Thread: Internet censorship.....

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Interesting page from Google

Government requests directed to Google and YouTube

It is a pity we are not told the sort of content that they wanted removed. For example I would not be unhappy about removal of Kiddy Porn, but if it was censoring criticism of the government, or other organisations, I would be unhappy about such censorship.

all the stats are out there on the OLFC site and others...

That OFLC.


Problem is that KRudd admires the chinee wau too much and wants to adopyt their ideas on 'freedom of speech" !

How long before the government decides that we can't even look up sites about guns that are banned here... or cars that pollute too much... or anti-social 4wd's.. or sites that sell those dangerous bull bars..or the Liberal Party website.. and so on.

Pollies.... Never trust the bastards !!!

Once this sort of legislation is in it is VERY easy for the pollies to add banned sites to the list.. just a change to the regulations and doesn;t require an acto fo Parliament (that is, democracy allegedly).

Grrrrrrr.

Originally Posted by JohnF

It is a pity we are not told the sort of content that they wanted removed. For example I would not be unhappy about removal of Kiddy Porn, but if it was censoring criticism of the government, or other organisations, I would be unhappy about such censorship.

The Australian Government is proposing the first wide ranging censorship of the internet in a "Western Democracy". Exactly what the plan is is unclear, as it seems to change every time the Minister opens his mouth. But the current incarnation is that it will require ISPs to block overseas hosted URLs which are classified as "Refused Classification" (RC) or thought to be "Probably RC" by ACMA and which have been the subject of a complaint to ACMA. Exactly what is "Refused Classification" is specified in considerable detail (see Ln: Australian Government Mandatory ISP Internet Filtering / Blocking / Censorship Plan 2010 [Page 1]), and covers a very wide range of material - and the description of RC can be (and has been) changed without any parliamentary scrutiny.

The list of URLs to be blocked is to remain secret, and this in itself is an admission that the plan will not work, as if it prevented access there would be no need for secrecy. It is worth noting that the secret black lists of Australia, Finland, Thailand among others have leaked, and none have been found to contain only the type of material they are supposed to contain. The lesson from this, and from history, is that secret censorship is always abused.

There are four questions, all needing a "yes answer" when considering this plan.

1. Is internet censorship desirable. This is a matter of opinion, not fact, so there will never be a definite answer.

2. Is it possible to effectively censor the internet? The answer to this is almost certainly No, without destroying the internet. Even China, with over 30,000 public servants working on it is unable to do so - and the internet is no smaller for Australia!

3. Will the Goverment's plan work. The answer to this is certainly No for the following reasons:-
a) It only applies to the Worldwide Web, about 30% of internet traffic
b) It will block a maximum of 10,000 URLs out of Google's index of a trillion (July 2008) increasing at several billion a day.
c) Web URLs are not static - the same URL does not necessarily retrieve the same material when accessed at different times or in different circumstances. In particular, according to IWF, the average lifetime of child porography URLs is substantially less than the average time taken by ACMA to process a complaint.
d) It does not apply to https URLs (and any attempt to do so would cripple all internet commerce.)
e) It is trivial to bypass using a wide variety of methods. Some organisations are already giving free lessons to seniors to enable them to access euthanasia material expected to be blocked. The bypass techniques are similar to those used to bypass private network filtering, and most high school students and many primary school students will be able to advise you.
f) The Government's own trial report admits it will fail (probably by stopping all traffic) if a URL is listed which is hosted on a high traffic IP address. (e.g.Youtube, but many others, and potentially any URL) The Government plans to address this by asking the host of such IP addresses to do their own policing - Conroy publicly mentioned Google, (who own Youtube), commenting that they censor material for other government such as China and Thailand (actually they don't - they censor search results, not the same thing). Google have publicly rebuffed Conroy. Other sites such as Wikepedia certainly will not cooperate.

4) Will the government's plan have more benefits than drawbacks? The answer to this is certainly No, for the following reasons:-
a) The plan will not work - see 3.
b) It is already affecting Australia's reputation. Last year Senator Conroy gained the title of "Internet Villian of the Year" in the UK, and there have been recent representations from the US State Department. A search will bring up many adverse comments in overseas publications.
c) It will increase costs, probably significantly - ISPs such as Webshield which already offer such a filtered feed charge around $15/ month for it. A secondary cost effect will be that many small ISPs will fold, and competition presssure on prices will decrease. Then the cost to government (i.e to taxpayers) will run into many millions per year, for no tangible benefit.
d) It will decrease reliability, by an unknown amount - no comparable economy has ever attempted something on this scale.

Given the above, one has to wonder why the government is pushing ahead with this plan, which has been roundly condemned by almost everyone who knows anything about it - for example, a recent online poll last time I looked was over 66,000 against and 600 for.

John

Originally Posted by VladTepes

That OFLC.


Problem is that KRudd admires the chinee wau too much and wants to adopyt their ideas on 'freedom of speech" !
<snip>

I personally think that the current Australian Prime minister is (comment redacted by the official censor) but it does seem that when elected he rode a wave of anti-Howard popularity however the ensuing months and years have seen (comment redacted by the official censor). On the other hand the minister for communications Steven Conroy (comment redacted by the official censor) <Insert>Image of attractive children and furry animals <> <add comment>to protect children and promote healthy families <> that Australians deserve!

As long as the only comments about this subject is on sites like this nothing will change

This is a public interest site and nobody takes any notice (except us)

If you dont like the proposed changes telly your local MP email them or even ring there office

Until Australians tell the Government what they want nothing will change for the better

Apathy is a curse no a right

Originally Posted by steve_35

As long as the only comments about this subject is on sites like this nothing will change

This is a public interest site and nobody takes any notice (except us)

If you dont like the proposed changes telly your local MP email them or even ring there office

Until Australians tell the Government what they want nothing will change for the better

Apathy is a curse no a right

True.

jdnsw - have you done so with your argument ? It is well constructed.

If you have any references for the facts (which i don't doubt but often people don't keep their original references, thus my question) letus know and we can make a fully referenced letter to send to the appropriate umm, persons.

Originally Posted by VladTepes

True.

jdnsw - have you done so with your argument ? It is well constructed.

If you have any references for the facts (which i don't doubt but often people don't keep their original references, thus my question) letus know and we can make a fully referenced letter to send to the appropriate umm, persons.

I have written, and emailed my local member a number of times on this subject, and spoken to him on the phone and in person as well. In addition, I have written to all NSW Senators, plus the PM, the Communications Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow spokesman on communications.

I think that all the supporting references are in the website reference given above (libertus.net) which is a very well referenced anti-censorship (not just internet) website run by a lady who appears to be a lawyer, or at least have considerable expertise at digging out legal references. It is the best source I know off for references on this subject, as everything stated on the website is fully referenced back to the original material, typically Hansard, Acts of Parliament, press releases, news items etc.. She is very good at spotting obscure references. It is also easy to navigate and well written. I heartily reccommend it. There are other websites (such as EFA) with much of the material, but they tend to be less easy to find material, or are selective in their approach and all are referenced in this resource.

The significance of much of the material depends on understanding how the internet works, and to some extent how politics and the classification system works!

However, if anyone sends me a PM with their email, I will send you a copy of what I sent my parliamentarians - but please don't use it directly - form letters have less impact.

As most politicians live in the last century, paper mail is much more effective than emails!

Almost all the politicians I have written to have either responded with form letters - those that responded at all; about 50% have not responded. But even if they do not rspond, you can be sure they keep count of the for and against letters they get.

John