Australia to Mandate Internet Filtering?!?

[Johan]

Shout-out to our Aussie members, asking "whuzzup Down Under?" (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html)

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.


EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child pornography, as it would not cover file-sharing networks.

"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child pornography it would be a different debate," he said.

I have absolutely no problem with blocking illegal content (some people disagree with combating illegal content through blocks; I think it's a valid option, myself). The problem is that a government could create vague legislation that would make legality and illegality a question of interpretation and reflective of the political or social 'temperature.' It also seems like there's a loophole large enough to drive a truck through in terms of stopping illegal content, as it doesn't cover file-sharing networks.

Is this a governmental attempt to filter overall content? Is it a legitimate tool to combat illegal content? Is it an example of the nanny state, or of effective/proactive government? Will the law pass? Should those outside of Australia care? Should anyone inside of Australia care?

Will CoG be blocked for "naughty words?" :D

Is Bush to blame? ;)

[KingGorilla]

In other news, Australian officials have no idea just how this world wide web, as the kids call it, actually works.

[Crowe]

As long is it's only targeting the revolting shit like child porn this wont worry me. I'm not really into browsing the kiddy porn so this won't affect me. I honestly cant imagine them going over the top with this, the outcry would be huge.

[roboninja]

Battling child pornography is the trojan horse the government/media companies are trying to use to filter and/or monitor Internet traffic. It is hard to argue against, because mindless idiots will just scream, "So, you are for child porn?!?". So, we will all be forced to "think of the children" while they set up monitors that can tell if you are downloading Indiana Jones 5: Indy Meets the Transformers without paying. All to protect the children. :rolleyes:

[Johan]

I believe roboninja is correct. Also, if the government was truly interested in combating such content, ignoring p2p sharing is so ridiculous it's laughable (if the issue weren't so serious, of course).

[Schnoogs]

The nanny net filter...god I love progress :rolleyes:

[boratika]

I was going to start a thread about this the other day, but I have a hard time discussing the issue without screaming unintelligibly through tears of frustration and spittle.

So I'll just link to (fact based)this OP (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/24/2399876.htm) at the ABC website and somebody think of the children (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/), where mostly anything I might say on the topic is already said.

This is going to be/is already a huge PR disaster for the government. It will be the first really big one at that.

Any Australians remember the previous governments attempt at filtering the web. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22304224-2,00.html)

Also, a certain governor general of South Australia may have had no small part in pushing this.
As long is it's only targeting the revolting shit like child porn this wont worry me. I'm not really into browsing the kiddy porn so this won't affect me. I honestly cant imagine them going over the top with this, the outcry would be huge.

Man, you haven't been paying attention. The outcry IS huge.

Are you familiar with web filtering? Expect to lose acceses to such pornographic domains as "wikipedia.com" and "flickr.com".

And you can't really find kiddy porn by just googling "kiddy porn", otherwisw they'd already be caught. According to the AFP, the web isn't where you find kiddy pr0n, but rather it's moved almost entirely to P2P networks (at least as far as Australians accessing goes.

[boratika]

So, we will all be forced to "think of the children"
Check out the name of the blog I linked.
Indiana Jones 5: Indy Meets the Transformers without paying

Man, if anything, the transformers should be the ones paying to meet Indy:D

[ShivaX]

Right now some lawmaker is setting the filter to exclude all instances of the words "child" and "porn," so that any site that has those two words on it will be filtered out. It will stop 0% of child porn and block people from every site that has a forum. And they will call it progress.

[Crowe]

Man, you haven't been paying attention. The outcry IS huge.

Are you familiar with web filtering? Expect to lose acceses to such pornographic domains as "wikipedia.com" and "flickr.com".

And you can't really find kiddy porn by just googling "kiddy porn", otherwisw they'd already be caught. According to the AFP, the web isn't where you find kiddy pr0n, but rather it's moved almost entirely to P2P networks (at least as far as Australians accessing goes.


I'll be honest man, I haven't been paying attention to a thing. Had I not stopped checking Whirlpool I would probably know what the hell is going on.

*Edit* I really need to keep up with things that happen outside my kitchen.

To ISP-level filtering, Australia says no. Really, how the hell do they think shit is going to pass?

Despite his earlier promises that Australians would be able to opt out of any internet filters, Senator Conroy said the first tier would be compulsory for all Australians and would block all "illegal material", as determined in part by a blacklist administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

How the hell is that going to work? And I thought my rage at Telstra was bad, Whirlpool just went back on my Bookmark toolbar.

[Inspector Fowler]

Anybody who says that this doesn't bother them because they don't surf illegal sites - you're just a quick legislative session away from being deemed "illegal".

We just discussed (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=1894) how Australia won't allow any "over 15" games to be sold in the country. Since those games are then contraband, what's to say that discussion of them won't (eventually) be filtered or blocked? What happens when a bored politician discovers his Aussie son surfing CoG, discussing illegal video games?

By restricting the internet, the government, is essentially restricting what you can say or hear. And that's disgusting.

Even if it's not feasible to accomplish as currently proposed, the fact that it has even been seriously proposed and tabled by any member of an elected government makes me sick.

Next time I'll tell you how I REALLY feel ;):D

[Crowe]

A classic example of making stupid campaign promises and then trying to follow them up without thinking about them. Despite being outraged, I'm not really too worried that this is even going to eventuate.

[KingGorilla]

Hey Crowe, you mind if next time some 18 year old know it all pipes up about how other countries respect free speech more than the US, I meantion your sovereign land? The UK has become too easy.

[Johan]

Hey Crowe, you mind if next time some 18 year old know it all pipes up about how other countries respect free speech more than the US, I meantion your sovereign land? The UK has become too easy.

Democrats in control = Fairness Doctrine.

It's coming...idea and speech control.

[KingGorilla]

Are you saying that we have not always been at war with Eurasia, comrade Johan?

[Deadend]

Democrats in control = Fairness Doctrine.

It's coming...idea and speech control.

And the other party just black bags you and throws you in prison without a trial, then tortures you if it thinks you seem like a possible terrorist, it also is not just a fantasy, but what fucking happens.

So, today is the world child porn being censored, tomorrow is speech against the party in power.

[Narradisall]

Are you saying that we have not always been at war with Eurasia, comrade Johan?

We are and always have been at war with Eastasia.

I think the far right Austrailian government are going to have a problem with this one though. I agree with fliters against thing like kiddie porn, but rarely can governments actually have said power and not misuse it.

Then it'll only take some guy in his garage halfway around the world about 30 minutes to figure out a way round the fliter.

[Johan]

And the other party just black bags you and throws you in prison without a trial, then tortures you if it thinks you seem like a possible terrorist, it also is not just a fantasy, but what fucking happens.

Terrible and true...for some very unfortunate people; also has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine at all, which was rescinded by a Republican president.

I eagerly await the Democrats solution to the problem of detention without judicial oversight/recourse...through stifling free expression and mandating quotas on speech through the government. Let's not just throw people in jail for any reason; let's kill ideas while we're at it, too.

[ShivaX]

Terrible and true...for some very unfortunate people; also has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine at all, which was rescinded by a Republican president.

I eagerly await the Democrats solution to the problem of detention without judicial oversight/recourse...through stifling free expression and mandating quotas on speech through the government. Let's not just throw people in jail for any reason; let's kill ideas while we're at it, too.

The Dems are pretty reluctant to kill ideas (to the point of allowing insane ones). I mean the ACLU isn't going to let anyone get a free pass. If they're fighting for NAMBLA and the Klan, I have faith they'll help out the GOP.

In my opinion the Fairness Doctrine wasn't really a terrible thing. It would make actual discussions happen on channels like MSNBC and Fox News. It wouldn't really effect places like CNN that already do that anyway. I have no problem with a channel not being a propoganda machine for a political party or ideology.

However, if you look at the logic of the Supreme Court in allowing the original FD, odds are extremely good they wouldn't allow a new one. The basic reason they allowed it before was basically because of a limited number of channels. With cable, one could make the argument that shouldn't apply, or should only apply to those stations that broadcast over the airwaves for free.

[Johan]

In my opinion the Fairness Doctrine wasn't really a terrible thing.

I'm sorry, but that's just so wrong. I for one don't want government anywhere near having the power to determine what ideas need to be passed across through the media, nor attempting to harass media when it presents ideas the government of the time, whichever party it is, doesn't like.

The government should get the hell OUT of the business of "balancing" ideas and forcing "fairness" in content in media.

[iHap]

MMPH! I just got barbied by the stingray interclog!

[ShivaX]

I'm sorry, but that's just so wrong. I for one don't want government anywhere near having the power to determine what ideas need to be passed across through the media, nor attempting to harass media when it presents ideas the government of the time, whichever party it is, doesn't like.

The government should get the hell OUT of the business of "balancing" ideas and forcing "fairness" in content in media.

But thats not how it would work. The government wouldn't have any power over the media. If someone presented the government's position, then someone would have to be on to counter it, regardless of which party was in control.

Its not like this thing didn't exist from like 1950 till 2000. Its not like our media was a slave to the government for all that period of time. Hell I think our media was probably a lot better for a large portion of that time.

I mean, I'm not a solid supporter of it by any means, but lets be realistic about it. It wouldn't give the government any power over the media, if anything it might weaken it since they couldn't rely on their mouthpiece organizations to support them without dissention.

[Johan]

If we had the FD now, many members of the media would be apoplectic that they couldn't worship solely at the altar of Obama...which, frankly, many of them do, without shame.

Also, the government has the ability to remove licenses to broadcast; that, combined with a FD, would be a severe threat and form of harassment. It's a bad idea.

[Generation ABXY]

If we had the FD now, many members of the media would be apoplectic that they couldn't worship solely at the altar of Obama...which, frankly, many of them do, without shame.

http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2008/10/2008-10-31-Halloween-Obama.jpg

Relevant enough to what you just said to make it worth posting. :D

[ShivaX]

If we had the FD now, many members of the media would be apoplectic that they couldn't worship solely at the altar of Obama...which, frankly, many of them do, without shame.
And that would be a good thing, imo. Just like it would have been a good thing after 9/11 to have people discuss things more without being accused of hating America.

Also, the government has the ability to remove licenses to broadcast; that, combined with a FD, would be a severe threat and form of harassment. It's a bad idea.

Well the government has that ability right now, I fail to see how FD would really make a huge difference. I guess they could go after people who violate the FD, but only those who oppose those in power?

Really I'm fairly neutral on it and Obama says hes against it, so I'm not overly concerned. Its not like journalism collapsed when it was in play and its not like things got significantly better in that domain without it. So it seems to be a wash. Of course it all depends how they word a new version of it.

[boratika]

It's weird: Here I am in a thread about how Austrialia is pretending it can manage the internet, without somehow completely pissing off the voting public (ie. everyone over 18) and I'm sitting here thinking, "gee Americans say some strange things..."

[KamaItachi]

It's weird: Here I am in a thread about how Austrialia is pretending it can manage the internet, without somehow completely pissing off the voting public (ie. everyone over 18) and I'm sitting here thinking, "gee Americans say some strange things..."

Hopefully our government can protect you from that in the future.

[boratika]

*This sentence could not be displayed due to potentially treasonous or seditious content. Thank you and have a nice internet*http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif