Australia's Internet Filter Switches On In July

[Nackl of Gilmed]

...included the website of a Queensland-based dentist and other sites unrelated to illegal pornography.

Yeah, take that, dentist!

To say the same thing in a slightly less deranged way, I am pretty surprised that the ACMA can just choose to censor whatever they want without even some sort of watchdog agency. Didn't the UN declare internet access a human right just recently?

 

[Formica Archonis]

Is it really so hard to grasp the idea that government officials have restraint?

Yes.

...included the website of a Queensland-based dentist and other sites unrelated to illegal pornography.

Yeah, take that, dentist!

You know how it is. Dentists are doctors and so are pediatricians [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm].

 

[BanicRhys]

I don't want to live in this country anymore.

The worst part is that I can't complain about it to my friends because they'll all just twist my words to make it look like I'm a pedophile.

Well why else would you be against this? Are the people here so blindly in favor of ?free speech? that you will even defend child porn?

What they should be doing is stopping the creation of child porn in the first place, what good is preventing people from viewing it if it's still being made? None, that's what.

And yes, it's a slippery slope, free speech is being threatened, China etc etc etc.

 

[Nackl of Gilmed]

Why? This is blocking child porn sites how is this a bad thing, why is this a bad thing? Because you think the government will start censoring other stuff? Is it really so hard to grasp the idea that government officials have restraint? But if you really hate this country then leave just fucking leave.

Blitzwing, you seem to be having trouble figuring out why some people are unhappy with what's happening here, so I've quoted someone else who's already answered your questions.

Here's some other interesting info, sourced from http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/hitech/index.php/couriermail/comments/australian_internet_filter_incoming/

1. We won?t know why these sites have been blocked from view. The only thing we currently know is that 500 have been vetted by ACMA and more will come from ?international organisations?.

2. There will be no appeals process. You?d better hope your site doesn?t get swept up in it.

3. This filter will block URLs?website addresses?only. Change one character and the URL changes. Then we start all over again.

4. Child abuse material isn?t typically exchanged on the worldwide web. Criminals swap it over virtual private networks and peer-to-peer networks.

5. This is the job of law enforcement. Why isn?t filter funding headed to the Federal Police instead? Let them do their jobs.

6. It sets a bad precedent for ISP. It is not their job to step in and take responsibility for what?s on the web. It?d be like Australia Post scanning your snail mail for swear words.

7. Britain tried this. You might remember that British ISP blacklisted a Wikipedia entry based on an album cover by The Scorpions. Fail.

8. No ISP to add this filter has actually told their customers about it yet. In fact, the spokespeople I spoke to had trouble getting any details about it.

9. Add one filter and a second, more invasive, more censorious filter becomes an easier sell for the Government.

10. No user can opt out of this short of changing to a new ISP.

 

[Ketsuban]

I have a bridge to sell to anyone who thinks this is limited to child pornography and will never be used for anything else ever.

Quite apart from the fact their intended blacklist has already been leaked and shown to have numerous sites which have nothing to do with child pornography, censorship is like kudzu - if you don't deal with it when it's small and easily eradicated, it'll be all over everything.

 

[Accountfailed]

[This responce has been censored by the ACMA]

 

[BanicRhys]

Since when did free speech protect child porn?

Just forget about the child porn, its irrelevant.

The Government has been given a tool that has the ability to threaten free speech, right now they may be using it to stop a criminal activity, but there's nothing stopping them from going even further and censoring things that are perfectly legal or silencing their opposition. And if history has taught us anything, it's that the government loves to screw over the people for their own personal gain.

 

[Nackl of Gilmed]

Since when did free speech protect child porn?

Ok, stop trying to imply that anyone here is pro-child porn and try having a civilized discussion. You're embarrassing yourself. And I know you are trying to say that this is no reason to freak out and assume we're going to end up in some Stalinist police state, and obviously you're probably right there. But this is still unsupervised censorship, and according to the article it could very easily affect sites unrelated to child abuse.

It's not known which organizations are contributing to the list of forbidden beyond the ACMA , but the ACMA's own blacklist from 2009, revealed by Wikileaks, included the website of a Queensland-based dentist and other sites unrelated to illegal pornography. There also appears to be no appeals process for any sites mistakenly caught up in the filter.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Eh, can't say I'm worried.

There was a big fuss made over some grand censorship program a few years ago, which wouldn't have worked. So the people behind it sat round looking foolish and feeling unhappy for a while. To cheer them up, they got Telstra, Optus and two others to pretend to have done something.

That's more or less it. Four companies voluntarily not giving access to a mere 500 sites, except if the user bothers to get round them to make it look like something is being done. No effect on people who use other ISPs, who'll be delighted by the new people signing up should it prove unpopular.

It's a pointless political stunt. The government can't take this much further because they're on shaky grounds as it is, one good nudge will see the opposition firmly in power next election. So they do something to appease the people who want something to be done, just not anything that'll change anything to appease the people who don't want change.

...

Also, the government can't simply track or otherwise deal with various child abuse sites, because they aren't in a jurisdiction with the same definition of child abuse as the Australian government, assuming the local laws are properly enforced. Hell, the federal and state definitions of "child" in Australia tend to vary, though Federal is the one that counts for the internet and postal system. In various states, you're free to look at 17 yr olds having sex, but not to send or receive them via post or internet.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Thank goodness.

After a while I hope we can get this in the U.S. too so that we can phase out internet pornography and piracy.

Ok, I can understand this line of thought... to a point. Piracy, Child porn, and sites like the ones that are being targeted need to disappear. However this loosely regulated filter is not the way to do it, there are too many flaws in the system as the article pointed out.

I for one hope that this horribly designed and implemented system NEVER comes over to the U.S. There are too many people in government that would twist it to their own ideals, blocking sites that go against their personal ideology instead of things that deserve to be blocked. Also, blocking a site will not remove the problem and there will always be someone who finds a way to work around it. It would just cause more harm than good.

There is also the argument that, when someone is unable to find their 'fix' online that they will try and find it in real life. But that is a separate topic altogether.

your last line i especially agree with, now i'm not going to go super arguement nor look up the facts, but on a few sources i saw months back in a different thread, japan had a ridiculously lower rape rate vs most 1st world countries, while they are the hentai capital of the world, so obviously there is a connection there and unless your going to go around and neuter every single male out there...

instincts might take over.

 

[Radelaide]

Dear Australian Government,

As a young Australian voter, way to alienate and destroy any confidence I had in your abilities to do the best for the greater community. I hope that the backing from the ACL and other minority groups pays for your next election votes because I certainly won't be voting for a Government who thinks that censoring the internet is a good idea.

Sincerely, Adelaide.

While I'm completely okay with the idea of stopping child abuse sites, there needs to be a better way than this. This is just the start of something that could get out of hand quite quickly.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Wait wait wait. This is just blocking like child porn and other really nasty things that are already illegal. I'm all for this cause these are the truly, profoundly wrong things that just shouldn't be. And they're will still be all the regular porn sooo.... anyone who has a problem with this.... your statements are invalid. This isn't going to be a precedent either since it's a voluntary action of the isp's on something that should of been done years ago.

Now censorship like China does is to far, but this is child porn and stuff people. Anyone whos against this happening.... I don't think anyone could object to this really. (Cept, you know).

 

[gyroscopeboy]

Mexican drug cartels have soldiers, should we just listen to them because we have a couple guns then?

Also, pornography is legal, what someone does with their own body is none of your business.

Edit: I know of course that the government has nothing to do with this filter.

Of course they should. They're powerful than we are. That's the way of things.

The people should never fear their goverment, the government should fear the people.

I believe you are just actively trying to incite a negative response to your strawman actions. If not, I fear that there are more like you and that makes me fear for humanity.

I hate it when people act entitled and think that they're more important than the government.

No, the people have every right to fear the Government. Guess who has the military? Guess who has the nuclear bombs? Guess who funds the police force? All the government. That's more than the people will ever have. And people have good reason to fear that.

Guess who funds the government? Us, the taxpayers.

 

[Nackl of Gilmed]

Wait wait wait. This is just blocking like child porn and other really nasty things that are already illegal. I'm all for this cause these are the truly, profoundly wrong things that just shouldn't be. And they're will still be all the regular porn sooo.... anyone who has a problem with this.... your statements are invalid. This isn't going to be a precedent either since it's a voluntary action of the isp's on something that should of been done years ago.

Now censorship like China does is to far, but this is child porn and stuff people. Anyone whos against this happening.... I don't think anyone could object to this really. (Cept, you know).

I dislike blanket statements (except that one I just said). Consider these things before you offer your 100% support.

Here's some other interesting info, sourced from http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/hitech/index.php/couriermail/comments/australian_internet_filter_incoming/

1. We won?t know why these sites have been blocked from view. The only thing we currently know is that 500 have been vetted by ACMA and more will come from ?international organisations?.

2. There will be no appeals process. You?d better hope your site doesn?t get swept up in it.

3. This filter will block URLs?website addresses?only. Change one character and the URL changes. Then we start all over again.

4. Child abuse material isn?t typically exchanged on the worldwide web. Criminals swap it over virtual private networks and peer-to-peer networks.

5. This is the job of law enforcement. Why isn?t filter funding headed to the Federal Police instead? Let them do their jobs.

6. It sets a bad precedent for ISP. It is not their job to step in and take responsibility for what?s on the web. It?d be like Australia Post scanning your snail mail for swear words.

7. Britain tried this. You might remember that British ISP blacklisted a Wikipedia entry based on an album cover by The Scorpions. Fail.

8. No ISP to add this filter has actually told their customers about it yet. In fact, the spokespeople I spoke to had trouble getting any details about it.

9. Add one filter and a second, more invasive, more censorious filter becomes an easier sell for the Government.

10. No user can opt out of this short of changing to a new ISP.

It's not known which organizations are contributing to the list of forbidden beyond the ACMA , but the ACMA's own blacklist from 2009, revealed by Wikileaks, included the website of a Queensland-based dentist and other sites unrelated to illegal pornography. There also appears to be no appeals process for any sites mistakenly caught up in the filter.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Is it really so hard to grasp the idea that government officials have restraint?

Yes.

When did people get so damn cynical about politics?

Dunno. There was the time the HTML of the subpages of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandal topped one megabyte total.

Some time before that, there was these guys. George Washington, Ben Franklin, and a bunch of others. They were so cynical about politics and the risks of corrupt leaders they built a system with a substantial number of checks and balances in it.

Then there was this guy, Dante Alighieri, who wrote about how political power had corrupted the Catholic Church. But you can't trust him - they'd used that political power to make him a homeless exile, so he was biased.

A while before that, Roman Senator Gaius Cornelius Tacitus said "In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous."

I know it?s hard to understand but sometimes the government does know what it?s doing, sometimes they do have the peoples best interests at heart.

And sometimes they don't. Many of us feel that they don't in this case, particularly when the ACMA blacklist [http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/296161/australia_web_blacklist_leaked/] was leaked and we found that the powers that be lied about the scope and length of the blacklist.

There are laws against child pornography. Why must they ban something already illegal? They already have the laws to stop it, why do they need more?

Why am I hearing reports that some Liberal politicians think Labor is too light on this issue and need to ban things like gambling and abortion sites? (Could someone confirm that for me? I'm not in Australia.)

The amount of political power in the world is finite. The more they take, the less you have. Any time an organization grabs more power for itself, its motivations need to be scrutinized carefully.