Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government Delays Internet Filter Legislation
An anonymous reader writes "It seems the Australian federal government is being forced to delay the introduction of its proposed and much-hated, much-maligned Internet filter. It will not be introduced in the next two sittings of parliament, which realistically delays it until after the next election. News on withdrawing the filter, which was a promise from the previous election, has disappointed lobbying groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby."
I wonder if this decision was related to the protest that had been organised?
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=100265633350951
Seems like a bit of a co-incidence.. especially because this is the second time it has happened. Last time there was a protest organised about shutting down the Tote due to insane liquor licensing - but the protest was a waste of time as a decision had already been made.
I guess politically it's a lot less damaging if they stop the protest from happening.
But maybe they've started doing next years budget and realised just how expensive this filtering nonsense will be.. and that they can safely cut it because no-one wants it. They can save face by saying "it's just been delayed".
1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic).
So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
2) It might be abused, or it filter stuff you disagree with.
I disagree with filtering material on euthanasia. However this isn't an objection against the filter itself (I mean, I agree with filtering stuff on graffiti or terrorist), but simply against the choice of application.
3) The reason it will fail is exactly the reason it will work.
It will fail miserably because anyone can circumnavigate it.
But this is exactly what makes it hard to abuse. With oddly-moralized hackers up in arms, you can bet they'll seize on any abuses of the filter and plaster them embarresingly over the internet. So the government has a strong incentive to stick within their declared uses of the filter.
So the worst objection to the filter is simply that it could mostly be a waste of time... that said, it will evolve and change and may prove useful.
Elections in Australia happen every three years, no four. That means they will be this year.
Rudd knows just how unpopular the filter is, even if it only loses him 10% of the votes it's enough to scare him as he got in by a gnats wing in 2007.
The question is will Rudd shelve the plan or just carry on regardless after the next election. Personally I don't want to find out but I cant vote for that hyper religious nut-case, Tony Abbott as he'll probably turn around and do something worse so personally my vote is going either to the Greens or an independent against the filter.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Speaking as a Christian, Lobby groups can go fuck themselves. It is ludicrous that any tiny minority that is good at fund raising, or has deep corporate pockets, can be allowed to go around parliament and have private "chats" with legislators. The way people should influence their representatives is via letters and local meetings (and the representatives should be required to keep office hours in the non-sitting season that allows workers to visit them).
Groups like the ACL don't even represent most Christians just a tiny vocal minority.
What is likely to happen here is that Rudd and Conroy will pull a Howard and pass the legislation once returned to power because they now have a "mandate". Honestly we should bring back the Greek/Roman practise and try elected officials once they have left office.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
That's incorrect, never have they said they wanted a stricter filter (Even their actions whilst in government when they implemented a host based filtering solution say the opposite), their position is that no filter is going to be effective enough thus the idea is flawed and wants to focus on law enforcement and education programs. I've actually spoken with Stephen Conroy in Feburary about this issue and discussed the technical feasibility. Unfortunately it actually may be possible to do network based filtering without dramatically impacting network performance, though he does not have any plans to do a proper cost-benefit analysis and when I asked him why he simply went on about the impact seeing RC material can have on a child. For him he is only concerned with classification consistency across different mediums and has automatically assumed this solution will be effective disregarding ACMA's own advice saying that education is a more effective solution.
Disclaimer: I'm a Liberal Party Member
I'd like to agree with you on the notion of trying to vote in the Greens, but that just wouldn't happen.
I'd be more inclined to vote Liberal on the grounds that they've historically been far more concerned with staying in power and they've done that by keeping the people happy enough. Labor went in with some good ideas and a far superior approach to the election... they've just made some really awful decisions.
Best outcome I could see would be Labor getting the House of Representatives majority, then Labor and the Coalition around tied for reps in the Senate so the Greens and other independent reps would have a more important say. Labor's ideaology is generally more progressive, but the Libs have a rather useful tendency to sit back and wait for what the Nation has to say about it instead of acting like bullheaded idiots and pushing seriously bad legislation.