with kids. If you try and block access to porn & violence they will make it their life's mission to get access to it. Its usually better to talk to them and let them know why certain things are not good for them so that when they do access it they will put your words together with what they observe and realize that what you are telling them makes sense.

Second, I could be mistaken but I don't believe there are any countries where child pornography or bestiality is legal. I think we can all agree that both acts are so disgusting that they shouldn't be tolerated, so it should be relatively simple thing to set up a system where such sites can be reported so that they can be verified and shut down. I know it's not that simple, but it's easier than setting up and maintaining a nationwide web filter using these things as a pretense to strip away my rights.

Third, I am not a kid. I am an adult and can make my own decisions about whether I want to watch porn or violent shows. How does a nationwide web filter know how old I am? It doesn't and it's just a pretense for someone in power to impose their narrow values on me.

Your whole argument is that this nationwide web filter is a waste of time & money because it doesn't do enough to suit your narrow paradigm of right and wrong. Why do you think that you get to decide that kinky, watersports, scat and BDSM porn should be blocked? Just because you don't like these things doesn't mean that you have the right to prevent others who do from watching them. I don't understand why you lump these things in with child pornography and beastiality. If a kid sees a plain-vanilla sex scene on the net that involves a man and a woman, is it any different? What if its features anal sex? How about 2 women? Group sex? Do you consider some professional sports too violent and need to be blocked? Mixed martial arts, boxing, hockey and American football all can be very violent. Or is it OK because they don't involve guns?

If I don't like something then I don't watch it. Its lazy, narrow-minded, non-thinking people like you how have bought into the "think of the children" BS that are making it easy for the government to slowly strip away people's rights.

Re:The ABC Radio interview link, and opinions

[MWP-AU]

Oh, i dont think that kinky, watersports, scat and BDSM porn, etc should be blocked at all!

My point was; how is this material which kids should not see, any different to that which the government does want to block?
A child seeing either would do the same amount of 'damage'.

creators 'tension' rising over mankinds' failures

[Anonymous Coward]

we're only here to care for one another. how's that going for us? you call this weather?

never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, who can, it is said, lower/raise the 'tension' level in the wink of an eye. one of the creators stated goals is protection of the innocent.

Perhaps the yanks should tone down their 'concerns

[WinstonWolfIT]

Apparently the minister didn't receive the objection via e-mail because the obscenity-laced rant didn't get through the Aussie filter.

Potential censorship?

[scdeimos]

I don't want censorship at all. But I think it's hilarious that America, which is so censored that it can't even show boobies on television (nipples, specifically), is telling Australia that it shouldn't be censoring things.

There was an article posted only a couple of days ago that essentially said censorship is harmful to democracy. Maybe both the US and Australian governments should get out of censorship altogether, lest they wind up like China.

Re:Potential censorship?

[JasterBobaMereel]

This is a Myth: TV is not censored in the USA, but the networks will not show anything that offends since they believe it will lose them audience share if they do

Self censorship is far more effective than government imposed censorship ....

Re:Potential censorship?

[LandDolphin]

Broadcast T.V. can face fines from the FCC. That is government enforced censorship.

Re:Potential censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. Look up the FCC. That's a FEDERAL agency that will fine you if you show 'obscene' material on TV. And yes, 'boobies' are considered obscene.

Re:Potential censorship?

[deniable]

Do you remember Janet Jackson's nipple? Tell me extreme delays on live events weren't in any way government imposed.

Re:Potential censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

TV is censored in the USA - if they showed full frontal nudity, they'd face MASSIVE FCC fines and risk being shut down.

Re:Potential censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol? Where were you when NBC was paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars for an 1/8th of a second of shielded nipple?

Re:Potential censorship?

[Shihar]

We might not be able to watch nips on broadcast TV, but at least we can watch small breasted Asian midget pr0n on the Intertubes while playing a nice and gory round and Aliens vs Predators. Not that I want either, but I would take the US governments regulating three crappy broadcast channels from showing nips over a universal internet filter and a fucking censor board on video games. Wait until someone realizes that books have violence in Australia. OMFGTHECHILDREN!

Re:Potential censorship?

[zuperduperman]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Potential censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Partial truth, actually. What you say is true on cable, which is very nearly unregulatable - the only censorship taking place there is indeed by the networks, who have policies regarding what they will and will not show. It is false for radio broadcast and specifically UHF though - which, being a spectrum shared by all and capable of crossing state lines, is considered to be government property under the full administration and control of the FCC - free speech not applying, because the right to free speech doesn't extend to the right to use government property (The radio spectrum) to transmit that speech. They *do* impose government standards, including prohibiting the transmission of 'obscene' content. This is why you can only get pornography channels on cable in the US, and not on UHF.

Re:Potential censorship?

[dajalas]

I largely agree except that censorship on American broadcast TV doesn't equate to censorship on the Internet. Broadcast TV is regulated speech. Many hope that won't happen to the Internet.

Top down censorship helps nobody. People are bright enough to protect themselves from "harsh words" and the like. Government has no business even trying to be part of that. Further, commercial and open source solutions exist to protect Internet users from security threats such as viruses and trojans.

Beyond basic network security considerations, government' involvements in the Internet and censorship is nothing but a power grab. If governments' want to be part of taking down botnets, I'm all for it. But if they want to keep us from seeing pron or their political foes' websites, they've gone much too far.

The most disturbing part is that we even have to worry about government bureaucrats overreaching like this.

Re:Potential censorship?

[Bigjeff5]

Not really.

This sort of thing has come up before. Broadcasters can be punished after the fact, but they cannot be prevented from broadcasting anything. To avoid indecency fines, the broadcasters self censor.

It's similar, but it actually puts the government in a pretty weak position, as they cannot prevent anything if the broadcasters are willing to take the fine. What really stops them is that people in America don't want that sort of thing on a regular basis, else it would be worth it for broadcasters to take the indecency hit an show the stuff anyway.

Personally, I don't think the FCC should be able to fine them at all, but in order to get rid of them we'll have to get rid of our indecency laws as well, and I don't see that happening.

In any case, it's nothing like the Chinese firewall or the Australian filter, because the FCC can not actively block anything, to do so would be illegal and they would be seriously beaten up in court. The most they can do is fine for indecency after the fact.

Re:Potential censorship?

[Bigjeff5]

Sure thing, time delays on live events weren't in any way government imposed.

The broadcasters censored themselves by implementing longer time delays without government influence, because the lack of such time delays cost them a hell of a lot of money in indecency fines.

That's the closest thing we have to censorship - our indecency laws. They are the same laws that make it illegal to run around flashing everybody. You can argue against those if you like, but broadcasters are held accountable for the content that they send over the airwaves.

The government is reactive in this case, censorship is always proactive - preventing the information from getting out to begin with. In this way broadcasters censor themselves to avoid fines for publicly displaying indecent material.

The FCC encourages self censorship, but they have no power to censor. They can only issue fines for indecent behavior, just like you can be fined for running through a mall naked (you'll actually be arrested in that case, so the FCC has far less power over broadcasters than the cops do over citizens).

Re:Potential censorship?

[LandDolphin]

I do agree there are massive differences between proactive and reactive censorship. However, "To avoid indecency fines, the broadcasters self censor", is still government enforced censorship.

Re:Potential censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

cuz what you want is your kids flipping through /broadcast/ channels finding tits flying everywhere. past certain hours on certain channels, typically based on local "community standards", softcore porn is allowed to be shown, as are all the titties that howard stern can handle.

Re:Potential censorship?

[JasterBobaMereel]

1) they still showed it - It was not censored, the fine was after the fact

2) you can see far more explicit content on US TV (Cable)

All the hand-wringing, apologies, and remedies to stop it happening again were done by the TV company before the FCC were involved, the fine was incidental

Do you really think the FCC would or could shut down a national network TV station?

Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was

[hughbar]

I agree, the actual proposal is ridiculous (although we run Dan's Guardian in a drop-in to protect kids using it, makes us hypocrites...) but I'm thinking about the philosophy behind it.

My ideal is that every citizen has a level of education and ethical-compass where they can do all this 'work' themselves. But, actually, I have seen standards going down in the UK, not old-person grumpiness, I really wish they hadn't.,,

As standards decline there's less protection at individual level against 'trash'.

Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was

[Diagoras]

If you believe in freedom of speech, you should oppose muzzling entertainment as much as muzzling political speech. If your political views are less convincing than mine, working on your policies is better than banning my speech. Likewise, if your country is unable to compete with the culture of the United States, perhaps understanding what makes American culture so powerful and pervasive and trying to emulate it is the better move rather than muzzling it because you're unable to compete.

Whats really happening

[Anonymous Coward]

on a friends computer and drunk, but i'm anarche. for our outerworldly friendly, whats really happening here is....

1) if the Government puts this into place they secure the Senate vote of Steven Fielding, so they can pass other laws and look as if they are doing something.

2) should most Australian find any of the things specifically listed on the blacklist accidently, they'll report it. no-one wants kiddie porn on the net. if you do i'll report you. we are signatories to a shiteload of foreign treaties allowing us to request the foreign government ot investigate kiddie porn...

3) this filter will not work. the company contacted to implement the filter claims it wont work, the ISPs who tested it claimed it wont work. why do the Government claim it will? (see point 1)

4) Obama threatening to bar the JSF from being delivered - while painful to Boeing will be far more incentive to Captain Kevin to drop this stupid law than the threat of election. welcome to the two-party system in an apathetic country flourishing....

5) this filter will significantly degrade the Australian internet speeds, while the Government can't be bothered buying a speed upgrade.

So please, our US friends, petition Obama to stop this shit. Australia's (tiny) internet community doesn't stand a chance....

Meanwhile Aussies, who feels like presenting a petition to Obama in his visit requesting a delay of the JSF until this filter is dropped?

Current ACMA Internet Filtering Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

As recommended by the Computer Science department of the University of Walamaloo:

1. No pooftah sites.
2. No sites advocating the maltreat of the "abbos" in any way whatsoever, especially if there's video - unless the site is password protected.
3. No pooftah sites.
4. No sites that do *not* advocate late-night drinking.
5. No pooftah sites.
6. There is *no* rule six.
7. No pooftah sites.

Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you! Amen!

That was the joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am glad to see you got it...

oy!

Re:Perhaps the yanks should tone down their 'conce

[deniable]

His department's media releases don't make it through ours either. Spamassassin thinks he's using some sort of dodgy mail server. They should hire some Russians to make the thing look legit.

Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was

[Anonymous Coward]

> if your country is unable to compete with the culture of the United States, perhaps understanding what makes American culture so powerful and pervasive and trying to emulate it is the better move rather than muzzling it because you're unable to compete.

Sure, because the fact that something is more successful automatically means that it's better. Ergo, Taylor Swift is a better musician than Mozart, and Chevrolet makes better cards than Mercedes-Benz.

Don't do what we're doing!

[KlausBreuer]

...or what else are they babbling this time?

A new entry in Slashdot (a mere six hours later) shows that "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval."

To fight the eeeeeeeevil terrarists, obviously. Why else?

Guys: If you're going to "mod me down"? Say why!

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line above, & again: Guys, IF you're going to "mod me down", have the balls to say why, & on what TECHNICAL grounds... (valid technical reasons please, no off-topic b.s. need apply).

Thanks!

(Because I am willing to discuss/debate ANYTHING you throw my way on this account (how filtering can WORK FOR YOU, FOR THE GOOD, & on the SIMPLEST PRINCIPLE THERE IS: "You can't get burned, if you can't go into hell's kitchen", more-or-less!))

I mean, lmao: Those who "mod down" w/out justification or saying why, are the TRUE "anonymous cowards" around here... not folks like me that choose to post as AC because we're not easily tracked fools around this website in doing so (trackable for trolling etc. that is).

APK

P.S.=> HOWEVER - Am I against filtering such as CHINA implements, which impede possible truths or other points of view (very russian "pravda-like" methods, lol, as I call it), to protect their political interests? Sure I am...

However, by the SAME TOKEN, I am all for filtering out what are KNOWN BAD SITES &/OR SERVERS (such as those known for delivering malware &/or botnet content, etc. et al)... I hope you understand my points here in this regard! apk

Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was

[icebraining]

The road to hell^W censorship is paved with good intentions. If people, even a minority, want to see US shows, who the hell are you to decide if they should or not?
Give people access to all shows, and let them decide.

there is a category of cultural toxic waste and it does modify behaviour, however much we wish it didn't.

Yes, it turns people into being less chauvinistic, perhaps.

Not that I care personally: I get all my content from the interwebs. But I oppose your "benevolent censorship" as a principle. WIth current technology, we should be able to access almost all major TV channels worldwide.

Re:Guys: If you're going to "mod me down"? Say why

[fostware]

See subject-line above, & again: Guys, IF you're going to "mod me down", have the balls to say why, & on what TECHNICAL grounds...

Then by all means pass on that sentiment to Conroy, as due process is definitely not part of the proposal.

Last time I checked, Australia was a democracy, as as such the politicians and their departments' actions should be answerable to the public and this proposed filter bypasses every method of accountability we've put in to law.

I'd put money on the filter never happening

[Cimexus]

I'm all for the US Government bringing the matter up with our government. It sounds like this was done respectfully and informally, which is the right way to go when you have one mature democracy dealing with another. They aren't making demands or threats or anything ... just voicing some concern. An added pressure on Conroy to drop the idea, hopefully. Anti-Americanism is rampant in Australia these days but I hope people can still see that, for its flaws, the US still acts as a positive force in areas such as this.

Having said that, I still think that there's no way the filter will every make it to the realm of reality. It's so wildly unpopular that I think Conroy is likely to get a tap on the shoulder from others in the Cabinet and be told to quietly drop it. This is an election year after all. Perhaps it might resurface during Rudd's second term (which it seems inevitable he'll get).

Unpopularity aside, it's a completely useless system anyway. A basic blacklist of perhaps a few hundred URLs. HTTP only. Since when was HTTP the main method of distributing illegal content? (And even if it was ... proxies, VPNs, blah blah). Again, I think the government will not be wanting to be seen to be wasting money on expensive, ineffectual programs in an election year.

And even if it does get formally introduced into Parliament I honestly can't see how the Government will get the numbers to get it through the Senate. The Greens and other minority parties will oppose it. The big unknown is the Liberals' official stance on it, but I reckon they will probably oppose it too, as it could be a bit of a vote-getter for them. Abbott, as a Christian, might ~personally~ support it, but that doesn't mean the whole Liberal Party will take that position ... the Liberals in general are less unified than Labor and more willing to cross the floor for their ideals (see: Malcolm Turnbull et al.). Conroy clearly wants to push it through while Labor is comfortably ahead in the polls, but even now I think it might be too politically risky.

So as I have done for the last year since this filtering idea arose, I will bide my time and wait. Every time it's been "just about to happen" ... it hasn't. There's still a lot of obstacles ahead for it. And the US' comments here are another useful addition to those obstacles.

Block the malware. I can agree with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I am more concerned if this is being implemented on the basis of the ac poster apk stating that filtering versus known bad sites and servers/purveyors of mal-ware and the like (even hardcore porn so kids aren't as easily able to get a view of it) are being blocked, or, are they only blocking based on people that attempt to criticize Conroy or Australian governmental policies? If the former is true, filtering off known bad sites or servers that try to take advantage of you then yes, filter those. Otherwise, if the latter? No, do not do that. Now, on what you stated fostware?? Perhaps it ought to be put to a vote, or, offered by Aussie isp companies as an option only. I don't know how things work in Australia, but if they are in fact a democracy as you claim, then if they are filtering off things that critique their governmental policies only, then, they are doing wrong. If they are filtering off known bad sites that harm computers and thus people? Keep on doing it.

Looking forward to the next election

[Crypto Gnome]

Stephen Conroy (the current communications minister) is the most incompetent politician Australia has had the shame to put up with in dozens of years.

He has shown, if nothing else, a complete and absolute lack on integrity in his pursuit of this filtering scheme.

Between one interview and the next, between one statement in parliament and the next, his excuse for the filter has changed, his reasoning has changed.

He has been dismissive, arrogant and accusatory of anyone who says *anything* against his policies.

He has *completely* ignored all the advice of anyone and everyone who has any involvement in child-protection in australia, *AND* overseas.

While *claiming* this is all about "protecting the children" his governments budget for the federal Police Anti Child Pornography team has been *LESS* than in the previous government.

In Short, Stephen Conroy is a classic example of someone who will be *instantly* turfed out on his arse at the next election, and is *personally* and *directly* responsible for the impending massive voter backlash against his entire party.

Re:Looking forward to the next election

[Falconhell]

"Stephen Conroy is a classic example of someone who will be *instantly* turfed out on his arse at the next election,"

Whilst a most desirable outcome, that is very unlikely as Conroy is in the number 1 position in labors Victorian senate ticket.

It would be unprecedented to have no labor senator elected, and as our senate is based on proportional representation, unfrotunately Conroy will probably stay.

Hopefully cabinet will be aware of the damage Conroy is causing amongst younger voters and he will be removed from the communications portfolio.

Even if this occours, he will probably be replaced with someone just as bad, remembering that the previous liberal minister, Richard Alston was known as the world biggest luddite due to his attempts to censor the internet.

PS For those of you who remeber the fuss about game ratings in au being blocked by SA attorney general Michael Atkinson, he has now resigned from his position and will be on the backbench for the upcoming term.

Very curious here man: You're Australian, yes?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Last time I checked, Australia was a democracy, as as such the politicians and their departments' actions should be answerable to the public and this proposed filter bypasses every method of accountability we've put in to law." - by fostware (551290) on Tuesday March 30, @11:40AM (#31671784) Homepage

Per my subject-line, fostware... I take it then, that YOU are an Australian (cool, I have an uncle in Queensland or nearby it rather) & per your reply, that you guys/folks in Australia were NEVER asked, as a "general populace" what YOUR feelings/thoughts were on this, ever?

Ok then... QUESTION: DO YOU FOLKS HAVE ACCESS OR KNOWLEDGE OF EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING FILTERED OUT THEN?

Thanks for the answer man... seriously (this HAS "piqued my interest")

See, because yes, for example, in China or the U.S.S.R. (Soviet Union, whatever they call themselves now) I can see that happening - the party "decides what's best"... they're FREELY admitted as communist states is why!

However, by way of comparison, in a DEMOCRACY? I cannot...

(@ least, NOT without giving peoples in your nation FULL UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO E X A C T L Y WHAT WEBSITES/DOMAINNAMES/HOSTSNAMES (or even IP Addresses) have been blocked off!)

APK

P.S.=> However - What I DO KNOW about "blacklists" (like HOSTS files can be, which IS how I use them personally) is, is that "black lists" work vs. malware distributors & attacks like botnets!

(That's just per results I noted earlier, per my initial posting, & for stopping KNOWN BAD SITES &/OR SERVERS from "burning you" & enslaving your system (as in botnets) or, ruining it in general... & even for speeding up your internet (by blocking out adbanners) VERY SUBSTANTIALLY!)

I only hope for your "Aussies"' sake, that it's NOT being used ala "Russian 'pravda'" reasons, limiting critiques of your own government freely, etc./et al... once more, thanks for your reply in this regards (especially IF you folks have access to the lists of what is 'blocked off' now)... apk

Re:Very curious here man: You're Australian, yes?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've said before that you keep tabs on your posts for weeks after the fact. Hopefully that's still the case, otherwise I'm talking to thin air.

See http://libertus.net/censor/isp-blocking/au-govplan.html#s_40 .

Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was

[MichaelSmith]

although we run Dan's Guardian in a drop-in to protect kids using it, makes us hypocrites...

Doesn't make you hypocrites. I have no problem with the owner of a link to the internet filtering their connection. I do have a problem with Big Brother doing it for me.