Say NO to Internet Censorship in Australia

[Jango]

The Australian Federal Goverment is undertaking a $40+ milion plan to censor the internet.

They are going ahead with this plan DESPITE experts, both Australian and from overseas criticising the plan. Internet providers and the government's own tests have found that presently available filters are not capable of adequately distinguishing between legal and illegal content and can degrade internet speeds by up to 86 per cent.

Colin Jacobs, chair of the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said: "I'm not exaggerating when I say that this model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world."

Critics of the ISP-level filtering plan say software filters installed by the user on their PC, which are already provided by the government for free at netalert.gov.au, are more than adequate.

Mark Newton, an engineer at Internode, has heavily criticised the Government and its filtering policy on the Whirlpool broadband community forum, going as far as saying it would enable child abuse.

He said the plan would inevitably result in significant false positives and degrade internet speeds tremendously. Those views were subsequently widely reported by technology media and blogs.

With all due respect to the government, their intentions are well meaning, as they hope to block out child pornography, but this is a waste of money, damaging to the internet and does not respect the right of freedom we have in this country. This filtering system CAN be used to block a lot more in the future, and it could possibly be used to restrict freedom of political expression as is done in China.

The government is being very tight lipped about this. I also cannot recall this ever being mentioned on the list of policies they intended to follow through with that they presented to the Australian people during the election. Please note that the policy states that it is compulsory for ALL Australian ISP's to enable this filtering. It is NOT optional.

They do have the technology to do it, it's just shit technology that can slow internet by up to 86%. We can get around it, and the Government know we can. It's not about that, once they get this through as legislation, it's law, and they'll eventually make the internet filter better. It's also a matter of freedom of thought, speech and practice, and this legislation does not respect that.

The filter will block pro-euthanasia websites, pro-anorexia websites and hardcore pornography/fetish websites as well as child pornography sites, demonstrating how it has the potential to block freedom of political expression in the future. Will I be allowed to post something like this in 10 years? What is even more worrisome is that the Government has been actively repressing and intimidating critics of its legislation (see below).

And by the way guys, the Governments definition of hardcore pornography means anything with penetration in it. They are now trying to ban porn. Now it's personal =_=

"Family First would consider a mandatory ISP-based filtering system that protects children by blocking illegal content like child pornography, but allows adults to opt out of filtering to access material classified R18+ or less," Senator Fielding's spokeswoman said.

According to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, X18+ content includes hardcore pornography, while content that is refused classification includes that which depicts drug use or sexual fetishes. Both are a step above R18+ content, which typically includes adult themes.

Filtering out the fury: how government tried to gag web censor critics - BizTech

Net filters may block porn and gambling sites - BizTech - Technology

http://users.on.net/~newton/ellis-2008-10-20.pdf <---- READ THIS LETTER!

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) - protecting and promoting online civil liberties

No Clean Feed - Home

[jimmywrangles]

That's pretty rough jango.
Even if they do get it through people will still find a way around it regardless of how good it may be.
It would probably mean political suicide for anyone who wants to push it through so I'll be keen to see what happens.

[Buttersoft]

yeah we have enough trouble playing 2142 in this country without someone actively reducing or impinging upon our connectivity. There'll always be a way around the filters, just our ping'll suffer all the same

[Jango]

Originally Posted by jimmywrangles

That's pretty rough jango.
Even if they do get it through people will still find a way around it regardless of how good it may be.
It would probably mean political suicide for anyone who wants to push it through so I'll be keen to see what happens.

True, but it's more a matter of principal that we can't let the Government do this as it is a violation of our rights to freedom of thought, speech and practice. Once they get this through I think they'll pump a lot more money into it, and their filter will just keep getting better and better.

I also forgot to add that the Government is making the ISP's foot the bill for the filter, which means MUCH higher internet fees. For everyone.

[Ancient_One]

I didn't vote for them.........and have to wear the consequences of their actions.

I wont vote for them next time either but again it will be the rest of Australia which makes the decision.

I'm also not voting for any Labor government in the State of NSW. They suck big time.

If the filter was in the word suck would make this post not readable by others.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by Ancient_One

If the filter was in the word suck would make this post not readable by others.

Your post would be filtered if you used 'Labor' and 'suck' at the same time. I'm sure they'd allow 'Liberal' and 'suck' unfiltered.

Australia is turning so communist it dismay's me.

[ChickenStrangler]

Well I’m pretty sure nothing will go forward due to the effect it would have on allot of business, government originations and just give everyone too much strife. Communist states are running the same thing only towards more government and items that could cause "political unrest" within the regime. This is fair enough it’s their country not mine. But Australia is not a Communist run country so I doubt anyone would push the bar on this subject I think it was more of a weapon for the Family First as they need a weapon to use in parliament and censorship of anything in general is always a touchy subject due to the many levels in which it is negated. But that’s just my view on it. I say no to it in any case wether it be child pornography to sheep sex everyone has a choice weather it be legal or illegal it is why we have government originations to stop such activity. But I do not condone Child Pornography in anyway shape or form and never will. Sheep sex is all right, but we all know where that comes from so keep it very hush hush.

[bookbuster]

I wouldn't be so quick to shrug these attempts off, to be perfectly honest. Firstly, realise that this plan was started under Howard, and has been continued under Labor - and was part of Labor's stated election policy. Both sides of our government have been working towards something akin to the proposed filter for several years, though there was some evidence that, with the failure of NetAlert, the Liberals were finaly begininng to see sense. If you need evidence of this, I point you to the DBCDE's file listing, where online filters are refered to at least as early as the first half of 2007. The buildup has been slow and well-hidden.

Secondly, realise that Australia's censorship laws are already some of the most restrictive in the Western world. The only thing that stops the general population from realising how onerous the burden of censorship could be is that our law enforcement agencies don't have the manpower to enforce them in all save the most disturbing, or high-profile, of cases. If memory servers, the bill that allocated funding for the filter also included a funding increase for online policing initiatives (the latter of which is a damned good idea, when seperated from the filter).

Thirdly, realise that the government is already trying to paint opponents of the filter as proponents of child pornography. Combine this with our sensationalist media, who loves nothing more than a 'Won't Someone Think of the Children!' story on a slow news day, and it may well become actually damaging to publically oppose the filter. Would you be willing to speak up, if you knew that there was a chance the press would denounce you as a supporter of child pornography? You would be risking losing your livelihood at the very least. It is a question that has actually given me some pause, as I've decided to lodge an FOI request for selected documents regarding the filter. Any interesting information obtained this way will be very easily be traceable back to me, and I work in an industry that can require I pass a working with children check to gain employment.

Don't stick your head in the sand over this one and presume it will blow over. The stakes are too high if you're wrong. Write to your local member in protest - it'll take five minutes and cost you a stamp.

[Dummy!]

I forgot how to read

[Jango]

Luckily there are (for now) stronger laws that protect you from endangering your reputation and livelihood bookbuster. The defamation laws are still in effect, for now >_<.

I've been talking to a lot of people, and about 90% of them go "what are you talking about?!" when I tell them about it. Scary how the Government has managed to keep it so quiet.