Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Government Delays Internet Filter Legislation

Posted by timothy on from the by-that-time-the-frog-will-be-asleep dept.

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."

32 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Won't somebody please think of the children!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Australian Christian Lobby can go fuck themselves sideways with a 40-foot barge pole. Fucking morons.

    1. Re:Won't somebody please think of the children!?!? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Australian Christian Lobby can go fuck themselves sideways with a 40-foot barge pole.

      I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but I believe they've already banned that.

      Fucking morons.

      Ooh, that one too. Sorry, but thanks for understanding.

    2. Re:Won't somebody please think of the children!?!? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fucking morons.

      Ooh, that one too. Sorry, but thanks for understanding.

      Actually I thought that was how we got into this situation.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Won't somebody please think of the children!?!? by Illogical+Spock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A brazilian writer told once that the problem with humanity started when stupid people realized they were the majority...

      --
      --- Illogical Spock
    4. Re:Won't somebody please think of the children!?!? by the_raptor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
    5. Re:Won't somebody please think of the children!?!? by w0mprat · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wouldn't be so kind. About the filter that has already been installed in my country I would tell them to << CONTENT BLOCKED: Detection flags: Criticism_of_authority;free_speech;animals_sexual_acts;> >

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    6. Re:Won't somebody please think of the children!?!? by rjames13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are a Christian and oppose to this maybe you should apologize and then fight it. That or leave the religion.

      That doesn't make any sense, the filter is not mandated by any Christian doctrine or authority. I understand the apologise bit because our Government apologised to the Indigenous people, but the problem is that although I support such an apology there is no reason for me personally to apologise since I personally did nothing wrong. Consider a Muslim who lives in New York, should he apologise for the WTC attacks just because they are of the same faith? If you don't support someone's actions who has similar beliefs as you, you don't need to apologise for their actions.

      Please note the difference between similar beliefs and the same beliefs.

  2. Promises, Promises by double07 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the election looming and the popularity of the Labor party taking a dive the Government is dumping all sorts of unpopular policies including their much touted Emissions Trading Scheme, the disastrous Insulation Scheme and of course this ridiculous Internet filter. Of course if Australia votes them in again, they'll say they have a mandate for this filter but the opposition is pretty much a joke. *Sigh*

    1. Re:Promises, Promises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry dude, it won't work.

      I can promise you that no-one keeps track of what is written on ballot papers -- all the AEC staff and party scrutineers care about are whether a ballot paper is formal or not and the way the vote is cast.

      (I speak from extensive election night experience)

    2. Re:Promises, Promises by timbo234 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You could always vote for the Australian Sex party. They're new for this election and actually have some pretty sensible policies revolving around civil liberties, freedom of speech and keeping religious fundamentalism out of Australian politics.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
  3. GOOD! by BluRBD!E · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With any luck we can get this farcical idea shot down somehow before then... I just wish every day Joe and Jane understood the slippery slope that is censorship. Unfortunately the government lackeys and christian rights groups continue to scream "CHILDREN!!!" and "PEDOPHILIA!!!!" and no real logic ever comes into play. Oh well, I already have a remote box in Europe anyway... this won't effect me. I just feel bad for the technical illiterate folk who suffer. I wish it was OPT-IN.

  4. Not actually an election promise by aaron552 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, the "election promise" wasn't actually mandatory. It required ISPs to offer a "clean feed" to their customers. The ACL are a bunch of moralizing extremists and shouldn't be given any more notice than the guys who believe George Bush is a space alien.

    --
    I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
    1. Re:Not actually an election promise by clockwise_music · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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".

  5. Some obvious observations by brendan.hill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Some obvious observations by c0lo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Nope, Internet is not quite like other media, at the extent that all the other media require a physical support for the information. Thus, any censorship of other media will result in somebody, not affiliated with the government, in Australia knowing about the censorship: in extreme, the censorship of that item may be made public and, possibly, debated if necessary.
      By contrast, Conroy's scheme assumes censoring the Internet without anyone's knowledge (at least no one affiliated with the gov, or law enforcement), letting you defenseless in the matter of exercising your control over the power. Not that the power one simply citizen would be quite remarkable, but if you give it away - so small as it would be - you remain with what?

      The above letting aside that I take pride of being able to take care of what I'm doing or suffer the consequences. I don't need my own mother to take care anymore of my actions, why should I trust the government to do nanny me???

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Some obvious observations by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. The filter is not restricted to illegal material - RC material is not ilelgal in itself, no matter how many times Senator Conroy repeats the line "including material such as child pornography".

      2. It is certain to be abused. Even before the filter has been created, the blacklist is intrinsically abusive in its abandonment of due process and legal recourse.

      3. Ineffective laws are bad laws. If everyone breaks the law, everyone is a criminal. Is that what you want?

      The filter is an abomination of human rights. Everyone should be opposed to it. If you're not, you're wrong.

    3. Re:Some obvious observations by TwistedPants · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This angers me significantly: this is not a debate about the theory of filtering.

      This is a tooth and nail fight against a specific proposal put forward by the current government.

      Every variation of the filtering plan that has been put forward in the media has been savaged by opponents, who are entirely correct in their criticisms. What Conroy has failed to do is provide a convincing counter-argument. In media interviews, when grilled, he often struggles with defining just exactly what it is he is proposing.

      One moment it's a URL blacklist to protect children from accidental porn; another moment it's to prevent access to abhorrent material which is currently RC content. Conroy has not listened to one iota of the overwhelming feedback from members of the public; and is utterly clueless as to how to move forward from here.

      I absolutely cannot tolerate such a waste of time and money on an unworkable solution driven forward by an individual who does not listen to reason for entirely political purposes.

      Brushing this off as "filtering is ok in theory" is a red herring: the currently publicised intentions of the government are not ok; and all efforts by Conroy to implement such should be fiercely resisted.

    4. Re:Some obvious observations by Johnno74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      No, I see one crucial difference in the way these two mediums are being treated that I haven't seen brought up anywhere else yet.

      In other forms of media the censoring applies to the creator of the media. What the filter proposes to do is censor the audience, not the creator.

      Now I'm of the opinion that total freedom of speech isn't necessarily a right I feel everyone needs. The greater good of our society trumps the rights of the individual when it comes to banning things such as child pornography, hate speech (at its most extreme), and shouting fire in a crowded cinema. I have no problem with these things being illegal, and the authorities coming down on those responsible for such things.

      But don't persecute the audience. (with the exception of child pornography, where there is a clear link between the creator and the consumer)

      Freedom to listen is a much more important right than freedom of speech

    5. Re:Some obvious observations by c0lo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assuming your answer is, "I don't!!", then your position is essentially that there should be no censorship in any form of media.

      I don't and indeed I'm on the position that there should be no censorship on any form of media. That's because I don't know (more precisely, I don't admit as valid the existence) any kind of media that can cause harm by itself. Either:

      • the harm was done before (or with the purpose of) creating the media - and then the people that have done it need to be found/prosecuted (except of possibly acting as an evidence, the resulted media is of no relevance to the matter) or
      • no harm was done before the publishing and the (potential but not guaranteed) use of the media/information in a harmful way (as a consequential action) would need – only if/when occurring – be prosecuted

      For me, censorship is like the government/law enforcement bodies coming to me with the lame excuse that "I cannot do anything to protect you if you don't allow me to censor you - as well as anybody - the way I think and this without your knowledge, much less your approval". Of course, my non-acceptance of being nanny-ed by the gov would have the logical consequence of me replying to them "Did I ever asked you to protect me from information published on media? Let this be my responsibility, mate, I'm mature enough to handle it!"

      Please note that I'm referring to "information published in/on media" and not about personal information - I still consider the right to privacy as fundamental, even if neither the Australian constitution nor the Universal Declaration of Human Right mention something about its protection.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:Some obvious observations by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      The point to walk away from this with is not that internet filtering is alright in principle, but rather that state filtering is wrong in principle in ALL forms of media.

    7. Re:Some obvious observations by lordlod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You think the state censoring racial hatred or child pornography in various forms of media is WRONG? I assume you're joking.

      Yes and No I'm not joking.

      Personally I believe documents on racial hatred reinforce existing racial hatred, it's ludicrous to suggest that they create it from scratch. I also don't feel that suppressing the relevant documents is effective, the history of religous persecution is ample evidence of this. Restricting access to the materials does make it difficult for those who oppose them to read it and address their grievances or develop counter tactics.

      The argument for censorship in this matter is an argument for thought crime and I'm not sure it can be dismissed lightly. I don't give two hoots if someone wants to sit at home beating off to drawings of children. Having sex with a minor is a crime and anyone who does so should be charged. I haven't seen any solid evidence that the first leads to the second, there are reasonable arguments that porn provides an outlet which helps prevent the sexual act.

    8. Re:Some obvious observations by Dracophile · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      There are several things wrong with this comment. Most of them have already been pointed out, so I'll just add this. There are two other communications media that the internet is similar to: mail and telephone. Yet we don't see these media censored the same way that Conroy is proposing to censor the internet.

      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.

      The filter already is abusive. The distinction between the filter and its application isn't relevant to this argument. Stuff is filtered or it is not.

      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.

      Apparently the government has no such incentive at all. They're delaying this, after all. Whether they admit it or not, they actually have a strong incentive to simply drop this idea. They will certainly lose votes over this. The question is how many, and it occurs to me that this may well be one of the main reasons for putting this off.

      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.

      It's hard to take this seriously; it's as if you haven't read or understood the real objections:

      1. Instead of actually filtering the intended material, it will drive it underground where it is harder to monitor. As things stand now, access to the material can be monitored. Putting the filter in place makes people have to get at it in ways that can't be monitored easily, if at all.
      2. Since the material intended to be filtered can be accessed anyway, people who don't understand the technology won't understand that the filter isn't working and will think that the material is inaccessible. It's the false sense of security that filter proponents would not want parents to have, for example.
      3. The government has lied repeatedly about this proposal. What makes you think they will not lie about it again?
      4. What makes you think the next government, or the one after it, won't lie about it or misuse it?
      5. What if the government decides to make it work by instructing ISPs to drop any packets they can't read, effectively making them MITMs? That completely breaks internet commerce, which is obviously unacceptable. So this would be mitigated how? Possibly by a government-mandated whitelist of IPs with whom anyone can communicate with encrypted data. Which still roots internet commerce anyway.

      It's not just a waste of time and money. It's a breach of faith on several fronts.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
  6. Elections are coming, Labor wants votes. by mjwx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  7. Re:Looking slightly dangerous for Rudd by mjwx · · Score: 4, Informative

    The opposition Liberal Party are finally getting their act together and the Labour Government doesn't want to feed them any issues to debate, so filtering is on hold.

    Frankly the Coalition scare me more then Conroy. Both the leader of the Liberals and the Nationals are ultra conservatives (not in the good way, they are religious nutbars) so voting them in would be just as bad, probably worse then another 3 years of Rudd. Personally my vote is going to a minor party (likely the greens) who, if given enough power can keep out bad legislation, just like the last filter vote.

    Also Rudd and Conroy are getting a lot of heat from the Labor back bench, even Kate Lundy has openly questioned the filter after towing the party line and defending it. The prospect of Rudd facing revolt from his own party this close to an election is not a good one.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  8. The sad thing is... by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last week I was discussing the filter with a friend who is an intelligent and sensible, non-religious person. Unfortunately he had swallowed the whole "think of the children" argument and thought the filter was a good idea. When I put the standard negative arguments to him, he agreed that it wasn't as simple as he'd thought. Problem is, he's probably representative of a large majority of ordinary people with voting rights in Australia. It's imperative that the debate about the filter is kept up and every Australian citizen is brought up to speed, otherwise I fear that we'll end up having it simply because nobody really bothered to give it much thought.

    1. Re:The sad thing is... by bane2571 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is worse, I asked about 5 friends that frequently use the net and are quite intelligent what thye thought of us having a filter and they had no idea one was coming.

    2. Re:The sad thing is... by twostix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why on earth is this being framed as the creation of religious people?

      The Labor party are the secular, technocratic left wing party in Australia, the Liberals are the "religious conservatives". Yet it is Labor, not the Liberals (who had power for twelve years and never spoke about it) that are trying to ram this down the country's throat.

      And to prove it the leaked blacklist had *anti* abortion websites banned. Hardly something that would make the religious people happy!

      It's not religion that's the problem here, it's authoritarianism, which the current Labor party unfortunately (since I voted for them) have in spades.

  9. Re:Looking slightly dangerous for Rudd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  10. Re:voting green by NoMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Upper House: parliament ... The Lower House: The Senate ..."

    Ummm ... you do know you got that exactly wrong, don't you?

    The Upper House is the Senate.
    The Lower House is the House of Representatives.
    Together, they make the Parliament of Australia.

    And voting anything other than Labor / Coalition in the House of Reps is far from a wasted vote. It's been a while, but we have had minority governments that've had to cuddle up to minor parties in the HoR in the past. It's not quite like the crazy 'major parties take all' system in the US. Not yet, anyway...

    --
    What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  11. Re:Looking slightly dangerous for Rudd by dropbearsrus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I disagree. Abbott already has a proven record of forcing it down people's throats.

    Unfortunately Abbott is not on his own in this regard, I believe this may be something that Abbott and Rudd actually have in common.

    For example, the ridiculous taxpayer-funded school chaplaincy program introduced under Howard, has been continued with additional funding under Rudd.
    http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolChaplaincyProgram/Pages/home.aspx

    I don't see how my taxes should be paying for someone to evangelise at what is meant to be a secular school. If they wanted a school counselling program with actual psychologists, I'd be all for that. And don't get me started on 'religious education' at secular schools...

    Also while we're talking lobbies, I'll point out an alternative: http://australiansecularlobby.com/

  12. Re:Looking slightly dangerous for Rudd by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  13. But hey, we'll still have the NBN! by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Funny

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced that the Australian government will build a new $43 billion national broadband network, connecting 90% of homes to 100-megabit fibre internet. "We believe that fast broadband is absolutely essential for our nation's future", he said.

    "Telstra has raised issues with the amount of bandwidth usage this will produce, given we're still hooked to America by tin cans and string, but our Great Firewall of Australia Internet filtering project should keep usage down to reasonable levels at near-dialup speeds. We promise you won't go over your download cap."

    The Great Firewall will reliably block all illegal material, child pornography, terrorism and unAustralian thoughts.

    "Not only are the contents of the list illegal," said Senator Stephen Conroy, " but revealing the list is also illegal, and so is linking to someone linking to someone claiming to reveal the list. So we're blocking Google Search. Having to use Anzwers should keep usage right down."

    Calling it, the "single largest infrastructure decision in Australia's history," Mr Rudd said the project would employ up to 37,000 people a year monitoring citizens' net access, reading their email and correcting spelling errors in their football forum posts.

    A consultative process will determine the regulatory framework for the network. "We're considering getting Senator Fielding to do it personally," said Senator Conroy, "since he's the dickhead who demanded the censorship in return for his votes. Hopefully it'll melt his brain. Bloody balance of power. At least Xenophon's bloody sane."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk