Login / Manage membership        Not receiving GetUp emails? Join now to receive updates There are currently 377761 members.

Irene Graham: Secret, unaccountable, censorship is incompatible with democracy.


Posted on the campaign blog , November 12th, 2008

Irene Graham is from the Libertus Foundation.


Five days before the 2007 election, the Labor Party issued a policy 'fact sheet' stating: "A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a 'clean feed' internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries" which would prevent access to "any content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA".



Few media outlets reported that policy and, even if many had, most voters would expect "offer" meant they would be free to decline the offer of censored Internet access.



Less than twelve months later, Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy revealed that Labor's policy statement was not trustworthy. Evidently, Labor failed to tell the voting public the truth about their plan or have changed their policy since election.



In October 2008, Senator Conroy said that ISP-level filtering would not be opt-out; all Internet users' access would be subject to blocking. He told a Senate Estimates Committee that "we are looking at two tiers - mandatory of illegal material and an option for families to get a clean feed service if they wish" and Sky News that "Clean feed is broader than the prohibited sites. You can't opt in or out of the prohibited material. The clean feed is something you can opt out". Labor had not previously mentioned "two tiers".



While the Minister frequently refers to "illegal"/"prohibited" material on ACMA's blacklist, this terminology is highly misleading. In fact, "prohibited content" includes material that is lawful to publish/distribute/obtain offline in Australia, (some is also lawful to exhibit in cinemas), and which is not illegal for Australians to view on the Internet. Material unsuitable for children is termed "prohibited content" in Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation enacted in 1999 (which Labor voted against).



Unlike Australia's offline censorship regime, the Internet censorship regime is secret and unaccountable. Offline material is classified by the Classification Board, an independent statutory body comprising publicly named members. Titles of banned and classified material are publicly available in the Board's online database. In stark contrast, decisions to add content hosted outside Australia to ACMA's blacklist are made by unnamed government agency (ACMA) staff and all information about material on ACMA's blacklist is secret. Freedom of Information legislation was changed in 2003 to exempt all such information from disclosure under FOI (changes voted against by Labor).



Moreover, ACMA's blacklist may include overseas hosted content that ACMA staff incorrectly thought "would be" prohibited if classified. In FY2007, the Classification Board found that 11 of the 28 items submitted by ACMA (presumably content hosted in Australia which ACMA is required to have classified before issuing a final take-down notice) were not "prohibited content". In FY2008, 7 of 14 were classified not "prohibited".



Secret, unaccountable, censorship is incompatible with democracy and the inappropriateness of the existing regime will be exacerbated if ACMA's blacklist is used for compulsory ISP-level blocking, instead of only provided to filter makers as currently.



Labor's intention to implement non-opt out ISP-level blocking of so-called "prohibited" content on a secret blacklist, which they voted against in 1999 and 2003, shows that Labor has changed its stripes markedly in recent years.



If Labor implements non-optional ISP-level filtering, which would be contrary to their 2007 election policy, they will prove beyond doubt that Labor is not trustworthy. Accordingly, regardless of the type/s of material Labor says will be on their secret compulsory blocking list, such statements will not be trustworthy either. Labor's intention to mandate non-optional ISP-level blocking must be opposed.


103 comments

Leave Your Comment

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Campaign Blogs
This blog post is from the Campaign Internet Censorship.
Blog Tools

Featured Articles


Latest Comments

Join Getup

Whether it is signing a petition, engaging with the media, attending an event or helping to get a television ad on the air, you'll only ever asked to take targeted, coordinated and strategic action. Taking action is optional, convenient and proven to work!
Join Now.

Subscribe!



Dave from Blackburn
November 12th, 2008

Hi Getup.

Please run a campaign about this.

The campaign "Olympic Silence is not Golden" was run to decry Censorship by Channel 7, when they refused to air commercials about Tibet duriong the Olympic.
You ran the campaign "Say no to Media Monopoly".

If Conroy goes ahead with the plan to censor the internet, it will be a huge blow for free speech and freedom of information.


Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Sarah_AU
November 12th, 2008

Excellant piece Irene,
it clearly explains the facts without getting too technical and shows how labor, by the way they have voted on the issues in opposition, clearly do not have a mandate to introduce compulsory filtering of the internet with no opt out of material that is openly available in shops to adult Australians.

One wonders why Senator COnroy thinks Australians will not seek a way around such filters, and there will be many cracks posted all over the internet, when he himself knows that when a person wants something they are prepared to sidestep the law.

Having travelled to NSW to bypass Victorian laws regarding surrogacy, the Minister should surely be able to see how his stubborn conviction to waste taxpayers money in such an economic climate is the height of hypocracy.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Eric Carwardine
November 13th, 2008

Opposition comes in many forms. It can be quite passive, as in "I don't like it." or, slightly more strident, "Don't do it!" To me, democracy is satisfied only when citizens feel empowered enough to be active, to feel motivated to develop and deploy real counter-measures.

Somebody recently said "The Internet regards censorship as damage." The implication was that some force will immediately begin building a path around the damage. Rather than dissipate its resources in simple opposition, the "force" will say "This calls for some new inventions. Any ideas?"

Napstar got extinguished in the end, but it had a good invention, and it put up a stirring fight. If somebody invents a filter, let somebody else invent a counter-filter. I'm sure that a counter-counter-filter will rapidly appear, followed quickly by a counter-counter-counter-filter, but a series of "poker" moves is far less corrosive of spirit than simply going the big whinge.

If one well-known Army puts a lawyer at the elbow of every fire-controller, then perhaps a lot of Internet users could start looking for under-employed legal people. And with two elbows to occupy, our users might even start chatting with "creative software" experts. It'd be a jousting contest, and may the better technology win.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Yes but
November 14th, 2008

Noboby has to invent anything, the bypass around the filter already exists in several forms.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Sostenuto
November 13th, 2008

User-created online video is booming, enriching our culture but requiring adjustments to the business models of large media enterprises. Mandatory filtering combined with copyright law hands an irresistible blunt weapon to media organisations, who have been ruthless in USA. Media companies will be able to outlaw whole websites of critics, simply by alleging a copyright breach. This would not be out of character: RIAA in USA has already extorted punitive settlements from thousands of citizens who cannot afford legal defense, declaring a deterrent intention in court.

The same weapon can be wielded by *any* organisation who can nominate 'illegal sites'.

To protect our capacity to criticise corporations or politicians online, we need guarantees that the blacklist will be public; that every ban will be publicly explained and reviewed immediately if appealed; and that webmasters will be able to avoid banning by voluntarily removing illegal content.

Since appearing on a blacklist may damage the reputation of the webmasters or hosts concerned, we need publication of the author, extent and nature of each allegation, a reply from the blacklisted webmaster, and statistics reflecting the credibility of each party. This information should be duplicated on the page that appears when a consumer tries to visit a blocked site.

Publication of this information would not hamper law enforcement if, prior to banning, reasonable attempts are made to collect evidence and charge webmasters who publish illegal content.

Labor's secret mandatory blacklist policy is appalling!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Sostenuto
November 13th, 2008

User-created online video is booming, enriching our culture but requiring adjustments to the business models of large media enterprises. Mandatory filtering combined with copyright law hands an irresistible blunt weapon to media organisations, who have been ruthless in USA. Media companies will be able to outlaw whole websites of critics, simply by alleging a copyright breach. This would not be out of character: RIAA in USA has already extorted punitive settlements from thousands of citizens who cannot afford legal defense, declaring a deterrent intention in court.

The same weapon can be wielded by *any* organisation who can nominate 'illegal sites'.

To protect our capacity to criticise corporations or politicians online, we need guarantees that the blacklist will be public; that every ban will be publicly explained and reviewed immediately if appealed; and that webmasters will be able to avoid banning by voluntarily removing illegal content.

Since appearing on a blacklist may damage the reputation of the webmasters or hosts concerned, we need publication of the author, extent and nature of each allegation, a reply from the blacklisted webmaster, and statistics reflecting the credibility of each party. This information should be duplicated on the page that appears when a consumer tries to visit a blocked site.

Publication of this information would not hamper law enforcement if, prior to banning, reasonable attempts are made to collect evidence and charge webmasters who publish illegal content.

Labor's secret mandatory blacklist policy is appalling!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
November 13th, 2008

The leader article makes a very good point the simple fact that Labor is not always to be trusted. No party is especially when it seeks to horse trade and appease

The problem is not so much the Federal level but states such as New South Wales where attempts continue to clean up the State Government that corrupted itself, appeasing and horse trading with property developers and money launderers and anyone with money.

As I pointed out in another blog, the core of much of the problem is the extent to which the anticorruption forces such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption have either become the source of the corruption, are used to cover it up , or rendered incompetent by their masters.

Here is Rudd founding yet another such structure in the vain belief this lot will be different

They won't Kevin - they never are. They always end up part of the problem and a block on our freedoms and rights

A Labor government that founds a Gestapo style unit has rocks in its head. It is a snake that will one day turn on political activity in a manner unexpected by the woolly headed who gave so foul a monster birth

Its role will be widened to include the activities of your party Kevin, you will find your members under political surveillance and black books being formed

One can but warn - It has happened before mate. There is a famous book called "Germany Puts the Clock Back" written by Edgar Mansel Mowrer and published as a Penguin Special in 1937. It is a book that gave so uncomfortable an account of the rise of Hitler and national socialism that its author, a correspondent with the Chicago Daily News had to leave Germany very quickly - adding a new chapter to the books 1938 edition. There is a copy in the National Library

You might like to dip into it - especially the section that accounts the fact that in the 1933 election a number of Jews, believing his antisemitism could be controlled actually voted for Hitler for fear of what they perceived as a greater threat

We know they were tragically wrong Kevin. So are you in this matter.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Yendor
November 13th, 2008

Secret, unaccountable, censorship is incompatible with democracy -

So how do we stop this?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

kevin07
November 14th, 2008

www.nocleanfeed.com

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

John
November 13th, 2008

http://nocleanfeed.com/

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Dan
November 13th, 2008

No country that exercises suppression of free speech can rightfully call it's self a democracy.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Syd Walker
November 13th, 2008

This is an excellent article Irene.

It's the first time I've read a clear account of how this proposal was slipped into the nation’s agenda unbeknownst to most of the voting population (even those of us who try to pay attention).

I remain puzzled by a claim by the Government that the Tasmanian trial of Internet filtering last year was commenced by the Coalition while in power. Is that so? Was it announced to the public at the time?

Perhaps Irene - or someone else - could clear that up. It indicates - if true - that the Internet censorship agenda runs deeper than ALP policy development circles.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Steven
November 13th, 2008

I hope that Getup will run a campaign against this. Countries with mandatory filtering - Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, China, Syria, Vietnam..... Australia???? I hope not!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
November 13th, 2008

Yendor writes: Secret, unaccountable, censorship is incompatible with democracy - So how do we stop this?

The millions of children who died, mostly massacred as a result of fascism and Nazism would have filled several football stadiums. Their adult victims numbered well over sixty million, figures recently increased on the basis of more recently published Russian figures. The figure may well have been more in the region of 100 million worldwide in one war.

The victims of Stalinist and Maoist totalitarianism numbered in the tens of millions

Many of the children in these social disasters were tortured and starved before they died, some were thrown living into crematorium ovens

Censorship of the media - however it is excused - is one of the first steps towards Nazism, Fascism, and totalitarianism, and these are what lead to mass murder, to the real lethal assaults on children in their millions

And yet despite these shattering figures - figures that one would have thought would have forced anyone contemplating tampering with the freedom of communications in a democratic society to think again - we still have people so stupid that they think that undesirable voyeuristic sexual activity, albeit unpalatable, is a greater threat than the censorship that empowers fascism

The tens of millions of dead cry No! -There are greater threats and even greater evils than these you imagine - and these may well materialise when you create Government powers that are ordered to censor the media

I suppose the people who serve to bring us to the gates of a new Auschwitz will use the same old excuse - "We were only following orders, we actually hated what we were ordered to do too"

This is not about distasteful pictures. It is about the very fabric of free society

No passeran!


Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.


Mr Han
November 14th, 2008

The concern that a Family First senator is actually establishing a diabolical nazi regime in league with a Rudd fascist putsch is perhaps, a tad, a bit of a stretch. There are always concerns about government having too much power of course but at the same time what we have witnessed over a few decades is government seeking to divest itself of all responsibilities to the free market, globalisation, nothing we can do...etcetera. There's not been many "brothers' keepers" in the flow for a long long time; for so long in fact that any attempt to question the prevailing 'itchy wisdom' is seen as a terrible affront to democracy, freedom, israel(?) and everything else including probably motherhood. I consider the concerns of those studying what can actually be done to protect kids to be real and laudable. If we are somewhat conservative it is because we care and do believe that something good can come from such study and concern. I have never supported Family First in my life, and never will, but at the same time, let us really look beyond the cerebarl rants of our inability to do anything, as if this is some bizarre anthem of freedom and democracy, and seriously attend to important issues.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Funkylikamonkey
December 14th, 2008

Government control of information always has and always will lead to abuse of this power and totalitarian behaviour. It is NOT a small concern.

This will sound very very blunt and nasty but I would rather have all those child rapists and terrorists get away with what they do than live in a society where you could get black-bagged for sending an email disagreeing with the government.

Totalitarianism IS an important issue. Don't you dare suggest that the hundreds of millions of deaths, tortures and imprisonments caused by blind people who think "it wont happen this time because we are different" will not happen again. The fact that we live in modern times merely adds to the number of ways that the government can molest democracy.

Here is a flowchart of what will happen for people who do not understand:

Government gains a small power
--> Muffled outcry from a small educated portion of society
--> Government and media dismiss these 'silly' concerns and dress the power in it's so-called 'benefits'.
--> The power gets forgotten by the public.
--> The power is used by the government to avoid that irritating thing called democracy.

This will happen over and over again until Australia is no longer a free country.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Brad
November 27th, 2008

You are missing the point.
It won't work. Ways around it will be found.
All it will do is slow things down, inconvenience the majority of users and create another useless bureaucracy to administer it. Do you want that?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Yes but
November 14th, 2008

Yep thats right, starts off with a "small list", then gets bigger. A site produces something the government dislikes and all of a sudden its on "THE LIST". This government is a lame duck, one term special.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Yes but
November 14th, 2008

Yep thats right, starts off with a "small list", then gets bigger. A site produces something the government dislikes and all of a sudden its on "THE LIST". This government is a lame duck, one term special.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
November 15th, 2008

Mr Han - You say "I have never supported Family First in my life, and never will"

But Mr Han that is precisely what you are doing, just like the poor misguided German Jews I referred to that in 1933 actually voted for Hitler

Fascism in Australia will indeed not come by "a Family First senator actually establishing a diabolical nazi regime in league with a Rudd fascist putsch" that is an idea that you are ridiculing that no-one has in fact suggested - apart from you, here.

Fascism in the 21st Century will come through a progressive eating away of our democratic rights, of the diversity of our media ,and a lowering of the intellectual content (especially on TV) to be about what Hitler and Goebbels referred to as "Bread and Circuses"

It will come by the gap between the enactment of protective legislation and its enforcement widening in areas involving the railing in of Corporate and institutional behaviour

In Madrid they said "No passeran" - "they shall not pass" but still through fifth column activity Spain fell to fascism. The rot we must stop is that within our democratic society, not some imagined external assault. That may come, but allowing the progressive censorship of our activities and communications is what will weaken us to such opportunist eventual assault.

And this is not some Leftist myth Mr Han. Look inside CIA headquarters for its most famous slogan, and elsewhere throughout the western world for variants of it.

All seem sourced in a statement made by the Irish orator John Philpot Curran in 1790:

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."

Never more so than now when failure to disseminate truth endangers the entire planet.

Leave the internet alone- It is the first line of defence for our physical survival as well as the survival of our freedoms. The internet is not "yours" any more than it is "mine". Hands off!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Brad
November 27th, 2008

Great response pildeerhound.
One problem is the Mr Han's of the world who have such great faith in our 'leaders'.
The other is the pace of our lives that in reality preclude the majority from ever having the time to come to terms with these and other issues.
Most are too busy working long hours, using the the rest of their time to manage day-to-day chores. When they have any spare time it's usually spent in frenetic pace holidaying before they return to work.
How we have progressed!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

johnnie_can
November 27th, 2008

Right on Brad. I think a lot of people become so sickened and afraid at the mere mention of child p-rn they can't think about the issue logically. They are then malleable to those who promise them a solution and to just trust them and let them go ahead with it.

First the internet filter has to know something is there to block it.... if it's child p-rn why aren't the filter watchers getting it taken down when they KNOW it's there?

Second I am with Mr Han on saying "let us really look beyond the cerebarl rants of our inability to do anything, as if this is some bizarre anthem of freedom and democracy, and seriously attend to important issues." Very wise words indeed but I think that the governments is treating us like f'in six year olds with this one. I think we would get much better results in fighting the really bad online activities through education. This is Australia. If you own a computer you should hopefully be able to read and follow instructions and tips that will help protect your computer and/or your children. Or attend a community class if you need more hands on help.

Third Irene thank you for writing such a great article that helped me understand how this thing landed on us! I would also mention that there are already mechanisms in place for fighting P2P networks that support illigal activity (and I don't think file sharing is illigal by the way because I believe in Fair Use) they are called "Cyber Cops" and they pretend to be people wanting to join communities that deal in illigal material in order to bust them, the more money bandwith and skills we give those guys the better. Why're we wasting it on what will be another Government body soaking up huge amounts of $$$ annually for something we didn't support in the first place. I place the ongoing costs around the $50 mil - $100 mil mark annually once it's up and running if not insanely more.

Hey guess what $5 of your tax is going towards each year now! =D Personally I'd prefer my $5 thank you

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jason
November 20th, 2008

out of 294150 members here at getup.org i would have thought a few more than 5 would respond about such a serious issue as this should be evolving into. The governments claims, about this impending censorship, simply does not stand up to scrutiny and appears to be more intent on infringing on our basic civil rights, another issue we should look at,to have freedom of knowledge,choice and the power of discussion. For example a religious lobby group whom apparently have Kev's ear and applauded the implementation of the thought police filter will also have Kev's ear on what subjects to ban. Mind you no one else will know, its an official secret what subjects will be banned but rest assured euthanasia will be atop of the list as will any other so called illegal and "unwanted" subjects.

Big brother is here and in your lounge room right now.
nocleanfeed.com also have a petition protesting this filter.

This truly is one such subject we should all be outraged at and doing anything possible to protest its implementation.
Rallies to protest this outrage are being organised in capital cities at
http://nocensorship.info/forum/index.php

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Patricia B
November 20th, 2008

I am opposed to secret censorship. I agree it is not compatible with democracy & freedom. I think it is very easy to become overgoverned with many small & large incremental laws that in the end destroy our ability to make choices for ourselves.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
November 21st, 2008

Mr Han says "I consider the concerns of those studying what can actually be done to protect kids to be real and laudable"

But that is not what this monitoring legislation is about

This legislation has nothing to do with protecting children - those seeking such material will circumvent any filter, but the proposed new Gestapo will remain in place

What is happening is that the excuse of "protecting children" is being used to excuse the setting up of an internet police monitoring system aimed at an entirely different and political purpose.

It isn't paranoia Mr Han. Under the Howard Junta that masqueraded as a "democratic Government" the beginnings were made to the setting up of a structured fascistic bureaucracy

The Rudd Government is sleepwalking along the same course

There is no real change of regime after an authoritarian one like Howards without a purge of all the advisers and senior bureaucrats that his foul regime used.

The 2008 election will not be "over" until this is done. You could start by getting the Governor General to sack the ABC Board and by rescuing SBS from the mess Howard's cronies made of it.

So long as Rudd continues following the kind of repressive policies that the Howard Junta instigated, the Coalition will sit back smirking in its delusion of being the "Rightful Government in Exile"

Take the power the people gave you Kevin, and clean this mess up. Throw Howards remaining filth out of their cosy offices

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

tattit
December 8th, 2008

no really phildeerhound it is paranoia. very much so. this (internet ISP filtering) is clearly an issue you have very strong feelings on given that you appear to have made at least 10% of all 500 comments on this topic. a Gestapo? just like China and Iran...my goodness, you are prone to exaggeration.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.


Mr Han
November 24th, 2008

I think we can rationally trust the current Australian government regarding these investigations and concerns. I don't think its a huge issue but it is something worth looking at, worth the effort. To not try, as if not trying is somehow an expression of freedom, well, goodness me.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Paul W
November 26th, 2008

If you can rationally trust ANY government you're more trusting than I am. It IS a huge issue because with a central censoring server (which is what the filter is) any web site or domain can be added deliberately or....accidentally.... like "Get Up." I mean; it contains the filthy word "up."

There's practical concerns too. 'Nanny' software that already exists will prevent users accessing web sites containing the word 'breast' and so on. So information about breast cancer is denied to the person seeking it.

No one has ever satisfactorily defined 'porn' although there is a societal concensus that children should be kept away and out of it. That's the job of parents and the judiciary. Spending money filtering parents would be money better spent.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jill T
November 27th, 2008

Paul W, I agree it is the job of parents to monitor all computers within their own domestic jurisdiction and it is up to the judiciary to punish those who break laws - which should be promoted LOUD AND CLEAR (use free Community Announcement time on TV and radio).

Personally, I want the option to reject unwanted material into 'Enemies'. We have all experienced system-rejection of 'Friends' e-mails, finding them in SPAM Inspector or other security systems, even though they are well-established and used e-mail addresses of our own friends-and-family communities.

With reference to GetUp's introduction to this subject, I have not sought clarification of what GetUp means exactly by 'the digital economy' but it is not an aspect I give a damn about increasing. I am fed-up with the increased economies governments and corporations pursue & drive to become bigger and bigger. Because of these greedy parasites of the Earth, we stand to economically implode in a much bigger way than we are seeing at the moment, called the "global down-turn" for goodness sake!... a few easy words that superficially describe the dread and financial tragedy suffered by average people ONGOINGLY!.. NOT just for the period others take to get over it, just in time to have enough money to do it all again; they have resources to risk.

I think the Federal Government needs to STOP what they are proposing for the internet and re-think what they can do on the subject of censorship. Having said that, it has been proven time-and-time again that many, perhaps most, humans left to their own devices, cannot be trusted to do the right thing in protecting children and keeping their own sleezy existence to themselves instead of enrolling the eyes of others.

Jill T.
27 November 2008

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Don W
November 23rd, 2008

Am I missing something here? Getup members gained their political clout via the internet. We now have a government planning mandatory internet filtering of "illegal" material. We must never trust any government by aquiesence to this power regardless of it being wrapped in the unassailable armour of child porn protection.
Who decides what is illegal. What subtle change to some law or regulation could be interpreted as illegal? Never forget haneef's sim card fiasco.
We just harranged China for their mandatory filtering and we now plan to implement the basic structure to this and any future government.
Time Getup gotup to protect their very foundations.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Paul W
November 26th, 2008

The silliness of the proposal starts and ends with the fact that it's so easily bypassed that anyone that wants to receive unfiltered content can - except that the whole system will be slowed even more than the already treacle like speeds that we have to endure.

I'm all in favour of free filtering programs or ISP 'opt in' filtering but to slow the whole system down apparently to pacify one persons religious beliefs is just bad government. Australia has increasingly become the 'nanny country' when it comes to personal freedom and this latest effort continues the efforts of grey little men (and women) that 'know what's best for us.'

What's particularly irritating is that this ISN'T a moral issue, it's a political issue. If you believe half what the media tells us about the politicians and the judiciary, you'll find them all up to the same fun and games as the rest of us.

If I may resort to an Australianism, (deletive expleted) off and leave us alone.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Rodin\'s little man
November 26th, 2008

I was in the web development business from a time before the internet was commercially available. One client was a large professional body who asked me in the mid-90's to investigate whether porn on the net was really an issue. It's ugly head had surfaced that early.

Altavista was - I think - the search engine of the day and "sex" reaped a bonanza.

Today I tried it again and what was uncovered made the mid 90's stuff trivial.

No matter how good a parent - grandparent in my case - how does one stop a grandchild's friend from showing him free movies of S&M and multiple anal intercourse orgies? And worse!

It's easy to argue against censorship, and I do. Try to find anything worthwhile about euthanasia, a topic of interest as I get older, and you will find censorship is already here.

I have supported every GetUp campaign but not this one until more sensible arguments than "it's up to parents", "it will slow the internet", "there will be secret lists" and so on are presented.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

AllanD
November 26th, 2008

Amidst all this opposition to internet filtering, I would like to hear some intelligent comments and creative responses to the legitimate concerns about internet content. Are the opponents of filtering seriously arguing that there is no harm to children in the viewing of explicit pornography? Or that child access to racial hate sites is not inappropriate? Those opposing filtering have to address these legitimate concerns and put forward some innovative ideas as an alternative. If we merely say that what children view is a parental concern and that those who create legislation for our social welfare should have no say, then we are just putting our heads in the sand. Advocates of filtering want to provide a safe surfing environment for children - as well as for adults who do not wish to be exposed to sexually or morally offensive content. Part of the problem with the internet is that it is unregulated, not indexed properly and categories overlap. If for example pornography was regulated to a .porn domain, then voluntary blocking would be technically simple and filtering unnecessary. This is not censorship... merely logical organisation of content. If those opposing filtering want to make any headway against the concerns of those who advocate it, then they should come up with some practical and innovative ideas that satisfy the concerns of both parties - instead of merely mounting emotive campaigns of opposition and signing partitions. To most polarised arguments there is usually an alternative persective that can satisfy both parties.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Feargal
December 4th, 2008

Allan - Like it or not, a word like 'offensive' is not a valid criterion to institute censorship. Whose offence? Mine because I sought it out?

On the subject of child porn; more power to those who patiently track through the 'net to pin down the criminals who put any of that on the net. That becomes a matter of CRIMINAL law, without the need to censor the entire net to exclude. Just like net grooming of underage kids, education and law investigation is necessary, censorship is worse than useless.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Moz
November 26th, 2008

I think you have the wrong end of the stick Allan.

It is those who want to change the status quo who should be coming up with 'practical and innovative ideas' to help move their requirements along. The current option they have chosen are wrong, so it is up to them to go back to the drawing board, not the rest of the world.

I think your suggestion of a .porn domain is excellent, but as the internet is a global concern and not simply an Australian one, it might have a hard time getting up and running.

Just one more point, we use a commercial brand of internet and mail filtering in our company, and I have lost track of the amount of times I have been asked to release head shot photos of new-borns to doting relatives because they have been classified as porn by our software, due to the amount of pixels in the photo that are classified as skin colour.

I would have to be overwhelmingly convinced that any filtering is capable of this sort of classification before I would consider agreeing to it's use. I don't believe that any current software is up to this challenge.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

u?????q?n?
November 26th, 2008

We recently severely criticised China for its censorship and other government prohibitions on internet access in the most supercilious manner - what hypocrites we would now seem!
Open internet rules!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Walrus
November 26th, 2008

You may be interested in http://nocensorship.info they're the grass roots body that organised the first protests on the 1st of November when #ausrage pulled out at the last second and it was a smashing success in most states from the photos and video I've seen!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.


Fossil
November 26th, 2008

Wow! What next? Don't any of our pollies read ANY of the mainstream news media magazines? Everywhere I look, this is being howled down as an unworkable, exorbitantly expensive, and totally useless-for-what-it-is-trying-to-do exercise. Apart from anything else, there are thousands of anecdotal stories from all over the world of "blocking" occurring in any and all such systems, no matter how "local" or "widespread", of perfectly acceptable passages of text simply because the filter picks up on a string of letters within a word that, standing alone, create an "unacceptable" word !!! Add to this the fact that what is "unacceptable" to one person or group may be totally OK for EVERYBODY else, then add in the fact that ACMA has some pretty broad-minded attitudes to some types of TV advertising ("shut up & go away" if you write in to complain about the Advanced Medical Institute's TV ad featuring the piano-playing duet - don't tell me you haven't seen it), and the whole can of worms becomes totally impossible.
In short, this whole idea is unworkable, unthinkable, unaffordable, undemocratic, and UNWANTED !! Senator Conroy would be far better employed with getting the home-based "Net-Nanny" system rolled out to be totally available for whoever wants it, and digging in the spurs to get a REAL National Broadband Network out there and widely available to all.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Col from Lennox Head
December 5th, 2008

I agree Fossil un all those UN words. If a site is blocked, the Porn site will just change its name, number and reopen again, and if it is being subscribed to, an email sent will circumvent any filter. There is NO filter that will stop ALL porn sites. They are always shifting and moving ahead of filters. What is left after a site request is made is slooowwwww access, that will make the web unusable.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

peterh_oz
November 26th, 2008

Gday GetUp. Sorry, but I can't supportyou on this.

I used to be strongly against internet censorship, but the more I think about it, the more I realise that it is not that bad. Why?

1. We already live under censorship. You can't have porn on tv. You can't have gambling adverts during tv hours. You can't buy snuff DVDs.
2. It NEEDS to be done via a secret list. If they publish the list, 15 year olds and perverts all across the nation will go "COOL - Govt Porno-google" and find those sites.
3. Its not just porn, BUT if legitimate sites get blocked there will be an uproar. At least, unlike in China, we (the population) AND the media can openly discuss what sites "can't be found", and if they're not porno or neo-nazu etc then there'll be enough pressure to reopen the.

Yes there'll be errors, and omissions, but in an open democracy they can be rectified (see point 3). And yes there's ways around them, but the vast majority of the population will be blocked from the vast majority of these sites.

Regarding speed issues, the use of Null-Routing (where an IP address is re-routed to 0.0.0.0) will solve the problem, WITHOUT the deep packet inspection which slows down everything and still won't stop P2P or encrypted traffic. This could be automated. The "Internet Censor" (Office of Film & Media Classification?) could upload a file (containing a list if IPs and web addresses) to a webserver, and ISPs could run a script to automatically download this file to their routers either daily or even more often. No human action required by the ISP, minimal implementation cost, and with null routing, no effect on general internet usage. If you ry to go to www.illegal-site.com or 62.13.illegalsite.46 then you will be redirected to 0.0.0.0, and get a blank page. Or you might be redirected to 62.75.31.internet-censor or www.internet-censor.gov.au and be told "this site has been blocked due to its contents. If you believe this to be in error, please click here to request a review".

Unfortunately censorship is a fact of life. The minority have spoilt it for the majority, and the internet should be NO different to any other form of media.

Peter H
Sydney

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

george
November 26th, 2008

Yes , opposing censorship is uncool. Repressive is not libertine. Yet without it the nazi propaganda, the child porn, gambling manipulators etc. can do their damage. Attempts to deal with this technology is difficult and faulty. Freedom should not defined by big money criminals.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Caroline
November 26th, 2008

hello,

sorry but working in the industry, IT systems administration, gateway services and security for the past eight years, I find this opinion to be misguided and fallout from the scare mongering of ISPs such as Telstra, who are more concerned with their bottom line than with the security of children and the worsening child sexual assault problem.

Telstra and other ISPs should be expected to deliver the same level of service to their customers by implementing sufficiently powerful infrastructure and robust and performing software at competitive prices as other ISPs will also be in a position to deliver. ISPs should work together with the gvernment to maintain appropriate blacklisted sites and this will be an ongoing service that the government should provide and could perhaps use the money that Howard spent on rooms of people searching out politically unfavourable content on the internet, radio and television.

I am somewhat disappointed that GetUp would jump on this bandwagon, their is an education issue where information technology is concerned.

The most appropriate argument is that this is a cost that may be passed on to customers, however half of the yearly bonus given to the Telstra CEO would more than cover it and this initial setup fee would not be ongoing and that this measure as all measures on the internet may be circumvented with such things as the use of encryption. As with all things their will always be those who are so determined to commit whatever crime that they will find a way however what this will achieve is the prevention of this type of material from getting to people who are not dedicated to searching it out. These people who will no doubt be pedophiles and these encrypted sites will be a minority of the internet community and hopefully investigated by the AFP computer crime team.

Child protection agencies have seen an increase in the number of child sexual abuse instances which, it has been speculated, relates to the exploration of pedophile material on the internet and its availability. The internet is todays final frontier of lawlessness, it is a shame to me that so much effort and money at ISPs and by the government is spent on trapping and tracking copyright law violators than the violators of our next generation.

Thank you,

Caroline

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

george
November 26th, 2008

I sense an over reaction from get up on this one. This is an attempt to deal with the perversion of a good thing. This not about a black and white issue. This is detailed , complex and the pornographers and abusers are sneaky and riding on the backs of liberationists and artists and actually pervert art and true liberty for bucks at the expense of so much. It has taken me over 50 years to get to this position. I don't think Conroy has a secret repressive agenda. I think they are trying to deal with greedy cunning organised criminals. I want to see more before I would donate or getup set about this . I also suggest other getups don't be blinded by good getupo actions into assuming that all getup action is correct by association. Its easy to get affiliated and lose discernment.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

george
November 26th, 2008

I cannot help but notice at the bottom of the comments page that the use of abusive racist and expletive language will not be tolerated. Why can't I use any language I want in this democracy? Who says what is expletive? racist? abusive? This is censorship refusing words. What about pictures? video? Images expletive? I don't think so. what if you didn't have that policy. That censorship? You would have very racist ratbag expleting all over your page. Gosh lucky you self-censor you ******* hippycrites.
Only joking, of course, but note that censorship has its place, its just hard to achieve against professionals and big money criminal business.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

dg4000
November 26th, 2008

Who askedthem to provide this I cetrainly did not and what is moe I REALLY don't wint it Ido not want some FOOL in politics telling me what I'm alloedto view and wht Im not alloedto view and whther they like it or not, I will not be told.

Since I'm in IT I can tell now that whther they like it or not I can bypass this riduclous system whther they like it or not. If I can do it. What do think others will do and how long do you it will take befoethe so called filterin will be bypassed by all, that object to this silly and expensive money pit, why are they trying to create a CLUB for their own back. By far the bulk of people do not want this why don't they get it yet. I'm no going to fund this and I do not want to pay for it either. Maybe they shoul get more serious about what really count and do what they really got elected for climatechangeandhow Australia is going to get there. Damn the fools and idiots for wasting my time and money and silly stupid ineffective attempts.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

GUY
November 26th, 2008

There are numerous ways to control the web content INDIVIDUALY. Parents can set administrator login and user login for the kids . Internet browsing can be set with very strict filters and forbiden sites
NO NEED FOR BIG BROTHER

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Bakalite
November 27th, 2008

In response to "Rodin\'s little man's" plea for "how does one stop a grandchild's friend from showing him free movies of S&M" you might like to take a look at http://www.opendns.com/. This dns service will prevent your concern from occurring on any network or node connection you (or your grandchild) have access to within your control. If your grandchild remains at risk from their "friend" then I suspect the internet is the least of your concerns.

Incidentally, and speaking as a professional who has worked on covert tracing and filtering technologies, this site also circumvents most filtering mechanisms at the financial disposal of ISP's. It doesnt circumvent packet sniffing, but then that really would break the internet service.

Its ironic that the mechanism the good senator wishes to impose is already available at a level the senator could only wish for, and that the same service makes his proposal fail technically at the first instance.

Rodin, the senators proposal is just flawed. He is an ill advised and ignorant man who, it would appear, is just another ideologue.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

kdelarue
November 27th, 2008

Read my take on this at: http://delarue.net/blog/2008/11/conroy-talking-cock/

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

kdelarue
November 27th, 2008

That link doesn't seem to resolve properly - try this:

http://delarue.net/blog/2008/11/conroy-talking-cock/

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Flynne
November 27th, 2008

I am most surprised at the anti net filter stand taken by Get up. You know what, not everything is easy or convenient. I for one am wholly in support of the Government's plans. If to protect our children we suffer slower internet speed well that is just too bad. Since when has protecting our children from internet trash a matter of convenience? We are responsible for our children's welfare even when our backs are turned and we cannot see what they are looking at on the internet. Get up this time you are totally on the wrong tram.. If you sincerely beleive that your stand is just, which it is not, why don't you permit members to express support to the internet filter screen. Now that would be brave would'nt it?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Adolf Hitler
December 6th, 2008

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Razzah Kazzah
November 27th, 2008

As a young person (22) and ALP member who is working for a member in a State Government I have told my boss I will resign my ALP membership if this filter goes through.. plain and simple

DO NOT slow down the Internet
DO NOT join the small select group of repressive governments that filter their internte
DO NOT attempt to push this through or you will have 1 less member

And my biggest issue is not only Steve Feilding ( CRINGE) and Nick XenoPhon ( CRING AGAIN ) get thier hands on it to put their own pet hates on it to get their senatre vote it is what the hell will happen to this filter when labor is eventually replaced by the Liberals I dont even want to imagine . I would expect this Filter from them(libs) but not Labor..


NOT HAPY

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Rosie
November 27th, 2008

I'm a bit confused here. If the filter is so easy to get around then why are so many of the people who expect to get around it upset?

Not trying to have a go, just trying to figure out if this filter is really going to cause problems. If the child abusers can get around it so easily then why can't anyone else who wants to?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

PurpleFae
November 30th, 2008

Yes, anyone can bypass it easily enough however one of many reasons why this upsets people:-
is because that's millions of dollars that could be spent in much better ways that ACTUALLY help protect children - educating youth on net safety, educating everyone on technology, and funding law enforcement. ISP's don't catch the bad guys, the cops do. Also we have SOO many other areas requiring more funding like healthcare as well.

It's money that's getting wasted as the filter won't protect our children. It's creating a false sense of protection really for what?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jill T
November 27th, 2008

Paul W, I agree it is the job of parents to monitor all computers within their own domestic jurisdiction and it is up to the judiciary to punish those who break laws - which should be promoted LOUD AND CLEAR (use free Community Announcement time on TV and radio).

Personally, I want the option to reject unwanted material into 'Enemies'. We have all experienced system-rejection of 'Friends' e-mails, finding them in SPAM Inspector or other security systems, even though they are well-established and used e-mail addresses of our own friends-and-family communities.

With reference to GetUp's introduction to this subject, I have not sought clarification of what GetUp means exactly by 'the digital economy' but it is not an aspect I give a damn about increasing. I am fed-up with the increased economies governments and corporations pursue & drive to become bigger and bigger. Because of these greedy parasites of the Earth, we stand to economically implode in a much bigger way than we are seeing at the moment, called the "global down-turn" for goodness sake!... a few easy words that superficially describe the dread and financial tragedy suffered by average people ONGOINGLY!.. NOT just for the period others take to get over it, just in time to have enough money to do it all again; they have resources to risk.

I think the Federal Government needs to STOP what they are proposing for the internet and re-think what they can do on the subject of censorship. Having said that, it has been proven time-and-time again that many, perhaps most, humans left to their own devices, cannot be trusted to do the right thing in protecting children and keeping their own sleezy existence to themselves instead of enrolling the eyes of others.

Jill T.
27 November 2008

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Henry_G
November 27th, 2008



I would like to speak out strongly against your proposed internet filter plans.

I believe these are a misguided attempt to impose one group’s views on a community which has moved well beyond those views. Where is the evidence to suggest that these restrictions would do any good whatsoever (other than forcing us all to get a faster internet connection)? Why do the supporters need to misrepresent the situation in other countries, where use of such filters is not mandatory but optional?

As both a medical researcher and a computer expert, I know that the plan can not be implemented without major a degradation of response times, and that it is logically impossible to get the correct balance between restriction and freedom.

As an illustration, here is a true story: some years ago I had a friend who was in a choir. The choir were planning to perform the “Donkey Serenade” (a popular song from the 1930’s) and another member of the choir promised to email the lyrics to him. However the expected email never arrived, despite assurances that it had been sent. My friend enquired of his service provider and together they tracked down the cause: the ISP’s email filter, in its mechanical wisdom, had decided that this message was probably and advertisement for animal porn and had placed it in the junk folder!

This is a true story, and an example of what can happen with automated filtering. I have also worked in hospitals during the early days of the internet, when I often ran queries containing the names of various body parts; it was not unusual for these to be rejected by the hospitals’ automatic filtering system for similarly reasons. Fortunately these examples were enough to demonstrate the folly of the approach to the powers in charge at the time, and in each case the systems were soon dropped. Let’s hope the government demonstrates similar (non-automated) wisdom.

We need to see this interference for what it actually is: an attempt by self-appointed moral guardians to impose their views on the rest of the community, in the sincerely held but mistaken belief that they and only they know what is best for the rest of us.

Let anyone with these views go ahead and install these pseudo-intelligent mechanical filters on their own PC’s. But please leave the rest of us alone to use our minds as we choose.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Richardb, Sydney
November 27th, 2008

I have to ask myself, why is the government even considering this level of intereference in the freedom of information we expect ? It is hardly part of the main agenda items they campaigned on. Rights at Work, Climate change, Education, Health, Broadband for everyone, investments in the future. Why spend time and money on this side issue ?

Wworryingly it has the feel of a pet project of a wowser. Is this a pet project of St. Kevin the Angelic? I certainly respect his abilities and commitments in so many other areas, but have a nagging feeling this might be one side of his agenda I don't agree with.

Does anyone know who is really driving this agenda, because that is the person we must target with our objections and protests.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

johnnie_can
November 27th, 2008

Right on Brad. I think a lot of people become so sickened and afraid at the mere mention of child p-rn they can't think about the issue logically. They are then malleable to those who promise them a solution and to just trust them and let them go ahead with it.

First the internet filter has to know something is there to block it.... if it's child p-rn why aren't the filter watchers getting it taken down when they KNOW it's there?

Second I am with Mr Han on saying "let us really look beyond the cerebarl rants of our inability to do anything, as if this is some bizarre anthem of freedom and democracy, and seriously attend to important issues." Very wise words indeed but I think that the governments is treating us like f'in six year olds with this one. I think we would get much better results in fighting the really bad online activities through education. This is Australia. If you own a computer you should hopefully be able to read and follow instructions and tips that will help protect your computer and/or your children. Or attend a community class if you need more hands on help.

Third Irene thank you for writing such a great article that helped me understand how this thing landed on us! I would also mention that there are already mechanisms in place for fighting P2P networks that support illigal activity (and I don't think file sharing is illigal by the way because I believe in Fair Use) they are called "Cyber Cops" and they pretend to be people wanting to join communities that deal in illigal material in order to bust them, the more money bandwith and skills we give those guys the better. Why're we wasting it on what will be another Government body soaking up huge amounts of $$$ annually for something we didn't support in the first place. I place the ongoing costs around the $50 mil - $100 mil mark annually once it's up and running if not insanely more.

Hey guess what $5 of your tax is going towards each year now! =D Personally I'd prefer my $5 thank you.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.


Mr Han
November 29th, 2008

I'll be happy paying a lot more than five dollars to even seek to protect children every year, johnnie-can.
I hope you enjoy your five bucks.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

PurpleFae
November 30th, 2008

Ditto - if the money was actually going towards proposals that in fact, DID protect children not just create the illusion.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

George
November 27th, 2008

Is there any reason why ISPs who are forced to censor Internet content to their customers could not also restrict access to sites which promote the Government or the ALP? In other words give the government a taste of what they are doing to other providers.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

bakalite
November 28th, 2008

Rosie, I'm not surprised you are a little confused as there is a lot of comment here.

The bottom line is that there are many methods for circumventing any filtering technology. Two common methods are very prevalent and one of the two is free and doesn't require technical expertise or software downloads. It is however open to invasive technical scrutiny. The second method does require a monthly fee but is absolutely anonymous. Because these two methods are in general usage in both the public and private sector neither can be blocked.

So, what does this mean? It means that the only slightly effective method available to the good senator to achieve his goal is to do invasive filtering (packet sniffing in the jargon) and this is where the slowing of the AUS internet by 87% comes from. Technically if the government were to go that far its a real concern. I cant imagine that it would, as even our banking system would not work effectively, let alone your online purchases.

Those of us with young children who work in the industry already use much more effective network filtering than anything the government might impose. Its our job to make these technologies more accessible.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Bona
November 28th, 2008

The reason for the need to "offer" this option or mandatory measure is to protect our children. Our children have become so exposed to every possibility on every level so early. Hence some ten year olds can't party without alcohol, to take a very basic issue as an example.Surely on the range of stuff that invades our computers there has to be a protection that works. How can I just say "No" to the Government plan when i feel we DO need checks and balances that will work. Mental health is such an issue and while access to guns and knives has become the mode incidents everywhere are becoming a daily news item. All these and similar things need a movement that addresses the underlying causes with remedies. How do I help this situation merely by saying "No" to your original proposition when we have to start somewhere and if slowing down the internet is the imposition maybe we have to allow for this. it is more than ever NOT a black and white or a this or that quick fix,

concerned

Bona

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
November 28th, 2008

The best way to protect your children, Bona, is to bring them up properly to cope with the world as it is, not try to turn your environment into some filtered sub-culture with little connection with reality

'nuff said

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.


Mr Han
November 29th, 2008

Nice idea if parents were perfect, always at their peak, but none are...
'nuff said.
At the same time, what is absolutely best is often not done. Is hardly ever done. Vis-a-vis the real world.And in the real world government has responsibility to protect and defend those who are vulnerable. They dont like this responsibility and they shy away at every chance, but it is still their job. Let us keep them to their best intentions, pin them there, for good, Phil, not give up on the unknown unnamed and unnumbered children who do not have a perfect parent, like you. Elect them. Pay them. Get from them what is needed.Demand from them something worthy. Try.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Gusto
November 28th, 2008

This is what I think also.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.


Mr Han
November 28th, 2008

I think that as the East opens some of its gates, forgoing some security,it becomes a little more like the West. As the West seeks more security, some gates here close. These realities have more to do with survival and evolution of human systems than to do with any neo-nazi-soviet scenarios about plans to control anyone really. It is the way of the world moving forward. We all really DO know this. The cries of alarm are somewhat silly. Maybe to many it's unfortunate that China is moving away from tighter controls, maybe here in the West we have other concerns...but all in all, as Spock said..."It's life, Jim, but not as we know it". If we can manipulate the world a tad to protect children then we should. The great crime is not an attack on freedom, it is in the lack of social responsibility that allowed and allows the net to do the real harm it has done and does do, protected by the very self-absorbed in their self-righteousness immunity from both human care and human reason.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
November 29th, 2008

Maybe in your last post Mr Han lies the underlying dispute between us.

You say that what is happening "is about the world moving forward". The world is doing nothing of the kind.

What we have is a middle and upper class and a rising Asian elite caste and class desperate to hang on to its privilege and power. To do this they seek absolute control over our political parties, education, media and communications systems

This would be tolerable were it their intention to improve them, but that is patently NOT the case. Here in Australia both our major parties are corrupted - especially at State level where it most affects our daily lives - by the bribery of institutional and corporate donations. New South Wales under Iemma was virtually run by developers wrecking our cities.

Our schools are slowly being dumbed down - not that they ever had that far to go. The educational standard of school leavers is appalling when compared with overseas, and when one reads University material, and compares it with material from overseas, one wonders if we are really running a further education system at all, or merely a business to catch the fees from people who speak English as a second language

Our media are a disgrace. I read overseas papers mostly these days, the locals are insular rubbish. Concert and Opera prices have gone through the roof and there are very few venues. We are all being dumbed down to the level of infotainment and appalling commercial television. our public broadcaster are under assault - SBS has been almost destroyed already - the ABC is next.

And now we have this assault on communications technology - a determination to monitor it right down to packet data level

Wise up Mr Han - none of this is about child abuse or pornography - it is about control of our society. The middle and upper classes face financial ruin in an economic collapse that has barely started yet. A new wave is on the way as retirement incomes collapse, and the real loss of middle class assets is revealed. This will become evident as the current financial year continues

"Control" has become the essential element in stabilising a society in which the poor have simple had enough of poverty, and the middle classes are being driven themselves in that direction

Impoverishment is what will cause real child abuse, not pornography. That is the lesson that the poor areas of France and Latin America and the Eastern block and parts of Asia tell us. Do we really seek to follow a path of absolute political control in a criminalised society? That is the real path we take when we allow Government to muck about where they have no right. Do we let a sloppy government that should know better allow itself to be manipulated into setting up the authoritarian structure that a more repressive regime will seize through election? Do we let people write their own death sentence?

We are faced with an environmental collapse in many regions whatever the cause. Already richer nations are seeking to buy up farming land in poor countries to bolster the food supplies of richer countries. This can only result in clashes over land rights and the richer nations using their governments to force austerity measures on nations whose people rightly demand land reform

It is a nightmare scenario. Would that it were all just a dream, Mr Han. But it is not. it happened before under similar circumstances of middle class economic collapse. The world had to learn a new word - "Fascism"

Many years have passed since the major Fascist powers were defeated at dreadful cost. Despite the existence of Fascist structures elsewhere - increasingly now even in the former communist State of China - the people have largely forgotten the word and the components of the system that created it

One such major component is increasing control of all communications. The internet is the jewel in the crown of free communications. The internet allows us to speak freely - to evolve social solutions in the manner of the people not at the direction of the state.

Of course the decaying power structure be it in China or the West fears it. Any excuse will be used to seize control of it. Our job - the peoples job - is to stop them. They shall not pass!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Borowicz
November 29th, 2008

The issue is about control of our society and the news media here in Australia are a disgrace. Spot on.

The Internet must be kept free precisely because it provides alternative sources of information, and this gives more power to the general population. That explains why the politicians want to control and strangle it, and why they must never be allowed to.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

tim
November 29th, 2008

No politicians can really be trusted. To go back to howard, someone who wouldn't even know how to use one of those newfangled computer thingies would be ridiculous. We've got two choices complain and bitch and let this thing go through. Or, protest, do what the french did and trash the place but not just a few hooligans. 100,000 people, but over the last ten years the government has been slowly empowering itself with "anti-terror"
"anti-demonstration" "anti-free speech" laws that no one can do anything anymore. Governments dont give a rats-- about peaceful protest they only care about votes. THis "democracy" is becomming a joke.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Russell Blackford
November 29th, 2008

I wouldn't trust this government as far as I could throw Mr Conroy if it had such power as it's trying to gain over the internet in Australia. I certainly would not trust future governments that might come along. I'm very worried about this initiative, and I think that opposition to the Great Firewall of Australia is just about the most important cause we can take up right now. This is a truly oppressive government action that we actually have some hope of defeating before it goes it too far.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

caregirrrl
November 30th, 2008

Do not censor internet. It's the only place we've got to voice our opinions. I presume it's because of peodofiles, well, they are in the minority to us normal people.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Rochelle Macredie
November 30th, 2008

What people need to do is to write to their local federal MP to register their protest against net censorship. Signing the online petition online is great but letters from their constituents will bother Members of Parliament more!

What needs to be stated that the technology already exists to filter out pornography – this fact needs to be made public knowledge. The public need to be told about the free download software available to deal with pornography: We do not need net censorship! Net censorship is a political ploy about control of the population. It is dangerous and has no place in a democracy!

What you really need to do to drive the message home, is make an appointment to see your MP. It doesn’t matter whether they’re Government or Opposition. It doesn’t matter whether you get to see the MP or merely a member of their staff as the thing that is important is that you’ve walked through the door. That will really worry the Government!

I have produced an expanded fact sheet:-

Fact Sheet

This censorship will, amongst other things have the following effects: -

• Make the internet up to 87% slower which has the potential to stop internet banking and online share trading as well as online shopping. We can expect to go back to wasting hours in bank queues and shops like we did before the internet made these features accessible to us thus saving us time and money. We can also look forward to wasting hours of our time paying bills in banks and post offices.

• The proposal will make it inordinately difficult and expensive for lawyers to access online legislation and the other legal services on which we rely.

• Children will be hampered in their efforts to do research in relation to their education. Also, online university study will become prohibitively expensive because the internet will be too slow thus pricing bandwidth out of the range of most students.

• People with mobility problems rely on being able to shop for groceries and other essential items online but the slow internet will make this impossible because it will become too expensive for these people, most of who are on pensions.

• It will enable the blocking of material that is critical of the government of the day or its policies. The proposal is ill-conceived and ill-considered, supposing that Labor is voted out of office, then, its successor will be able to add sites urging its re-election to the banned list, thus gagging political debate and freedom of assembly. Obviously the scheme is open to abuse! In addition to this, it will accidentally block up to one in 12 legitimate sites, will miss the vast majority of inappropriate content and is very easily sidestepped, thus rendering it ineffective.

• This internet censorship scheme goes further than any other democracy in the world as other countries such as Sweden and Canada have optional schemes for internet filtering whereas the proposed scheme is mandatory: Further the other countries that have adopted internet filtering schemes have limited their attention to child pornography not anything and everything that the government of the day might not want us to access! This sort of practise has no place in a democracy because of its massive potential for abuse!

• The proposal is extremely unpopular, as according to the GetUp Save the Net Campaign Website on 30 November 2008 there were 54,000 signatures. We have lived with internet pornography for some twenty years now; why has it suddenly become such a problem that we need to compromise our freedom and our lifestyle to adopt censorship measures like the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia and the totalitarian regime of China?

• The proposal will almost certainly be ineffective as it fails to block most of the offending material. Alternatively, if the measure is affective, then child pornography will be distributed via Australia Post and courier services – are these going to be checked as well?

• There is already software freely available through many ISP’s to block inappropriate content and the previous government provided free software filters for anyone to download from NetAlert.gov.au. Surely the solution lies in refining the available software and promoting the fact that it is freely available rather than censoring the internet thereby treating us all like children. Money would be better spent informing people of these choices rather than censoring the internet, trying to solve a problem that really can only be solved at the level of the individual household.

Rochelle Macredie
Lawyer
rochelle_macredie@aapt.net.au

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Rochelle Macredie
November 30th, 2008

What people need to do is to write to their local federal MP to register their protest against net censorship. Signing the online petition online is great but letters from their constituents will bother Members of Parliament more!

What needs to be stated that the technology already exists to filter out pornography – this fact needs to be made public knowledge. The public need to be told about the free download software available to deal with pornography: We do not need net censorship! Net censorship is a political ploy about control of the population. It is dangerous and has no place in a democracy!

What you really need to do to drive the message home, is make an appointment to see your MP. It doesn’t matter whether they’re Government or Opposition. It doesn’t matter whether you get to see the MP or merely a member of their staff as the thing that is important is that you’ve walked through the door. That will really worry the Government!

I have produced an expanded fact sheet:-

Fact Sheet

This censorship will, amongst other things have the following effects: -

• Make the internet up to 87% slower which has the potential to stop internet banking and online share trading as well as online shopping. We can expect to go back to wasting hours in bank queues and shops like we did before the internet made these features accessible to us thus saving us time and money. We can also look forward to wasting hours of our time paying bills in banks and post offices.

• The proposal will make it inordinately difficult and expensive for lawyers to access online legislation and the other legal services on which we rely.

• Children will be hampered in their efforts to do research in relation to their education. Also, online university study will become prohibitively expensive because the internet will be too slow thus pricing bandwidth out of the range of most students.

• People with mobility problems rely on being able to shop for groceries and other essential items online but the slow internet will make this impossible because it will become too expensive for these people, most of who are on pensions.

• It will enable the blocking of material that is critical of the government of the day or its policies. The proposal is ill-conceived and ill-considered, supposing that Labor is voted out of office, then, its successor will be able to add sites urging its re-election to the banned list, thus gagging political debate and freedom of assembly. Obviously the scheme is open to abuse! In addition to this, it will accidentally block up to one in 12 legitimate sites, will miss the vast majority of inappropriate content and is very easily sidestepped, thus rendering it ineffective.

• This internet censorship scheme goes further than any other democracy in the world as other countries such as Sweden and Canada have optional schemes for internet filtering whereas the proposed scheme is mandatory: Further the other countries that have adopted internet filtering schemes have limited their attention to child pornography not anything and everything that the government of the day might not want us to access! This sort of practise has no place in a democracy because of its massive potential for abuse!

• The proposal is extremely unpopular, as according to the GetUp Save the Net Campaign Website on 30 November 2008 there were 54,000 signatures. We have lived with internet pornography for some twenty years now; why has it suddenly become such a problem that we need to compromise our freedom and our lifestyle to adopt censorship measures like the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia and the totalitarian regime of China?

• The proposal will almost certainly be ineffective as it fails to block most of the offending material. Alternatively, if the measure is affective, then child pornography will be distributed via Australia Post and courier services – are these going to be checked as well?

• There is already software freely available through many ISP’s to block inappropriate content and the previous government provided free software filters for anyone to download from NetAlert.gov.au. Surely the solution lies in refining the available software and promoting the fact that it is freely available rather than censoring the internet thereby treating us all like children. Money would be better spent informing people of these choices rather than censoring the internet, trying to solve a problem that really can only be solved at the level of the individual household.

Rochelle Macredie
Lawyer
rochelle_macredie@aapt.net.au

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
December 2nd, 2008

The main effect of this so far has been to make Messrs Rudd and Conroy look like Laurel and Hardy

75000 people seem to share similar and less charitable feelings

For heaven sake Kev sack Conroy and stop this farce. Superficially it is amusing but below the surface it is a far more ominous development in Australian Government, if it is allowed to continue

Quit now while you are at least still ahead on interest rates. The people have spoken - you are getting into figures that could bring down a government. As the old saying goes - there is nothing faster than the speed with which love turns to hate.

Bail out now! - and lets take some real international action to shut down the pay sites that make money out of child pornography and that spend their profits abusing children to produce more.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Concerned
December 3rd, 2008

Rudd, Stephen Conroy & Family First can't mind their own business

The biggest problem in society today is people like Rudd, Stephen Conroy & Family First can't mind their own business. They have not consulted the public and want to impose their archaic religious beliefs of sin & purity on the rest of us. Now there's an evil!

It's the equivalent of say...a movement trying to ban religion in Australia. They'd call it Religious Discrimination and have a huge cry about it. Yet they continue to discriminate against the majority who don't want this ban and don't meddle in others private affairs.

This is all about the bigger picture. They are using porn censorship as a stepping stone for something a lot worse.

This is about controlling and limiting our access to information and preventing a nation of critical thinkers.

On the list of their bans:
porn, Peer-to-peer, torrents, gambling sites and any sites that oppose governments views.

And they are already offering extra insensitives to ISPs who help implement this.

If you dig around the net you will find other countries blacklisting free speech and those who decide to speak up against net censorship!!

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Finnish_internet_censorship_critic_blacklisted

I
expect the same to happen in Australia no doubt!!

Australia is on its way to becoming a fascist nation!! This is bad! This is real bad!

Kevein Rudd! You have just signed your own resignation!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

b.feilding
December 3rd, 2008

No Clean Feed
Wonder where these politicians get the ideas from? read on...

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler


1) They want to censor tits and ass, yet on places like YouTube where war videos are easily accessed, you can see humans getting their heads blown off. T&A is good for the human spirit!

2)They say it's to stop child predators from getting to our kids and preventing kids being exposed to unsuitable material.

But where do kids go online? They visit kiddie chat sites etc where it reeks of kiddie predators. So what are they going to do? Ban all the G rated sites too?

Child predators go where children hang out. Mostly and generally as a rule, kids don't hang out at porn sites.

If parents don't want their children viewing porn and oher offensive material then put the PC in a public traffic area of the house where parents can supervise them. This and installed filters on their PC works infinitely better than the current proposal aimed at taking people's freedom of choice away!

This clean feed filter will give parents a false sense of security, thinking their kids will be safe...meanwhile child predators will continue to lurk chat sites and other places children frequent and kids being smarter than parents will use proxies to bypass the filters and get what they want anyway.

The logic is screwed here. But what do you expect from a bunch of bible bashing peasants.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Anonymous
December 3rd, 2008

What's next? Thought Police?
Well I think sport sites should be banned - the whole country is wasting too much time being encouraged into sporty activities and not working and it stops children studying. On line dating services get the chop - it promotes immorality and sexual diseases. Alcohol and related sites should go, they promote bad health. Religious sites get the boot - sites aren`t promoting enough harmony in society. Financial sites should go - they encourage people to spend too much. Government sites should go they tell too many lies.....................

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ashleigh Husband
December 6th, 2008

haha

Yes, this whole scheme is much too reminiscent of George Orwells 1984 to me.

I wonder if they would scrap this site?
Probably, they will find some excuse - oh wait, no, they won't need one!!!!

God damn it! I'm going to be one angry person if this goes ahead.

Whose up for a protest?

:p

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Crikey!
December 3rd, 2008

Crikey! All this is like something out of the shock doco Zeitgeist Movie! An omen indeed!

I'm sure if this filter goes through, that's one website DEFINITELY on the Rudd government's ban list!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

rosie
December 3rd, 2008

Why is there not a protest in Canberra?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Frank
December 3rd, 2008

I have been in the habit of putting the Christian Democrats (by their various names) as my last preference at elections or perhaps just above the Nazis.

Since the Iraq invasion, I have been putting the Liberals just below them.

If this act of Internet vandalism goes ahead, I might put Labour below the Christian Democrats as well. Even if our Internet is saved but Senator Conroy is re-endorsed, I might still do that at future elections.

It was good to see Howard go, but beware of Rudd. He is turning out to be a goody-two-shoes and I do not trust such people.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Frank
December 3rd, 2008

Isn't it ironic!

Labour promises Australia a much improved Internet but, instead, seeks to hobble the one we already have.

If a promise can be broken twice, then that is in danger of happening here. The promise of a much improved Internet has been broken and not just due to bad luck or incompetence.

If the proposed filter goes ahead, it is certain to be used maliciously.

Sorry to be hogging these comments but I desperately want at least some integrity in government.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ashleigh Husband
December 6th, 2008

Totally agree.

Apart from the morally corrupt nature of the proposed internet censorship scheme, I was quite shocked by the irony of it all as well.
I suppose, in hindsight, my shock was quite unfounded, as, like Keith said, such a situation was to be expected.
It's sad really.
Fingers crossed that this ironic scheme will not prevail and demean the labour governments integrity. Pfft... they have integrity? ha, politics has no room for such ludicrous and irrelevant qualities!

I also I have something to say to Kevin Rudd....

'YOU'VE CHANGED MAN, YOU USED TO BE COOL!'

oh dear, that is my immature 17 year old self shining through.

Thanks for your insight everyone, it's greatly appreciated.

Ash

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Keith
December 3rd, 2008

G'day Frank, No, it isn't ironic, it's to be expected. You didn't rearly think that Labor would be any different to the Liberal party did you? I would like to see some integrity in government too, but have given up entirely expecting it from Rudd and his inept sidekick Gillard. All we can hope for is better luck next election.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Rochelle Macredie
December 3rd, 2008

3.12.08

Today I went to visit my local MP at his electoral office to register my complaint about the proposed plan to censor the internet. I got to see one of his staff as my local member was away in Canberra. I raised a series of concerns that I have laid out in the document below entitled “Freedom of the Internet”, which the staff member who I saw described as “comprehensive”: The fact is that there wasn’t a single point he raised that I couldn’t answer using the aforementioned document! The discussions were extremely fruitful because he told me that “…this thing is not set in stone”! This means that we still have time to get in and make our objections heard! The staff member told me that the office had received a substantial number of emails. Letters and faxes about this proposal. He said words to the effect of “…it wasn’t an avalanche but sufficient to make them take notice”.

I urge people to at the very least write a personal letter to their local member even if they are members of the opposition as the point that there have been representations will count and these matters are likely to be raised in parliament. Seeing them in person is even better because it lets them know that you are serious! It doesn’t matter if you can’t see the member in person, as it’s feet through the door that counts!

Freedom of the Internet

The proposed internet censorship scheme advanced by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, will, amongst other things have the following effects: -

It Will Cause Inconvenience to the Public
Make the internet up to 87% slower (according to experiments by the Australian Communications and Media Authority), which has the potential to stop internet banking and online share trading as well as online shopping because the internet speeds will be slower than dial-up.

We can expect to go back to wasting hours in bank queues and shops like we did before the internet made these features accessible to us thus saving us time and money.

We can also look forward to wasting hours of our time paying bills in banks and post offices.

Since the internet will become slower than dial-up, YouTube and other multimedia sites will become inaccessible due to the slow speed.

The Government has invested $10 billion in the development of a high-speed broadband internet: This initiative that will be drastically undermined by this ISP-level filter.

Students will be hampered in their efforts to do research in relation to their education because of slow internet speeds.

It Will Prove to be Costly
The scheme makes it mandatory for Internet Service Providers (“ISP’s”) to provide internet filtering. The government has set aside $44 million over four years, but this is not going to cover the costs of such a system. In 2004 a Coalition Government commissioned report found that the cost of mandatory ISP level filtering would cost around $45 million in the first year, and $33 million every year after that. The costs will likely be passed onto consumers. While larger ISPs may be able to absorb some of these costs, the smaller ISP’s (who exert competitive pressure on prices) are at serious risk of going under if such a scheme is introduced. 1

The ISP’s will have to put in more software and so they will pass on the cost to consumers this will make the internet more expensive so that many in the lower income group will no longer be able to afford the use! This is contrary to Labor’s egalitarian stance and flies in the face of party platform!

Online university study will become prohibitively expensive because the internet will be too slow thus pricing bandwidth out of the range of most students.

People with mobility problems rely on being able to shop for groceries and other essential items online but the slow internet will make this impossible because it will become too expensive and inconvenient for these people, most of who are on pensions.

It is Anti-Democratic
It will enable the blocking of material that is critical of the government of the day or its policies. The proposal is ill-conceived and ill-considered, supposing that Labor is voted out of office, then, its successor will be able to add sites urging its re-election to the banned list, thus gagging political debate and freedom of assembly. Obviously the scheme is open to abuse!

The proposed scheme will block a range of material that it is perfectly legal to view both online and offline. While the Minister frequently refers to "illegal" or "prohibited" material on Australian Communications and Media Authority’s (“ACMA's”) blacklist, this terminology is highly misleading. In fact, "prohibited content" includes material that is lawful to publish or distribute or obtain offline in Australia, (some is also lawful to exhibit in cinemas), and which is not illegal for Australians to view on the Internet. Material unsuitable for children is termed "prohibited content" in Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation enacted in 1999 (which Labor voted against).2

Senator Conroy has suggested that the mandatory filter should block access to “inappropriate” material and “unwanted” material, including “euthanasia websites”. Others types of material that are being considered for inclusion on the blacklist are gambling sites (the suggestion of Senator Xenophon) and all pornography (the suggestion of Senator Fielding). It is easy to see how the blacklist can quickly become a greylist – a process made even more dangerous by the fact that ACMA’s secret list of prohibited material is not subject to supervision, appeal, or review.

The scope of the mandatory filter is far broader than child pornography alone.

This internet censorship scheme goes further than any other democracy in the world as other countries such as Sweden and Canada have optional schemes for internet filtering whereas the proposed scheme is mandatory:

Other countries that have adopted internet filtering schemes have limited their attention to child pornography not anything and everything that the government of the day might not want us to access! This sort of practise has no place in a democracy because of its massive potential for abuse!

Senator Conroy later admitted that no western democracy in the world has introduced mandatory server-level filtering.

The scheme is so manifestly flawed that it is easy to conclude that this move is being implemented for ulterior motives, namely that some group or groups do not want people to use the internet to talk about them!

It is Unpopular
The proposal is extremely unpopular, as according to the GetUp Save the Net Campaign Website on 3 December 2008 there were over 73,000 signatures.

We have lived with internet pornography for some twenty years now; why has it suddenly become such a problem that we need to compromise our freedom and our lifestyle to adopt censorship measures like the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia and the totalitarian regime of China?

It Will be Ineffective
The proposal will almost certainly be ineffective as it fails to block most of the offending material. Alternatively, if the measure is affective, then child pornography will be distributed via Australia Post and courier services – are these going to be checked as well?

The scheme will accidentally block up to one in 12 legitimate sites, will miss the vast majority of inappropriate content and is very easily sidestepped, thus rendering it ineffective.

This internet filter will only affect one third of internet traffic, because it does not apply to peer file sharing networks or email. In fact, users can very easily avoid the filter entirely by using Virtual Private Networks (“VPN’s”), proxies or anonymising software.

In each of the countries that have net filtering, the filter can be easily avoided. No country in the world goes as far as dynamically analysing web traffic in real time, as Australia is proposing. Doing this will cause increased congestion and an increased rate of false positives, and has led experts to conclude this scheme will be technically unfeasible.

Evidence from Saudi Arabia suggests that the central filtering system currently blocks a list of more than 12 million addresses, slowing internet access by as much as half, with up to 10 per cent of prohibited sites still getting through.3

VPN’s will be set up to get around filtering things and this banned material will be sent through these and can’t be filtered out so the scheme will be ineffective!

Most child pornography is sent by file transfer, which can’t be blocked by the net filter as it only blocks sites. This pornography does not get sent over the net. It is encrypted either by VPN or peer-to-peer or sent via Australia Post on CD’s

If the software is based on keyword-filtering then it can be rendered ineffective by simply re-naming images. If it is image-based then it would have to intercept
the image, publish this within in itself, check the image and then forward the image if it is legitimate: This will slow the internet to a crawl! This image filtering would require massive computing power which drastically exceeds that already provided!

If the software bans IP addresses or website names, this is extremely easy to overcome as spammers already do this now on a regular basis.

Even child protection groups have criticised the move as ineffective and at risk of blocking legitimate sites.4

If websites are banned then new websites can be set within minutes.

It is Unnecessary
There is already software freely available through many ISP’s to block inappropriate content and the previous government provided free software filters for anyone to download from NetAlert.gov.au. Surely the solution lies in refining the available software and promoting the fact that it is freely available rather than censoring the internet thereby treating us all like children.

Money would be better spent informing people of these choices rather than censoring the internet, by trying to solve a problem that really can only be solved at the level of the individual household. (Users should elect to have the net filter – that is optional to the user!)

The Solution to the Problem
The previous Government spent $84.8 million on a scheme to provide free PC-based filtering that allows parents to track and monitor their child’s access to the internet, and thus intervene concerning harmful content that couldn’t be picked up by an ISP filter. The software will not slow down the internet or interfere with online commerce. This software will cost less to run. We should be spending the money promoting this instead!

In addition, we should be making sure that the Australian Federal Police's Online Child Sexual Exploitation Team has the resources needed to reduce child exploitation or abuse on the internet.5

The best protection is to put the computer in the lounge room where parents can exercise supervision.

Ineffective software can be improved, as this is what is done with antiviral and antispyware software on a daily basis, so that if the existing filtering software is ineffective it can be improved!

Rochelle Macredie
Lawyer


Endnotes

1 Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Review of the Operation of Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (2004) 3. After outlining the cost implications of an ISP based internet filter, the report said: ‘Given the limited benefits of an ISP-level filtering system, the costs of a mandated requirement to filter do not appear justified.’

2. See GetUp website Blogs on Save the Net Campaign “Irene Graham: Secret, unaccountable, censorship is incompatible with democracy” http://www.getup.org.au/blogs/view.php?id=1565
Accessed
on 30 December 2008

3 Liberal Senator Helen Coonan (former Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts), Protecting Families Online – Address to the National Press Club, Canberra, 14 June 2006 <http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/36697/20071105-
0005/www.minister.dcita.gov.au/media/speeches/protecting_families_online.html>.

4
Sydney Morning Herald 1 December 2005 "Children's welfare groups slam net filters" Asher Moses

5 Luke McIlveen, ‘No Money Available to Chase Internet Paedophiles’, Herald Sun (Melbourne) 18 June 2007
<http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21923386-662,00.html>.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

honest john
December 3rd, 2008

frank
check out The Heiner Affair or Shreddergate

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Thanks Rochelle
December 3rd, 2008

Well said Rochelle Macredie!

I must stress how critical and accurate the information quoted from you below is and fitting it is with b.feilding's Hitler comment !!

========= By b.feilding =========
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler

========== by Rochelle Macredie ===========

It is Anti-Democratic
It will enable the blocking of material that is critical of the government of the day or its policies. The proposal is ill-conceived and ill-considered, supposing that Labor is voted out of office, then, its successor will be able to add sites urging its re-election to the banned list, thus gagging political debate and freedom of assembly. Obviously the scheme is open to abuse!

Most child pornography is sent by file transfer, which can’t be blocked by the net filter as it only blocks sites. This pornography does not get sent over the net. It is encrypted either by VPN or peer-to-peer or sent via Australia Post on CD’s

We have lived with internet pornography for some twenty years now; why has it suddenly become such a problem that we need to compromise our freedom and our lifestyle to adopt censorship measures like the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia and the totalitarian regime of China?

=====================

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

honest john
December 3rd, 2008

check out The Heiner Affair or Shreddergate if you want some dirt on kevin .

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

yashica
December 4th, 2008

I am disgusted by what Stephen Conroy from the Labor government is intending to do.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Tim Anderson
December 4th, 2008

As well as Federal Censorship proposals, in Victoria, we have the Racial and Religious Vilification Act which already prevents free speech on race or religion. What "unwanted content" with ACMA or Federal Police put on the banned list?

My editorial on the nasty former Atourney General Rob Hulls and his Victoria Religious Vilification Act and now we have Federal Labor proposals to contend with which will further restrict our free speech and limit the information we can access.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Religion/Vilification.html#skipnav

Tim
The
Editor
http://www.hereticpress.com

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Matt
December 4th, 2008

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Geoff B
December 4th, 2008

Copy paste and email the below to all your friends!
===================================================

Hitler - Internet Censorship Australia [YouTube Video]
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler

One very funny, yet true to the fact video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH35CVig3fQ

Say
no to mandatory internet censorship in Australia! http://www.nocleanfeed.com & http://www.getup.org.au

Support your freedom and spread the word! Email this to someone you know.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

honest john
December 5th, 2008

to all perverts & pedophiles
the end is nigh

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Poor John
December 7th, 2008

Living a life of sin & purity Mr honest John? Poor John. lol!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
December 6th, 2008

That worries you HJ?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ashleigh Husband
December 6th, 2008

I know it is important not to become 'paranoid', but after reading '1984' by George Orwell, I feel an overwhelming sense of worry in regards to this censorship scheme. Similarities between this and Orwell's classic are making me feel slightly nauseous - surely, we will not follow that dreary path, will we? Hmm, we can only hope... and kick and scream and carry on like a tantruming toddler in a supermarket, with a legitimate cause, yes an actual legitimate cause!

It is fundamentally wrong to censor the internet. Why? Because we are a democracy, because we have the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of information.

This policy is denying our human rights and the democracy that Australia prides itself in being.

For anyone who has not already, I suggest you sign the petition located on the home page in relation to this.

Remember that individually, we can make an impact, but together, we can make a change.

Take care all and continue your efforts here on this sight, every person has a voice, it is good to see that at least a minority of society is using theirs!

Ash

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

jack fender
December 6th, 2008

This will be a tragedy,this is a agenda to control our thinking,internet the freedom of speech is now been demonised and will be controlled.as with main stream media which has manuplated for us to talk dress and think and be dumb downed now the internet censorship is in the same catagory.a new conciosness is on the rise,and we the people have been had by people who
run this world for centuries must stand up for our freedom or will just be
conditioned monkeys like with always been.Right your petion out now.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

no censorship please
December 7th, 2008

Rather than censoring the internet, we should provide more funding and empowerment to our Federal Police. For only they have the know how to crack down on pedophilia.

Pedophiles don't run open to public websites. They run secure sites (which filtering cannot block), they transfer their content through encrypted peer-to-peer sharing etc. It would be a false sense of public security to think filters will work. The Federal Police have their ways of catching Pedophiles (which I will not divulge here).

We should not demonize consented adult pornography. The naked body and act of copulation is but a beautiful human act to be celebrated and enjoyed by all. Anybody that deems this as sinful should really keep their opinion to themselves and not seek to suppress others from it.

What one person deems as inappropriate another finds perfectly normal and okay. We see this all around the world when observing different cultures.

We are born free spirits and only other people's biases, emotions and insecurities form and influence our preconceived notions.

Keeping one fundamental rule: never harm another human being & always help those around you - there is no good or bad. It's all open to interpretation based on our upbringing and influences.

One person likes oranges, another prefers apples. We should not force the entire world to eat just one because somebody says so. This would only malnourish and deprive us of our psycho/physiological evolution and other beautiful experiences in our universe.

We are all individuals and all with different needs - from religion, food, sex, philosophy, friends, cars, homes, hobbies, alcohol, computers, books, movies, music and much much more! Depriving us of even one would deprive the universe of its expression.

With so many people in the world today working harder and longer hours than ever before and opting out of having a family, porn is a reminder of our most basic human need...sex and procreation.

Porn is good for the human spirit and remember more funding to our Federal Police please.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

dg
December 13th, 2008

I don't always agree with GetUp! On the Hicks issue, I do believe the way he was treated was illegal and immoral, but I also believe he should have been returned to Australia immediately and tried for treason, and on the evidence of his admissions in his own letters to his father he would have been jailed here for 20 years.

However, on the internet censorship issue I am in complete agreement with GetUp!'s position.

Once a government has this power, how long will it be before it is abused for political purposes? It's a slippery slope Conroy is trying to put us on.

Anywhere in the world outside of China if you google "Tiananmen Square" you get 1,180,000 hits. Of these the majority discuss the 1989 massacre of the pro-democracy protesters. In China, the same search yields <300 results, all happy tourist information and historical sites none of which mention the massacre.

This censorship works; most young chinese who leave the country to do uni courses etc. are shocked and surprised to learn about this dark history, and many refuse to believe the massacre happened believing it to be capitalist propaganda - ignoring the fact that their own country is the only one to deny it (and China does not deny it internationally, only internally to it's own people).

Conroy is giving credence to those who believe that the Fabian Socialists in the Labor Left faction have a secret agenda to turn this country into a one-party, totalitarian dictatorship. Perhaps we should call him "Conroy the Communist".

Conroy would no doubt be offended by that, but he's brought it on himself.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
December 27th, 2008

To quote from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:

"The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) entered into force on 1 January 2005. AUSFTA is a comprehensive agreement that covers goods, services, investment, financial services, government procurement, standards and technical regulations, telecommunications, competition-related matters, electronic commerce, intellectual property rights, labour and the environment."

Internet filtering by slowing down the communications networks, by inappropriately blocking clean sites and by a number of technical measures that will affect trade - especially in electronic data items between Australia and the united States is surely a breach of the Aust/US Free Trade Agreement

American companies SUE and in this case it would be rightly so

I'd drop this piece of crap like the hot potato it is , Conroy. The people don't want it, five international Free Trade Agreements are affected by it. A further six FTA's are under negotiation and three more including India and Indonesia are under consideration

If all the existing FTA's eventuate interference with the internet could place this country liable to pay compensation to companies affected in the USA, Thailand, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, NOW and China, Japan, Malaysia, ASEA, India, Korea, and Indonesia, (and others)SOON

Global free trade demands you do not muck about or restrict the main tools of commerce

Run a mile Conway. Kevin mate, I'd sack him for setting you up over this.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

phildeerhound
December 27th, 2008

To Our Parliamentarians

More on the potential breach of Free Trade Agreements. If any of our Parliamentarians are tuning in to GetUp - You'd be advised to, since GetUp has a larger membership than any political party - I'm worried you might have difficulty finding the free trade agreements. Maybe I can help

Now I don't want to get too technical here but what I am giving you here is called a web page address:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/ftas.html

Maybe
you could get someone to help you feed it into a computer (that's the machine on your desk that looks like a very thin waffle heater and makes beeping noises) - Get your helper to show you how to click on the "links" to what you are looking for

Isn't science wonderful? - especially when you leave it alone. That is why Mummy told you not to put your fingers in the power socket

She knew you'd hurt yourself if you went near anything electrical and Mummy was right

Happy New Year

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Howling Wind
June 16th, 2009

Urgent - Iran is jamming the BBC services to the Middle East

This illustrates just how important it is to defend the freedom of the internet. Currently in Germany the Government is using the same excuses as the Australian Government in an attempt to strangle the internet

This is not about pornography - those wanting it will get it anyway. This is about a fascist attempt to strangle free communications. Get it solid this is tyranny by stealth.

Currently it is the internet that is keeping communications with parts of the Middle East open for news purposes.

In part the BBC says:

"However, the availability of witness material from Iran is enabling international news organisations to be able to report the story. Viewers of BBC Persian TV have been in touch (in Farsi), sending videos, stills and providing personal accounts.

It is important that what is happening in Iran is reported to the world, but it is even more vital that citizens in Iran know what is happening. That is the role of the recently-launched BBC Persian TV which is fulfilling a crucial role in being a free and impartial source of information for many Iranians.

Any attempt to block this channel is wrong and against international treaties on satellite communication. Whoever is attempting the blocking should stop it now."

The writer of the article concerned is no less than the director of the British Broadcasting Service's World Service, Peter Horrocks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/06/stop_the_blocking_now.html

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

GetUp is Action for Australia

GetUp.org.au is an independent political movement to build a progressive Australia. GetUp! brings together like-minded people who want to bring participation back into our democracy.

Make a donation today!




© 2006-2008 GetUp! All rights reserved.
Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 5A, 116 Kippax St, Sydney NSW 2010