Uproar in Australia over plan to block Web sites

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - A proposed Internet filter dubbed the "Great Aussie Firewall" is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 Web sites prohibited by the government - mostly child pornography, excessive violence, instructions in crime or drug use and advocacy of terrorism.

The Full Article

Okay.... I get it. I totally understand why the Government feels this is a good thing from their prospective. Who wouldn't want to get rid of these things? But here's the deal..... what about the RIGHTS of their citizens? Is this just the tip of the iceberg? Are their more countries that are going to follow suit including the United States?

Let's Hear Your Opinion!. You may hear this on an ATS MIX Show in 2009.

Dave

My main worry would be that this can be used to block any site that those in power deem not in "their interest".

It was mentioned in another article that sites can be added to the list on the decision of government, allowing the government complete control of what their citizens see and read on the internet.

This is not about protecting the citizens or preventing crime, it is about restricting information.

How many people in any country would use the internet for the reasons they've suggested?
And when you consider that question, how is it right to use this excuse to restrict the freedom of the entire country?

It's like suggesting that 5000 people are killed by cars every year, so cars must now be banned.

Because this doesn't make any sense, it is clear that this is entirely about a government controlling the freedom of the people.

reply to post by detachedindividual


I'd have to agree with Detached on this one. Who is to say what is considered worth blocking and not?

Who exactly is making the choices of what is allowed through that firewall to the general public and what exactly is behind those decisions?

Would they say that Joe Schmoe's online gardening site is legit? Or is that really a cover for drug dealers who want to grow their own?

There are just so many factors to this I wouldn't know where to start.

-JR

Child pornography indeed. Who would argue against that? (Not counting them.)

They always use something "evil" to get their foot in the door, that inch they need to then take a mile. Censoring the Internet because of child pornography (for one) is like banning pets to stop animal abuse.

And the term "advocacy of terrorism" is pretty broad. Broad enough to include anyone who says anything anti-government?



[edit on 12/26/08 by kattraxx]

If the Australian Government really cared about the sites they take issue with they’d leave those sites on the net and monitor who uses them in order to track down the scumbags with the HELP of the very same sites!
Track down the children held hostage as sex slaves.
Track down terrorists, drug users, makers of mass violence.
They’re prostituting kiddie porn worse than the skin traffickers themselves in order to regulate and control the net.
I can just hear it, “What, you want kiddie porn on the internet? Because you know that’s what you’re condoning if you’re not in favor of blocking such sites”...
And do they really think we’re ignorant enough to think once those sites are *blocked* it’s going to stop pedophiles, terrorist, drug users?
Like every other thing denied the public that the public desires and craves, it will only drive such things even deeper, making it even dirtier, more dangerous and of course more profitable for the traffickers, etc.
Once Australia succeeds at this the rest of the worlds internet is left lined up like dominoes waiting to fall.


*P*E*A*C*E*

Not to ruin the parade here, but this was already posted in another thread.

The thing here is that unless there is definative proof of blocking non-illegal content, then there might be a reason to be concerned or a reason to start throwing around cries of wolf when there is no wolf around yet.

As the article states, they want to target illegal sites with illegal content. Lets see how that develops first before starting to spread rumor and unecessary ranting.





Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by kattraxx
Child pornography indeed. Who would argue against that? (Not counting them.)

They always use something "evil" to get their foot in the door, that inch they need to then take a mile. Censoring the Internet because of child pornography (for one) is like banning pets to stop animal abuse.

And the term "advocacy of terrorism" is pretty broad. Broad enough to include anyone who says anything anti-government?



[edit on 12/26/08 by kattraxx]

Yup, too true.

Child pornography existed way before the internet. Blocking it from coming through on a particular medium doesn't stop it from happening.

This does sound to me like a way for govt. to get a foothold, any reason to stick their nose where it doesn't belong.

They have already trialed the filter and found that it also blocked legitimate web sites. Which is a big fear here, fro those that oppose the filter. Just what parameters are they using?
The filter report is being denied as negetive by the Govt. The minister responsible for Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: stephen Conroy. Any Australians on ATS I urge you to contact the Senetor and voice your concerns about this filter if you have any! E-Mail Senetor Conroy

A REPORT showing a mandatory internet filter will not work has been dismissed as untested by the Rudd Government.

Senator Stephen Conroy yesterday made available the ISP Level Content Filtering Feasibility Study he received in February, commissioned by the Howard government.

The report found content filtering as proposed by the Rudd Government would not work or be economically viable using current technologies, will slow internet speeds, block legitimate websites and be easily circumvented.

SOURCE

My the Govt. in my home state released this paper into the reality of such a system.

"In terms of the practicality of ISP-level filtering, various issues arise including the potential impact on internet speed and the indiscriminate blocking of innocuous material. There is also the point that URL based/index filtering only blocks access to pages on a pre-determined list. In other words, access would only be blocked to material that has been identified as prohibited by the ACMA."

SOURCE
Who compiles the list. Who decides what is to be black listed.
Child ponography is simple, people will not tolerate it(well most of us). But when they also include what the deem terrorist supporting websites etc. Well, that is when the lines get blurred and people get rights ripped away due to fear. This is what we see happening now and in the past 7 years since a day in september. A day in london, a day in spain, one day in bali.

Even child protection groups are condemning this filter:

Support for the Government's plan to censor the internet has hit rock bottom, with even some children's welfare groups now saying that that the mandatory filters, aimed squarely at protecting kids, are ineffective and a waste of money.

Link

Australia's largest TelCo has also condemned it:

As the Internet filtering debate continues rocking Australian ISPs, Internet users and the Federal Government, Australia’s biggest ISP and dominant Telco, Telstra, has shared its views on the merits or otherwise of filtering. Telstra executive Greg Winn, speaking at a journalist and analyst briefing on the NBN (National Broadband Network) described filtering the Internet as "like trying to boil the ocean", and followed this up by saying "as soon as you install it, someone is going to find a way around it".

Link

The funny thing is, there are ways around it already!

HERE is a good blog regarding how to get around this filter.


No one wants it, there are ways around it already, so why the bloody hell are they STILL going ahead with it?

The site in my sig has some great information too:
nocleanfeed.com...


Cheers.

Ok, first of all, it is more than 10 000 websites that would be blocked....

That is excluding all the websites that would be blocked by accident because it is not fool proof, nevermind the havoc it would cause on our internet speeds..

I AM FROM AUSTRALIA ffs

i hate this..

I can hardly play xbox 360 on live already because the lag is so bad, we are supposed to be a 1st world country, but we cant even play games online because our internet speeds suck so bad...

yet they say that our internet speeds will suffer by as much as 50% if this filter is activated..

argh


oh yeah, lets not forget,,,,


we will be paying MORE for our internet of the filter is approved, so ok then, we will pay MORE for our internet, yet we will have LESS content and we will have SLOWER speeds...

once more


listen to me, listen to us australia and australian internet providers, WE WILL CANCEL OUR INTERNET if you go through with this, i know for sure that i will cancel my internet if this happens!



bastards!!

Originally posted by Hellsing


listen to me, listen to us australia and australian internet providers, WE WILL CANCEL OUR INTERNET if you go through with this, i know for sure that i will cancel my internet if this happens!

I agree 100%.

I (according to my ISP) have the fastest available residential speed in Australia – which is a lot slower than the internet I had in Europe. The internet here is already slow, it already has so many problems (about 10:30pm every night it seems to go down – this has happened when I was on iPrimus and Telstra, odd?).

Not to mention we pay through the nose for it here, it’s 5 times more expensive than I paid overseas, much slower than overseas and I here I have a download limit!

And the point is, who is the government to decided what I am ok to look up, Child porn, fine block it... but the point is they will block sites that they seem inappropriate or sites that they don’t agree with it. Where will it stop?

As with the above poster, if this happens I will cancel my internet, I’m already being ripped off as it is.... if my net was any slower I’d be on dial up!

They will start with censors on the net, then what?

Mikey

It's a shame objectionable material can't just be removed from the source. That would avoid filtering.

Obviously different countries have different laws which allows these nasty sites to exist.

Perhaps this needs to change.

Since one of Australia's largest service providers is not going to comply - is there going to be a showdown and what will occur?

First of all - I was not aware there are any so call Child Pornography sites that are not taken down by Police eventually. Thus if it's secret - just how are they going to filter it? If it's not secret it will be taken down.

I think the mention child porn in regards to the Block is just meant to flip the sheeples brains into stupid mode so they won't pay attention to what's really going on. That is, the need to control dissemination of information.

They're after sites like ATS where people can talk crap about the government & corporations that run out world today.

In effect sites like ATS have become or will be the source of alternative news that is quickly hushed or buried in the MSM.

The dissemination of information is no longer in the control of government or the corporate powers that lobby them or own the MSM.

The internet has taken the 1st Amendment (of the US) into Warp Speed and the Powers that be are threatened by it.

During Wars and uprisings the internet is a secondary communication medium or at least a point of dissemination to the rest of the world.

The first two sites that will be block in my mind will be Rense and ToTSE.
More than likly this one too. They say your clean feed is for the greater good. In all honesty the clean feed is meant to restrict your access to information your government deems a threat to its existence.

Anarchy 4 Anybody will also be black listed...and any other websites that discuss Anarchy.

Anarchy encourages all kinds of questionable activities. Not the least of which is the end of government.

Mark my words that is what will be censored.

I'm not sure of Australia's Constitutional stance and language of free speech is or how its worded. I can't tell you how many private commercial sites I have been too that have band width stolen and links hijacked with pornography of all types. Its a real problem here in the US and I suppose elswhere. It would just makethe attacks on legitamate sites the main target of hackers in the porn industry and do absolutly nothing for security of our children. It will be the front door of total censorship of OUR internet. This is the worlds populations property and not that of any single government. This should be fought tooth and nail in every country it raises its ugly head!!

Zindo

reply to post by andy1033


Mods, can we delete this guys post or something. Fairly off topic and some of the members are cops. Would like to know where the figures are for this statement. Cops are the biggest users of child porn? They will put cameras in the houses of children they like? Come on.

DONE.

Dave

[edit on 12/31/2008 by Dave Rabbit]

Originally posted by kattraxx
Child pornography indeed. Who would argue against that? (Not counting them.)

Definitely not me. I am all for restricting/filtering 'prohibited content' such as this.

But to take away my right to access/info from Exit International I don't agree with.


Getting a balance is going to be the issue...

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
I'm not sure of Australia's Constitutional stance and language of free speech is or how its worded.

Here in Australia we don’t even have a bill of rights and there is no provision of free speech either.

In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 19 affirms the right to free speech:

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.(1)

Australia is a signatory to this treaty and, in order to incorporate treaties and conventions into Australian law, governments must pass a specific Act of Parliament. Although some parts of the treaty have been implemented into law, such as the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 no Australian government has implemented the free speech provisions and therefore they are not enforceable by Australian courts.

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system. There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116).

The United States incorporated a Bill of Rights into its Constitution in 1789. Other countries have legislated more recently for freedom of speech, mainly in legislation which is separate from their constitutions: Ireland in 1937, Canada in 1982, New Zealand in 1990, South Africa in 1996, and the United Kingdom in 1998. The European Union has included freedom of expression and information in its Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights for possible adoption by member states. This makes Australia alone among like-minded countries not to provide for freedom of speech in legislation or the national constitution.

So technically we don’t have free speech – most Australians don’t realise this and just assume we do because they see it on TV all the time.

Mikey

Free Speech and the Constitution


[edit on 31/12/2008 by Mikey84]

reply to post by Dave Rabbit


US Federal income taxes were re-introduced in 1913 at a 1% rate for the purpose of paying for the military. Liberals (at the time known as "reformists") were elated while conservatives said it would be “a first step toward complete confiscation of private property.” Today the tax rate can exceed 30% or more, or 30+ times what was intended. Yet very little of the enormous increase goes towards its original purpose of funding the US military.

Likewise, Australia's internet censorship will rocket from 1,300 websites to 30+ times that and the stated purpose for the censorship will turn out to be a complete lie as well.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by truthquest]

Mikey,

Thanks, I kind of knew that Australia had signed those accords, but I wasn't sure if they had adopted it as a right. I would hope that they do in the future, but I doubt they will. All governments seem to excell at quashing free speech one way or another!

Zindo



[edit on 12/31/2008 by ZindoDoone]