Australia to implement mandatory internet censorship
AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.
The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.
The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.
The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.
Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to \"protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users\".
Mr Conroy said trials were yet to be carried out, but \"we are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material.\"
The net nanny proposal was originally going to allow Australians who wanted uncensored access to the web the option of contacting their internet service provider to be excluded from the service.
Human Rights Watch has condemned internet censorship, and argued to the US Senate \"there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, (and) want to control it\"
Groups including the System Administrators Guild of Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia have attacked the proposal, saying it would unfairly restrict Australians' access to the web, slow internet speeds and raise the price of internet access.
EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child pornography, as it would not cover file-sharing networks.
\"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child pornography it would be a different debate,\" he said.
The technology companies' move, which follows criticism that the companies were assisting censorship of the internet in nations such as China, requires them to narrowly interpret government requests for information or censorship and to fight to minimise cooperation.
The initiative provides a systematic approach to \"work together in resisting efforts by governments that seek to enlist companies in acts of censorship and surveillance that violate international standards\", the participants said.
In a statement, Yahoo co-founder and chief executive Jerry Yang welcomed the new code of conduct.
\"These principles provide a valuable roadmap for companies like Yahoo operating in markets where freedom of expression and privacy are unfairly restricted,\" he said.
\"Yahoo was founded on the belief that promoting access to information can enrich people's lives, and the principles we unveil today reflect our determination that our actions match our values around the world.\"
Yahoo was thrust into the forefront of the online rights issue after the Californian company helped Chinese police identify cyber dissidents whose supposed crime was expressing their views online.
China exercises strict control over the internet, blocking sites linked to Chinese dissidents, the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement, the Tibetan government-in-exile and those with information on the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.
A number of US companies, including Microsoft, Cisco, Google and Yahoo, have been hauled before the US Congress in recent years and accused of complicity in building the \"Great Firewall of China\".
The Australian Christian Lobby, however, has welcomed the proposals.
Managing director Jim Wallace said the measures were needed.
\"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access,\" Mr Wallace said.
Although the \"intentions\" are honorable- the fact that a filter exists at all- and is under the charge of the government- allows the government to determine what is allowable or not. Though I doubt it would be anything as draconian or suppressive as the Chinese have imposed on their citizens, it is still something that could turn horribly wrong at some time in the future.
So the US government is not the only one to blatantly use the exploitation of children to control the free flow of information.
EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child pornography, as it would not cover file-sharing networks.
\"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child pornography it would be a different debate,\" he said.
This is exactly why red flashing danger alarms go off anytime I hear \"children/child\" and \"pornography\" in the same sentence whenever it relates to legislation. The concept that to fight \"child pornography\" or \"protect children from pornography\" any and all means are perfectly acceptable regardless of how much it damages society and the free flow of information is getting to be pretty ridiculous. It doesn't help that in virtually every single case of legislation like this if you read between the lines the effect of combating child pornography is only secondary to the actual goals which usually boil down to direct information control.
If people say \"ok fine I can live with this\" then when the time comes that the government starts trying to legislate what you are allowed to think don't bother complaining because they can just suppress your voice all in the name of fighting the exploitation of children.
Why the hell can't they just demand sexually explicit material have the suffix .XXX and leave the .com and .org etc. to the rest of the stuff that way parents, or schools, or who ever wants to, could easily filter out anything with a .XXX and we can get on with our lives instead of letting poli-frikken-ticians screw this up too!!!
Will Robinson wrote:Why the hell can't they just demand sexually explicit material have the suffix .XXX and leave the .com and .org etc. to the rest of the stuff that way parents, or schools, or who ever wants to, could easily filter out anything with a .XXX
I actually agree, that is a pretty good idea.
But off of paper, there could be problems. Would nude photos in NHB require this site to be descentbb.xxx? How would we get sites to comply?
Either way, I call first rate total hate against this. Regulation of the internet on a government level is bad, mmkay.
Dakatsu wrote:...Would nude photos in NHB require this site to be descentbb.xxx? How would we get sites to comply?.,..
The DBB would have two choices, make the posters link to the site that holds the pics which would have the .XXX designation instead of displaying the pic on the DBB page or the DBB might fall under the requirement. You can probably tag an image with something that could be picked up by the filter too that would make it all work out..I'm no web guru so I don't know for sure.
The point is make it easy enough for parents and schools to set up a firewall or router to filter things and the puritans won't have a reasonable argument to be able to force the rest of the world to censor anything.
Will Robinson wrote:Why the hell can't they just demand sexually explicit material have the suffix .XXX and leave the .com and .org etc. to the rest of the stuff that way parents, or schools, or who ever wants to, could easily filter out anything with a .XXX and we can get on with our lives instead of letting poli-frikken-ticians screw this up too!!!
For the same reason the HPV vaccine seemingly promotes promiscuity.
