3 ms·

US State Dept questions Australia's planned Internet Filtering.

33 points by ra 17y ago

ra 17y ago
I'm very pleased that this topic has been raised on the international agenda. So far I have only heard meaningful criticism of the plan from within the Internet industry.... this is so much more important than the man on the street realises.
- hartror 17y ago
  I'm expecting the filter legislation to be dragged out till after the election then dumped once they win especially if (let's hope) Fielding loses his seat!. I think the only reason it has been dragged out this long is face saving on Conroy's part.
  - philk 17y ago
    I think the only reason it has been dragged out this long is face saving on Conroy's part. I'm not so sure about that. Conroy keeps returning to the filter, whereas if they'd wanted to save face but ditch the policy they'd have just murdered it by committee somewhere.
    - hartror 17y ago
      They know it is unworkable, they know it is a waste of money so as long as they don't implement it instead of a black mark against them they have the promise of "protecting children". They can then go into the election with it as a plus. This is assuming the average aussie is sucked in by this, I have major sampling bias as I surround myself with techies and left wing nuts so I haven't a clue.
mmastrac 17y ago
This quote from the article is what bugs me about these national firewalls: "While considered a noble idea..." It's not noble at all - it's an outrageous, secretive, information-blocking filter with no accountability whatsoever. It's a great way for a government to get its foot in the door into controlling what information is acceptable for its citizens to consume. While this sounds like a slippery-slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope), I'd like to point out that leaked copies of blacklists from Australia, Denmark and Thailand all contain entries which, IMHO, a reasonable person would not consider worthy of a block: http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/denmark-net-censorship-blacklist/ http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/denmark-net-censor... All of my Google searches for supporting references ended up at somebodythinkofthechildren.com- I'd recommend reading further there for anyone interested.
- jstevens85 17y ago
  >with no accountability whatsoever. The legislation has been delayed so that the government can implement "transparency and accountability" measures. >It's a great way for a government to get its foot in the door into controlling what information is acceptable for its citizens to consume. Get its foot in the door? The scope of the internet filter censorship will be identical to what already exists for traditional media - books, magazines, films and video games. The government already has its foot in the door. What's happened is that since 1996 they've started to lose grip, and this legislation is an ineffectual attempt to regain the control the government had 15 years ago. However, as the trial report and Conroy himself have stated, the filter will be trivial to bypass.
  - netcan 17y ago
    In many ways, worse. Stopping a book from being published is a relatively active act. Adding anther domain to the filter is a very low hurdle.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    The internet isn't media, it is the domain in which modern citizens conduct business, exchange ideas and interact with one another. Censoring the internet isn't like censoring books - it's like policing social clubs, mobile phones, political organisations and retail stores.
benologist 17y ago
.... "for advice".
jamesbressi 17y ago
Ironic we question another country, yet we still haven't put net neutrality to bed here in the U.S.

33 points by ra 17y ago

ra 17y ago

I'm very pleased that this topic has been raised on the international agenda. So far I have only heard meaningful criticism of the plan from within the Internet industry.... this is so much more important than the man on the street realises.

hartror 17y ago
I'm expecting the filter legislation to be dragged out till after the election then dumped once they win especially if (let's hope) Fielding loses his seat!. I think the only reason it has been dragged out this long is face saving on Conroy's part.
- philk 17y ago
  I think the only reason it has been dragged out this long is face saving on Conroy's part. I'm not so sure about that. Conroy keeps returning to the filter, whereas if they'd wanted to save face but ditch the policy they'd have just murdered it by committee somewhere.
  - hartror 17y ago
    They know it is unworkable, they know it is a waste of money so as long as they don't implement it instead of a black mark against them they have the promise of "protecting children". They can then go into the election with it as a plus. This is assuming the average aussie is sucked in by this, I have major sampling bias as I surround myself with techies and left wing nuts so I haven't a clue.

mmastrac 17y ago

This quote from the article is what bugs me about these national firewalls: "While considered a noble idea..." It's not noble at all - it's an outrageous, secretive, information-blocking filter with no accountability whatsoever. It's a great way for a government to get its foot in the door into controlling what information is acceptable for its citizens to consume. While this sounds like a slippery-slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope), I'd like to point out that leaked copies of blacklists from Australia, Denmark and Thailand all contain entries which, IMHO, a reasonable person would not consider worthy of a block: http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/denmark-net-censorship-blacklist/ http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/denmark-net-censor... All of my Google searches for supporting references ended up at somebodythinkofthechildren.com- I'd recommend reading further there for anyone interested.

jstevens85 17y ago
>with no accountability whatsoever. The legislation has been delayed so that the government can implement "transparency and accountability" measures. >It's a great way for a government to get its foot in the door into controlling what information is acceptable for its citizens to consume. Get its foot in the door? The scope of the internet filter censorship will be identical to what already exists for traditional media - books, magazines, films and video games. The government already has its foot in the door. What's happened is that since 1996 they've started to lose grip, and this legislation is an ineffectual attempt to regain the control the government had 15 years ago. However, as the trial report and Conroy himself have stated, the filter will be trivial to bypass.
- netcan 17y ago
  In many ways, worse. Stopping a book from being published is a relatively active act. Adding anther domain to the filter is a very low hurdle.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  The internet isn't media, it is the domain in which modern citizens conduct business, exchange ideas and interact with one another. Censoring the internet isn't like censoring books - it's like policing social clubs, mobile phones, political organisations and retail stores.

benologist 17y ago

.... "for advice".

jamesbressi 17y ago

Ironic we question another country, yet we still haven't put net neutrality to bed here in the U.S.