4 ms·

http://www.wikileaks.com/ http://www.wikileaks.com/ I guess I've been taking linking for granted. Could any HNers residing in Australia please add their thoug

http://www.wikileaks.com/ http://www.wikileaks.com/ I guess I've been taking linking for granted. Could any HNers residing in Australia please add their thoughts to this? I could only imagine what would happen if the US did something similar...

rms 18y ago
Australia also banned Grand Theft Auto. And kratom.
- JacobAldridge 18y ago
  I'm not sure if GTA was 'banned', but it certainly went close. Actually, banned isn't quite the right word. Down under we don't have an (R18+) Rating for video games. This means anything deemed not suitable for the lower (MA) rating is not given a Classification. ...And it's illegal to sell a game without a Classification Rating. It's a fine distinction, and not one that can be made about the internet filtering debacle.
  - jwilliams 18y ago
    GTA IV was almost banned - they had to cut one scene to get the MA15+ cert.
JacobAldridge 18y ago
For the past year or so the federal government has been trialling software they will make mandatory for ISPs to filter the internet. The industry doesn't want it, the public doesn't want (trials show it demonstrable slows ALL internet traffic), but they persist. The relief we have so far is that we're reasonably confident they won't really be able to enforce a lot of things, including links. I'm personally confident that they will eventually find an excuse to 'park' the project, but the closer it gets the louder we need to be about censorship. Our PM speaks fluent Mandarin. A very useful skill for global diplomacy, but a skill that when combined with censorship draws comparisons he probably doesn't like.
- jwilliams 18y ago
  sigh It's frustrating - because - we all know - technically, this just won't work... I'm sure their reasons are somewhat valid, if only that they are pandering to a small, scared part of the community. However, putting in place this sort of apparatus to do that - with seemingly no checks and measures - seems negligent in the extreme. The government doesn't inspect every letter, every package, every phone conversation. That's just ludicrous. Instead they just police it. For some reason, they think this will work with the Internet. It's an embarrassment as all it demonstrates is that the government is completely out of touch with technology. I've written to my local rep several times. It usually a form reply. They say don't want to stop "legal" activity. This scares the hell out of me. Does that include technically illegal acts such as those against corporate interests? property? political dissent? Frankly. It's not a tool I want in the hands of a government that seems to be prepared to barter almost anything in order to get legislation though. We've had the parliament held to ransom by crazy independents before (totally marginal, unrepresentative nutjobs on the whole). I hate to think what they will demand once they have this to play with. I only wish this initiative would quietly die like everyone is mentioning - it still seems to kick on and on though.
  - cameldrv 18y ago
    I wish people wouldn't make these sorts of arguments, because they're short-term ones, and don't get the real point across. Whether it technically won't work, or whether it will slow down the internet aren't the real issues, because someday, it technically will work and won't slow down the internet. The real argument to make is that this is wrong because censorship is wrong, and because this is the thin end of the wedge of tyranny. It always starts with child porn or terrorism, because everyone hates terrorists and pedophiles. Once the government gets the capability, they just start taking more and more. Even this article talks about blocking anti-abortion websites. Abortion is one of the most important social issues today, and they're saying that we can't argue against the government position on the internet? How will we ever make progress as a society if we can't talk about anything different than what we are doing today?
    - 18y ago
cdr 18y ago
You just got HN blacklisted. Way to go.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=520341 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=520341 ?
  - cdr 18y ago
    Yeah, bad joke.
jwilliams 18y ago
I could only imagine what would happen if the US did something similar... We don't have a bill of rights, which is the big difference - naturally, goes deeper than that, though.
ozanonay 18y ago
Those who comprehend the absurdity of what is really a series of internet censorship proposals have been unable to publicly embarrass Stephen Conroy (our Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) to the extent required to kill this thing. As such it remains largely outside of the public consciousness, and something between a bad joke and a nightmare for civil libertarians on the 'net. The possibility of there being a crime of hyperlinking in this country is closer to the "bad joke" side of that spectrum, but the more of these bad jokes we're subjected to the less humorous they become. ... Oh and also, there's supposed to be a freedom of political communication implied in our Constitution. Not sure what happened to that.
pufuwozu 18y ago
Australia has always been far behind in terms of the Internet. My feeling is that most of the public here have hardly any idea what's going on with the censorship. It's hardly getting any major media coverage. The saddest thing is that there's not much we can do about it at the moment.
tjmc 18y ago
Personally I don't think the filtering will ever become law. The Australian govt are pandering to a single evangelical senator (Steven Fielding) who's vote is critical in getting a lot of their legislation passed. My guess is that they're holding out filtering as a carrot to get other things through. They know it'll be blocked by the other parties if it ever comes to a vote so they don't have to worry about it. [Edit] Yes, it is embarrassing all the same!
whatusername 18y ago
As I understand it - it was actually ONLY the specific page on wikileaks that is actually blocked. So just linking to the Top Domain is not blocked yet. See here for a major news org linking to wikileaks: http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/banned-hyperlinks-could-cost-you-11000-a-day/2009/03/17/1237054787635.html?page=fullpage http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/banned-hyperlinks... From the political side - this is likely (hopefully) a bit of a dead duck. Kevin Rudd (and the Labour Party) have the majority in the lower house (the House of Reps) - but don't have that in the upper house (Senate). To get through the Senate - Labour needs either the support of the Liberal Party (who are our 'right-wing' major party) - OR the support of The Greens (5 senators), Steve Fielding (from the 'Family First' party) and the one Independant (Nick Xenophon). The Greens and the Liberals have some out against this policy, as has Nick Xenophon. So unless something dramatic changes - then this wont pass the Senate. We've also got the ridiculous lack of classification of R rated games. So games like GTA IV can't get released here (without being modified). All that being said - I've been giving some thought to this.. If I import a package, bring home a suitcase, etc - it may get inspected (either based on a suspicion or on random screening). Can I get some wisdom from the HN crowd - how is random screening / occasional screening of Packets logically or legally different to this? Obviously there are technical problems - but I can't see a logical difference. Another thought on our Internet access - it's slow and we all have download caps (usually with shaping after that - occasionally with extra charges) Parrt of this is our major telco (Telstra) dragging their feet - but large parts are the fact that theres only so many cables linking us to the rest of the world... So what's so good about Australia? Good weather, great beaches, banks that aren't bankrupt, friendly people... :D
- cousin_it 18y ago
  Can I get some wisdom from the HN crowd - how is random screening / occasional screening of Packets logically or legally different to this? Bad analogy: a) internet packages are not suitcases but words spoken across the border, b) you think only sites hosted outside Australia will be censored? Ha ha.
  - whatusername 18y ago
shimi 18y ago
With all the stuff that happens in Aus there are far more important things to sort, When Peter Garrett sang Bad On Fire there where lots of voices who called to censor him, I guess the wheel turned...

rms 18y ago

Australia also banned Grand Theft Auto. And kratom.

JacobAldridge 18y ago
I'm not sure if GTA was 'banned', but it certainly went close. Actually, banned isn't quite the right word. Down under we don't have an (R18+) Rating for video games. This means anything deemed not suitable for the lower (MA) rating is not given a Classification. ...And it's illegal to sell a game without a Classification Rating. It's a fine distinction, and not one that can be made about the internet filtering debacle.
- jwilliams 18y ago
  GTA IV was almost banned - they had to cut one scene to get the MA15+ cert.

JacobAldridge 18y ago

For the past year or so the federal government has been trialling software they will make mandatory for ISPs to filter the internet. The industry doesn't want it, the public doesn't want (trials show it demonstrable slows ALL internet traffic), but they persist. The relief we have so far is that we're reasonably confident they won't really be able to enforce a lot of things, including links. I'm personally confident that they will eventually find an excuse to 'park' the project, but the closer it gets the louder we need to be about censorship. Our PM speaks fluent Mandarin. A very useful skill for global diplomacy, but a skill that when combined with censorship draws comparisons he probably doesn't like.

jwilliams 18y ago
sigh It's frustrating - because - we all know - technically, this just won't work... I'm sure their reasons are somewhat valid, if only that they are pandering to a small, scared part of the community. However, putting in place this sort of apparatus to do that - with seemingly no checks and measures - seems negligent in the extreme. The government doesn't inspect every letter, every package, every phone conversation. That's just ludicrous. Instead they just police it. For some reason, they think this will work with the Internet. It's an embarrassment as all it demonstrates is that the government is completely out of touch with technology. I've written to my local rep several times. It usually a form reply. They say don't want to stop "legal" activity. This scares the hell out of me. Does that include technically illegal acts such as those against corporate interests? property? political dissent? Frankly. It's not a tool I want in the hands of a government that seems to be prepared to barter almost anything in order to get legislation though. We've had the parliament held to ransom by crazy independents before (totally marginal, unrepresentative nutjobs on the whole). I hate to think what they will demand once they have this to play with. I only wish this initiative would quietly die like everyone is mentioning - it still seems to kick on and on though.
- cameldrv 18y ago
  I wish people wouldn't make these sorts of arguments, because they're short-term ones, and don't get the real point across. Whether it technically won't work, or whether it will slow down the internet aren't the real issues, because someday, it technically will work and won't slow down the internet. The real argument to make is that this is wrong because censorship is wrong, and because this is the thin end of the wedge of tyranny. It always starts with child porn or terrorism, because everyone hates terrorists and pedophiles. Once the government gets the capability, they just start taking more and more. Even this article talks about blocking anti-abortion websites. Abortion is one of the most important social issues today, and they're saying that we can't argue against the government position on the internet? How will we ever make progress as a society if we can't talk about anything different than what we are doing today?
  - 18y ago

cdr 18y ago

You just got HN blacklisted. Way to go.

fallentimes 18y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=520341 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=520341 ?
- cdr 18y ago
  Yeah, bad joke.

jwilliams 18y ago

I could only imagine what would happen if the US did something similar... We don't have a bill of rights, which is the big difference - naturally, goes deeper than that, though.

ozanonay 18y ago

Those who comprehend the absurdity of what is really a series of internet censorship proposals have been unable to publicly embarrass Stephen Conroy (our Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) to the extent required to kill this thing. As such it remains largely outside of the public consciousness, and something between a bad joke and a nightmare for civil libertarians on the 'net. The possibility of there being a crime of hyperlinking in this country is closer to the "bad joke" side of that spectrum, but the more of these bad jokes we're subjected to the less humorous they become. ... Oh and also, there's supposed to be a freedom of political communication implied in our Constitution. Not sure what happened to that.

pufuwozu 18y ago

Australia has always been far behind in terms of the Internet. My feeling is that most of the public here have hardly any idea what's going on with the censorship. It's hardly getting any major media coverage. The saddest thing is that there's not much we can do about it at the moment.

tjmc 18y ago

Personally I don't think the filtering will ever become law. The Australian govt are pandering to a single evangelical senator (Steven Fielding) who's vote is critical in getting a lot of their legislation passed. My guess is that they're holding out filtering as a carrot to get other things through. They know it'll be blocked by the other parties if it ever comes to a vote so they don't have to worry about it. [Edit] Yes, it is embarrassing all the same!

whatusername 18y ago

As I understand it - it was actually ONLY the specific page on wikileaks that is actually blocked. So just linking to the Top Domain is not blocked yet. See here for a major news org linking to wikileaks: http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/banned-hyperlinks-could-cost-you-11000-a-day/2009/03/17/1237054787635.html?page=fullpage http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/banned-hyperlinks... From the political side - this is likely (hopefully) a bit of a dead duck. Kevin Rudd (and the Labour Party) have the majority in the lower house (the House of Reps) - but don't have that in the upper house (Senate). To get through the Senate - Labour needs either the support of the Liberal Party (who are our 'right-wing' major party) - OR the support of The Greens (5 senators), Steve Fielding (from the 'Family First' party) and the one Independant (Nick Xenophon). The Greens and the Liberals have some out against this policy, as has Nick Xenophon. So unless something dramatic changes - then this wont pass the Senate. We've also got the ridiculous lack of classification of R rated games. So games like GTA IV can't get released here (without being modified). All that being said - I've been giving some thought to this.. If I import a package, bring home a suitcase, etc - it may get inspected (either based on a suspicion or on random screening). Can I get some wisdom from the HN crowd - how is random screening / occasional screening of Packets logically or legally different to this? Obviously there are technical problems - but I can't see a logical difference. Another thought on our Internet access - it's slow and we all have download caps (usually with shaping after that - occasionally with extra charges) Parrt of this is our major telco (Telstra) dragging their feet - but large parts are the fact that theres only so many cables linking us to the rest of the world... So what's so good about Australia? Good weather, great beaches, banks that aren't bankrupt, friendly people... :D

cousin_it 18y ago
Can I get some wisdom from the HN crowd - how is random screening / occasional screening of Packets logically or legally different to this? Bad analogy: a) internet packages are not suitcases but words spoken across the border, b) you think only sites hosted outside Australia will be censored? Ha ha.
- whatusername 18y ago

shimi 18y ago

With all the stuff that happens in Aus there are far more important things to sort, When Peter Garrett sang Bad On Fire there where lots of voices who called to censor him, I guess the wheel turned...