First, China. Next: the Great Firewall of... Australia?

[A Guy]

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory Internet filter go ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the Internet is restricted by the state.

Source

Who's next?

A Guy

 

[Luckystar]

See, the one thing that crosses my mind is that all sites are catorgorised when they are created (Might be worng on that, that is my assumption), but surely if that was the case, then all people will start doing is catorgorising the sites that don't come under the filters. Same as the sites that do get blocked are probably catorgrised wrongly.

So so flawed!!

Lucky

 

[severedsolo]

This is already (nearly) Law in Britain. I'm hoping that Dave has forgotten about it with the budget crisis and all.

 

[Luckystar]

This is already (nearly) Law in Britain. I'm hoping that Dave has forgotten about it with the budget crisis and all.

I doubt it, and to be honest, i don't think i care anymore. Since everything you do on the net in this country is recorded by the ISP, what difference does the Digital Rights Bill make.

Lucky

 

[electrotune1200]

This is already (nearly) Law in Britain. I'm hoping that Dave has forgotten about it with the budget crisis and all.

Heh...

Government won't let something small like a budget crisis get in their way of spending. :shock:

 

[BrightBlessings]

If your interested this is from PC authority
Will viewers embrace TV Widgets? - News - PC Authority

Bright Blessings

 

[BCXtreme]

We really stretch the "no political discussions" rule with these topics but ... government has exactly ZERO right to restrict what its citizens can view on the Internet. It's a major infringement of free speech.

This is already (nearly) Law in Britain. I'm hoping that Dave has forgotten about it with the budget crisis and all.

Heh...

Government won't let something small like a budget crisis get in their way of spending. :shock:

Don't we know it!

 

[TimStitt]

This debate has been going on for years. I don't think the government is popular enough to implement this firewall at the moment. However if it only blocks kids access to things that are strictly AO, as well as racism, child pornography, death sites and all the nasties that you wouldn't want your kids or neighbors involved in AND as long as the government is totally transparent about the blocked sites then I have no problem with it. The Australian people aren't going to sit back and let our free rights be exploited (so at worst it'd last 4 years until the next election).

 

[Anak]

With apologies to Monty Python.

And now for something completely different............


April 3, 2009:

In line with promises made in the 2008 campaign, the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress are proposing legislation to tackle the issue of cybersecurity.

Bills in Senate Would Federalize Computer Security - Security Watch


April 13, 2009:

A bill, currently in draft, which is sponsored by Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), is a great example of how watching political sausage making will cause you to lose all respect for those cranking the handle.

The Internet Kill Switch | ITworld


June 18, 2010

A widely-cited report in Wired describes a legislative initiative by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) that would vastly expand federal powers over "critical infrastructure," including commercial Internet providers, in the name of Homeland Security

Proposed Law Would Give Feds Emergency Internet Powers - Security Watch


Who's next? A Guy, I think it's painfully obvious.


Rockefeller's bill didn't pass, but this year who knows?


Anak

 

[smarteyeball]

Heh...

Government won't let something small like a budget crisis get in their way of spending. :shock:

hush comrade - they will hear and record your dissent and make you pay down the track...

So, for the ISP/Filter record:

Mr.Rudd is a wonderful leader who has selected fine, intelligent and clearly competent people for his 'party'.

They give the best advice on how to 'govern' the populous who clearly have no business making any decisions for themselves whatsoever, and rightly so I may add.

They also do a stellar job in spending and investing our countries money wisely too.

I have seen the error of my ways so I will not hesitate in voting for him in the future. Hurrah for Mr.Rudd and his parties fine work!



*sigh* It's amazing what a frontal lobotomy can do for a persons outlook

 

[RST101]

All governments would love to be able to control the net because of the fact that it brings us the truth.

Do these guys know how the internet even works?

 

[HILLBILLY]

Filters? In my internet?

This debate has been going on for years. I don't think the government is popular enough to implement this firewall at the moment. However if it only blocks kids access to things that are strictly AO, as well as racism, child pornography, death sites and all the nasties that you wouldn't want your kids or neighbors involved in AND as long as the government is totally transparent about the blocked sites then I have no problem with it. The Australian people aren't going to sit back and let our free rights be exploited (so at worst it'd last 4 years until the next election).

I agree with the filtering of Child porn, death sites and the like None of that crap should exist in the first place. However if we can't stop it being created, we can at least stop it being viewed.
The thing I don't like about this filter, is once they have it, what's to stop them going crazy and filtering everything they please? China for example filters anything that is slanderous towards them, what's to stop my government doing the same?

Mr.Rudd is a wonderful leader who has selected fine, intelligent and clearly competent people for his 'party'.

They give the best advice on how to 'govern' the populous who clearly have no business making any decisions for themselves whatsoever, and rightly so I may add.

They also do a stellar job in spending and investing our countries money wisely too.

I have seen the error of my ways so I will not hesitate in voting for him in the future. Hurrah for Mr.Rudd and his parties fine work!

The Motherland is satisfied with, and wishes to praise you for your understanding Comrade.

 

[Anak]

All governments would love to be able to control the net because of the fact that it brings us the truth.

Do these guys know how the internet even works?

"They" don't even know how government works......

 

[smarteyeball]

I agree with the filtering of Child porn, death sites and the like None of that crap should exist in the first place. However if we can't stop it being created, we can at least stop it being viewed.
The thing I don't like about this filter, is once they have it, what's to stop them going crazy and filtering everything they please?

Unfortunately comrade, that is the 'real concern'.

They are using emotive topics like Child Porn, terrorism et al, as emotive weapons to help soft soap and push through a much more insidious hidden agenda.

Furthermore, transparency is also a dual edged sword.

On one hand, nefarious parties who know they are on the filter will find a way to circumvent it. However, with a complete black list, who is to say what is added to it, and to what extent.

Rather than being greeted with a "Australia says NO" when you visit a blacklisted site, who's to say that some sites will still be accessible for X amount of time while monitoring peoples activities.

Ultimately, stopping people from accessing sites is not going to stop these activities. They are still going to happen regardless while pushing it even further underground.

They aren't protecting anybody from anything.

If the left arm is broken, they are putting the right arm in a sling. It just doesn't work.

 

[Phil Eus]

An old fella I worked with once said to me (during the glorious Th*tch*r years, spit!):-
"They're lucky in Communist / Eastern Bloc countries. They live in a police state and they're aware of it".

 

[BCXtreme]

I agree with the filtering of Child porn, death sites and the like None of that crap should exist in the first place. However if we can't stop it being created, we can at least stop it being viewed.
The thing I don't like about this filter, is once they have it, what's to stop them going crazy and filtering everything they please?

Unfortunately comrade, that is the 'real concern'.

They are using emotive topics like Child Porn, terrorism et al, as emotive weapons to help soft soap and push through a much more insidious hidden agenda.

Furthermore, transparency is also a dual edged sword.

On one hand, nefarious parties who know they are on the filter will find a way to circumvent it. However, with a complete black list, who is to say what is added to it, and to what extent.

Rather than being greeted with a "Australia says NO" when you visit a blacklisted site, who's to say that some sites will still be accessible for X amount of time while monitoring peoples activities.

Ultimately, stopping people from accessing sites is not going to stop these activities. They are still going to happen regardless while pushing it even further underground.

They aren't protecting anybody from anything.

If the left arm is broken, they are putting the right arm in a sling. It just doesn't work.

Exactly! We've had a lot of those right-arm slings for left-arm problems over here in the States lately ... we're trying our very best to take care of it before it's too late. I wish the Australian people good luck in protecting their rights as well!

 

[TimStitt]

The thing I don't like about this filter, is once they have it, what's to stop them going crazy and filtering everything they please? China for example filters anything that is slanderous towards them, what's to stop my government doing the same?

I understand where you're coming from, although the Australian government signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, there is no provision in our constitution governing free speech. Nor do we have a Bill of Rights like the US has had since 1789. Consequently at any time it would NOT be illegal for the Aussie Government to censor anything they please.

I definitely agree with the publicly noted intentions though and if there was a way to guarantee the transparency of the filters usage and protect against scope creep or misuse then I'd be ok with it...... but I'm the first to admit that I can't see a way to govern this.

 

[BCXtreme]

The thing I don't like about this filter, is once they have it, what's to stop them going crazy and filtering everything they please? China for example filters anything that is slanderous towards them, what's to stop my government doing the same?

I understand where you're coming from, although the Australian government signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, there is no provision in our constitution governing free speech. Nor do we have a Bill of Rights like the US has had since 1789. Consequently at any time it would NOT be illegal for the Aussie Government to censor anything they please.

I definitely agree with the publicly noted intentions though and if there was a way to guarantee the transparency of the filters usage and protect against scope creep or misuse then I'd be ok with it...... but I'm the first to admit that I can't see a way to govern this.

Just because it wouldn't be illegal doesn't mean it's right. I don't think there would be any way to guarantee transparency ... every government runs top-secret operations that the people know nothing about.

How much say in government do the people get in Australia? Is there a mechanism by which the people can amend their constitution to override "lesser" laws?

 

[TimStitt]

Just because it wouldn't be illegal doesn't mean it's right.

Not a point I was making but Ok and I agree mate, I think that's the basis of the debate really.

I don't think there would be any way to guarantee transparency ... every government runs top-secret operations that the people know nothing about.

Unfortunately you're probably right, guarantee's are for election campaigns and as all Australians know, our governments often go back on election promises.

How much say in government do the people get in Australia?

That's a question I often ask too? I think the answer is none, except for referendum's

Is there a mechanism by which the people can amend their constitution to override "lesser" laws?

To put it very loosely - first we must get Bill submitted to parliament (this is the hardest part and can either be a Draft Bill, a Government Public Bil or a Private Member Public Bill). This goes through all the usual process that must end in assent (i.e. passed by both houses). Within 6 months the Bill must be put to a referendum where we all get to vote on it. If the vote succeeds in a double-majority i.e. majority of votes in a majority of states (except NT and I can't remember why, somehow they are included in the national total) and a National YES vote majority then it can be ratified and with 28 days must be commenced.

So In short we must get the government to agree to not be dodgy first and then make that law..... this will never happen.... so I guess we're stuffed.

-Timo

 

[BCXtreme]

Just because it wouldn't be illegal doesn't mean it's right.

Not a point I was making but Ok and I agree mate, I think that's the basis of the debate really.

I don't think there would be any way to guarantee transparency ... every government runs top-secret operations that the people know nothing about.

Unfortunately you're probably right, guarantee's are for election campaigns and as all Australians know, our governments often go back on election promises.

How much say in government do the people get in Australia?

That's a question I often ask too? I think the answer is none, except for referendum's

Is there a mechanism by which the people can amend their constitution to override "lesser" laws?

To put it very loosely - first we must get Bill submitted to parliament (this is the hardest part and can either be a Draft Bill, a Government Public Bil or a Private Member Public Bill). This goes through all the usual process that must end in assent (i.e. passed by both houses). Within 6 months the Bill must be put to a referendum where we all get to vote on it. If the vote succeeds in a double-majority i.e. majority of votes in a majority of states (except NT and I can't remember why, somehow they are included in the national total) and a National YES vote majority then it can be ratified and with 28 days must be commenced.

So In short we must get the government to agree to not be dodgy first and then make that law..... this will never happen.... so I guess we're stuffed.

-Timo

Ouch ... in the States we have a process that can be used to amend our constitution without any support/agreement from the Federal government at all. Yeah, if everything has to go through the parliament, that's going to be difficult to deal with. Unless you could just get a simple free speech provision passed, and then any Internet censorship laws could be challenged in court (if you have such a system).

We have the Bill of Rights over here, as you're aware, but all it's doing is slowing these laws down a little. If we can get the censorship advocates out of public office over here (the ones that are apologizing to China), then we'll have a chance, and maybe we'll even be able to influence other nations away from these dangerous filter systems.

It's worth hoping for at least...

P.S. This whole topic has me wondering exactly HOW the "no political discussion" rule is applied. It's obviously a fine line (which I hope I'm not crossing).