Slashdot Mirror
Australian Gov't Claims Internet Filter Legislation Still In Play
Dracophile writes "Contrary to yesterday's article about The Australian's report that the Australian government had put on the back burner plans to introduce Internet filter legislation before the next election, The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the government rejected claims that it had abandoned such plans, and that 'a spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the government remained committed to the policy.' Unless the Australian Labor Party abandons the plan altogether, will the timing make any difference to voters?"
I'm a voter and it makes all the difference to me, so to answer your question... yes.
Cheers, Chris
Election soon make your choice giant douche or turd sandwich. Whoever wins we get censorship like china mark my words.
Senator Conroy is a union hack. He has no qualifications in networking or communications. All he is experienced in is bullying to get things his way. Hence why that stupid kiddie porn comment comes up all the time. In addition he is supported by the Australian Christian Lobby as is the Australian prime minister. Fact remains: wikileaks was on the blacklist for the trial. Now why would that be the case? I just wish some journalist would ask that question and demand that the senator provides a very good explanation.
Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
The spokeswoman said reports that a promise to introduce the filter before the next election had been shelved were incorrect.
What they are doing:
A spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday the legislation would not be introduced next month's or the June sittings of parliament.
With parliament not sitting again until the last week of August, the laws are unlikely to be passed before the election.
Politicians say one thing and then go ahead and do another. When confronted, they'll double-speak, reframe the issue, or change the topic. Happens all the time - nothing new to politics.
But in this particular case, the gov't's packpedalling on their promises results in a good thing, so I'm not complaining.
I have already made up my mind that the Labor party will rank second-last in my preferences, just above the Coalition. And I've voted Labor all my life. No more!
PLEASE ignore the stupid ass laws we were going to pass and re-elect us!
We promise not to try to pass that stupid crap again. (until after re-elected that is)
The government does need some wins before the election. Being tough on enemies of the state such as people smugglers and Internet predators may appeal to conservative voters who might otherwise switch back to the coalition.
So don't expect this to necessarily be swept under the carpet as the govt don't want to give Tony Abbott any further ammunition on backflips.
Trying to remove child and violent porn is a good thing, but this filter will give the government unchallenged power to control what Australians read and hear online. It will allow them to silence critics and squash any kind of dissension and debate. Once in place ANY party, whoever is in power, will be able to control far too much information. If it goes ahead there is no IF it will be abused, only a matter of WHEN.
..its just keeping Conroy in the news, giving him lots of data points on whether this is good or bad for him. I don't see much of a point in having a /. article on each and every apparent change.
Wish I could skip to the end.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
and think of the children!!!!!
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
go vote against this crap
It's a clever bit of politics. If they delay until after the election then they can claim they have a mandate for it. And fuck knows, only the most sociopathic would elect the mad monk so they will get in.
Scrap the filter policy and quite a number of us will vote for you again.
I really don't want the Liberal Party back in power.
No vote for any government that supports censorship - whether they put it on the back burner or not. This just shows how dim and gullible they think the Australian public are. Unfortunately they are correct. The majority of Australians have no idea what 'the thin end of the wedge' means, and will just let this lithping fool stick the fat end right up there. Basically they have already lost my vote by supporting this conroy rubbish for years now with as little discussion as possible, and regardless of all points of view against it. In fact I find it despicable that the Prime Minister will not even stand up and support this censorship policy openly. He doesn't want to be tarred with the brush and instead just tacitly supports conroy. At this stage, the only way for them to win my vote back is by promising to completely scrap this censorship and to also denounce the attorney general M Atkinson for his deplorable efforts to restrict free speech. No doubt (in my opinion) he was just doing their dirty work anyway. So, no, the timing doesn't matter at all.
the sad thing is that with this government actually seeming to give at least a little-damn about the environment, this could have been the first time in my life that I've actually had a major party (government or opposition) that I wouldn't mind voting for. I'm sure many young people around australia might feel the same after seeing howard completely ignore the real issues time and time and time again. But labour had to go and ruin it with this censorship etc. And what have we got on the other side - a climate sceptic in speedos.
Someone needs to come up with a demonstration that normal people will understand (people who know nothing about "the internet" except that you have to click on the blue E to get to it and that its full of "bad" things like child pornography, violent video games and Muslims urging other Muslims to kill people who arent Muslim) that shows exactly why this filter wont do the things that the government claims it will do (including blocking all the "bad" content) and how easy it will be to bypass the filter. (and bypass it in ways that cant be detected easily)
I find it interesting that everybody is up in arms over this filter, and ready to vote Liberal second last; yet the Liberal party is ready to scrap the NBN, setting Australia's broadband infrastructure back another 3 years...
Wait! Whats a sig?
Unless the Australian Labor Party abandons the plan altogether, will the timing make any difference to voters?
Well, yes, the timing would make a difference. If they were to schedule it to begin in (say) 2100, I would be quite happy.
I am anarch of all I survey.
That the government doesn't really want this unpopular law or filter. What it really wants is the support of Senator Steve Fielding. Thus the aim is to string the implementation out, and maintain Fielding's support, until after the elections, at which point Fielding will most likely lose the balance of power. The Internet filter will then be killed off.
After the election there will be a different junior Minister in the role. Thanks to Telstra the portfolio of Communications is a punishment post.
At least that's how it's been and that's what I hope will happen. Conroy will make life hell for a completely different industry.
There's no chance of a Liberal or National Minister in the role. The Liberals at the moment couldn't win a chook raffle with all the tickets let alone an election. Rudd's just going to throw their own policies at them and they will reflexively oppose them and have nowhere to stand and nobody but the rusted on voters.
Well, Exit International (the Euthanasia assistance group) are already training elderly people in how to bypass the filter. They run organised classes that makes sure people are not denied critical information. I salute them!
Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
They know it won't work but they are going for the "think of the children" vote.
The even more depressing thing is it comes out of the same budget that should be used for the less than thirty cops who have the job of actually tracking down the pedophiles on the net so it is counterproductive.
The block list is based on submissions from the public that is then reviewed by the classification board. So once this goes in, I'm going to submit anything that I encounter on the web that I personally find offensive. I might even for amusements sake (given that Conroy is backed by the Australian Christian Lobby) submit any and all nasty bible references I can find with Google (there are after all a few things in the bible that should be RC). I could then add a few government websites that informs me about taxes I don't agree with and therefore find offensive and maybe some news aggregators that make references to politicians. I find politicians like Conroy offensive as do a lot of my peers, so by the definition that a reasonable adult must find something offensive for it to be RC - well Conroy should be RC. The bureacracy is obliged to review every submission. They would soon drown in sheer volume. My point is: the concept and implementation is just so stupid and unworkable and dangerous it defies belief. How many censors would they need just to keep up and given the censorship list is secret, who reviews the censors? If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.
Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
The US routinely bars human rights violators from entering the US why not in this case?
Cant we get him on to the US no-fly list?
Im sure the UK has similar laws.
Thats the whole point of my post, we show the "think of the children" crowd that the Rudd proposal wont do a thing to stop child pornography or other "bad" internet content and that the money is better spent going after the pedophiles and pornographers who create the "bad" content in the first place.
The suggestion that the Rudd government has dumped the proposed legislation was only in an opinion article on The Australian. No other media that I found at the time (except Slashdot, of course) indicated anything to the contrary.
Voters are welcome to live in the fantasy world of their choice, but the truth is that Kevin Rudd and his cronies are a big disappointment, as there is little to distinguish them from their predecessors.
our charter of rights and freedoms would prevent such a filter in several ways
and we too are a constitutional monarchy and part of the lil league of former brit nations
but i say you hsould get it so yuo learn how bad life can be under oppression and gt to valuing your true freedoms , perhaps the wars of the past that brave men and women fought for have been forgotten on the youth of today.
Perhaps the 60's are still under copyright and patents....
fuck 'em , the net is global
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
Someone needs to come up with a demonstration [...]
No, they don't. The reason to be against censorship is a fundamental one of principle, not because of technical limitations in implementing it.
It's not just Conroy we need to also ban Kevin Rudd he is after all Conroys boss.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Election soon make your choice giant douche or turd sandwich. Whoever wins we get censorship like china mark my words.
Under the guise of humor or cynicism you Sneakily present a false dichotomy... suggesting the options Labour (left) and Liberal (right) are mutually exhaustive. This is not the case and our choice for an open or shut internet is not the catch-22 many dread! The above exaggeration -however amusing- perpetuates dangerous ignorance.
Admittedly some third-party candidates will -through preference deals and coalitions- support the election of one of two potential prime ministers. Also lower-house elections -having such small electorates where only one candidate can victor- does favor a two party system : even coalitions will continue the drive for mediocrity to win over the median voter.
On the other hand : the Senate is more proportionally representative of society's diverse views because whole states and territories are the electorates or so to speak. Minority views, parties and independents have a decent chance there. Take the Greens senators for example, who happen to be opposed to the filter. Huzzah for democracy! I still want more of it only the demoralizing two-party fallacy restricts true proportional representation.
The current Labour government relies upon the Greens (+ 1 more senator) to pass much legislation the Lib's don't condone (because KRudd does not wield a majority in the upper-house). To be my own devils advocate, one may worry the Greens could 'sell out' on the issue to achieve a higher strategic objective (e.g. save the world - perhaps through a reduction in carbon emissions targets). The Lib's could also make bargains. Such flip-flops are unheard of in the federal Australian senate.
But would any man suggest the Pirate Party of Australia would compromise and vote in such threats to liberty? Tell him he's dream'n!