Internet Censorship - Trial starting now

[ianvestor]

Hi all,

I just wanted to pass along this message I read in relation to an upcoming decision to filter (and effectively censor) Australian internet:

Dear Senator Conroy,

I am a member of the Western Australian Labor Party and a long time supporter of the ideals and values the Australian Labor Party and Trade Union movement promote in our country. I am writing to express my extreme concern on the mandatory Internet filtering you and your office are trialling over the next six weeks.

I understand that the decision is being considered as an option to assist parents, schools and public resources (such as libraries) to keep children away from unwanted Internet content. However, I do not believe that the planned solution will ever be appropriate for the Australian cultural climate. As a teacher, uncle and future parent I cannot stress enough the complete apathy and ignorance this policy encourages in parents of young and adolescent children in relation to the Internet. It should be the absolute responsibility of the authority figures of each household to understand, take action on and maintain any steps taken to remove perceived inappropriate content entering the household through a connection to the Internet. This policy is the antithesis of promoting an open caring relationship between parents and children in relation to online content.

Your policy discourages education and accountability because it takes the responsibility of filtering away from the parents of the household. It also discourages communication between the parent and child, not only stifling the need for dialogue but also, as shown through the lack of information given to the public by your office, the idea that information can be withheld by those "who know better" (in this case those who think they know better). Furthermore, the technical, financial and freedom of expression (as upheld through our constitution) issues are well documented and those in themselves should be more than enough to kill any further life in this poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly though-out plan.

Please understand that I do not advocate nor do I support the idea that the government cannot assist parents, schools and other public institutions from helping them with filtering their access to online content. However this policy which will continuously block any number of unnamed web sites is not aimed at targeting an individual's right to choose what they view, instead generalises values for the entire Australian population. I cannot think of anything more "un-Australian" than that.

As a Labor member and supporter of both a Labor government at both a state and federal level it is with great disappointment that if this policy is to be enacted I will do everything in my power to ensure that only members of parliament who oppose this policy will represent me in my electorate in the future. I understand that this may well end up in me needing to leave the Labor party but this issue is too important and your policy too narrow sited for me to ethically be able to support any Labor party member encouraging this policy.

I am looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

If anyone else thinks this is down-right scary, please write your own letter.

-Ian

 

[ned261]

whole-heartedly agree

.. however Ian I believe that you've misused the term un-Australian.

"
un-Aus⋅tral⋅ian,
pron: [far-kyn un aw-strawl-yn!]
-adjective

1. of or pertaining to any action or opinion that differs to that of any past or presently elected government official.

2. of or pertaining to any action of opinion that differs to perceived public opinion, by which the deliberate taking of an opposing stance by an elected government official facing an imminent federal election is highly likely to result in a significant increase to the public approval rating of said government official.
"

 

[man.goo]

it sounds like a joke to me, i mean why would they censor the internet in Australia?

 

[ianvestor]

It's no joke unfortunately ManGoo. It seems Senator Conroy doesn't value a free country, and Australia certainly isn't as free as I was lead to believe.

Ned, you're being unAustralian by blaming me for someone elses misuse of 'unAustralian'. Just kidding, pretty much every use of the term is misuse.

http://www.iinet.net.au/customers/iinews/internet-filtering.html

 

[twobobsworth]

Can't say I have any issues with it. Why should the internet be any different from media such as print, television or radio?

 

[ianvestor]

Can't say I have any issues with it. Why should the internet be any different from media such as print, television or radio?

I'm not saying it should be any different. Government censorship of those media are just as disgusting in my book (which thankfully they haven't burned yet).

 

[BoatBoy]

Can't say I have any issues with it. Why should the internet be any different from media such as print, television or radio?

Because once the precedence is set, its easy to go overboard

The addition of additional web sites that someone in Canberra determines are 'unwanted' but which may not be illegal, is a high probability and must be avoided. Apart from arbitrarily categorising subjects and websites as 'unwanted', there is also the possibility that other forms of censorship or interception will emerge.

Like the anti-terrorism laws that allow the authorities to do, well, whatever they like really.

Sounded like a good idea on the surface.

Dave

 

[Reach]

The other point to this, is that technically its quite difficult to achieve this result.

The most likely outcome would be the use of a black list, which would block some sites. Now, even if your ok with this, (although this list would not be disclosed) it can have some adverse affects.

The most prominate affect would be a speed reduction - across all filtered traffic.

Not only would speed be reduced, but the practicality of trying to filter the internet is very questionable. Websites can start and close in a day, ip addresses can be changed, and traffic funnelled through in all directions.

Is the investment required to make this even remotely successful :-
1) cost-effective
2) be an adequete return on investment (achieve stated aims)
3) provide no adverse affects (speed reductions, reduced quality of service)

For me the answer to all these questions are no.

I think its a idea which sells well to the mums and dads worried about kids watching porn and what not, but the practical implications mean this is not something which can be stopped.

Traffic can still be encrypted, data can be hidden, and transformed.Proxy sites can be used to surf from overseas. Best case, it will change the way people access this information.

Thats my 2c anyway.

 

[Witzl]

i thought iinet pulled out of taking part in the trials??
I'd be interested to find out if they are now taking part, cos my internet (iinet) at home has been getting a lot slower now!!


Going down this path puts us in the same boat as China and their policy of censorship.

 

[AlmostBob]

Hey Pollies
I've a historical precedent for you to look up
King Canute: Tide and/or prohibition

 

[tubs]

What exactly IS going to be filtered out?

My understanding is child pornography, with people being able to filter out content they select themselved.

 

[natecv8]

What exactly IS going to be filtered out?

My understanding is child pornography, with people being able to filter out content they select themselved.

Whatever the Government determines should be blocked, with no published list available to audit the type of information that is being blocked. Ordinary citizens have no choice in the matter, this is a mandatory filter without any concern given to who the consumer is and what their preferences are.

Child Exploitation Material, whilst repulsive, is a pathetic excuse for this technology. It is well known in the industry that simple, braindead web filters cannot possibly stop this material being traded. Most of this occurs on peer to peer networks which introduce a significant layer of complexity that well and truly beyond that of these devices.

With VPN and P2P technology, networks such as TOR, etc etc - those in the know who are the real target of the legislation will continue on their merry way whilst the majority of internet consumers will deal with crippled connections and government censorship.

Thanks, Senator Conroy (with a shout out to you, Senator Fielding, for being involved in every hare-brained nanny state scheme out there).

 

[Monty Burns]

What they are trying to do is like saying we are going to monitor one lane in a 8 lane freeway for people carrying kiddy porn.

to do this they want to stop all cars in that one lane and search them before letting them go.
But we are not going to look at the cars in the other 7 lanes.
BUT!!! if you put your kiddy porn in an envelope we are not allowed to look inside the envelope

 

[BayView]

What exactly IS going to be filtered out?

My understanding is child pornography, with people being able to filter out content they select themselved.

I think all these topics should be filtered out:

1. child pornograhy
2. all religion
3. anything anti-Collingwood.

 

[boomtown]

I heard that any website containing "Steve Keen" will go on the blacklist.

 

[JamesGG]

3. anything pro-Collingwood.

Hiya,

Fixed that for you, Marc

Cheers

James.

 

[ianvestor]

I heard that any website containing "Steve Keen" will go on the blacklist.

Thanks boomtown, there goes SS.

 

[RumpledElf]

What they are trying to do is like saying we are going to monitor one lane in a 8 lane freeway for people carrying kiddy porn.

to do this they want to stop all cars in that one lane and search them before letting them go.
But we are not going to look at the cars in the other 7 lanes.
BUT!!! if you put your kiddy porn in an envelope we are not allowed to look inside the envelope

That's one of the better analogies I've seen, but it implies you can just drive in one of the other lanes when I know you mean protocols.

I'd say its more like stopping every car on every road to search them but they're not allowed to look in your glovebox, boot or of course those envelopes. And having every road reduced to 10km/h so everyone can be searched is a small price to pay that everyone should be happy with.

Anyone who doesn't like having their car searched is, of course, free to use a helicopter, personal jetpacks, walk or ride a bike.

 

[Sim]

There are two fundamental issues I have:

1. the assumption that is it technically possible to guarantee that all child pornography will be blocked by an ISP level filter. I suggest it is not possible - it will simply be routed around and hence the filter becomes useless.

2. the government using the banner of child pornography to insert a completely opaque (ie not accountable to the public) censorship system with no checks-and-balances and no right of appeal. This is not how to run a democracy - this is totalitarianism.

Nobody wants child pornography - but the process for tackling this needs to be clearly separated from political meddling.

I'm all for them trying to implement a filter which only attempts to block child pornography (even though I think it is a waste of time and money from a technical point of view). This is NOT what the Australian government is aiming to implement - their plans go a long way beyond this and so I am totally against it.

 

[AlmostBob]

I think all these topics should be filtered out:

1. child pornograhy
2. all religion
3. anything anti-Collingwood.

Article 3 is suffieciently covered by article 2.