The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Australian Government to impose mandatory nationalwide internet filtering
burntheladle
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This is something I've only found out about recently, when it popped up as an article in my rss feeder - Australia's Great Firewall.
I did a bit of digging about, and found No Clean Feed, An article on this issue by Danu Poyner, and it's also been covered extensively on Somebody Think of the Children.
Essentially, the newly elected Labour Government (which is our left leaning major party - little l liberals) proposed a plan where there would be an "opt-out" internet filter, operating at ISP level, to stop children accessing inappriopriate materials. Such as porn. I'm a little unclear as to whether this is meant to be a filter or a blacklist, as government spokespeople seem to use the terms fairly interchangably.
What is only just coming out, however, is that there will be a second blacklist, which is not opt-out, which will stop adults accessing "illegal" material. Such as porn. ISPs will be forced to enforce this, and there will be no way around it (apart from all the ways around it - proxies and so forth, which is an issue the goverment has so far completely failed to address).
There has been very little coverage of this second blacklist, and when it has been mentioned it is mentioned in the context of this first list. The common response to opposition of the plan seems to be of two varieties:
1) We have to protect the children!
and
2) If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.
Apart from the fact that your government is trying to insitute a system which will control what you can see online and is refusing to offer any transparency about what will actually be filtered. So far, there is just a lot of throwing the word "illegal" around, but no indication of what they're actually talking about. Porn? Music/video piracy? Websites discussing euthanasia?
There is also the fact that 2/3rds of Australian households with a broadband connection do not actually have children under the age of fifteen, so it seems a little overkill to demand that all households have a filter in place to protect these children.
There are other issues, such as the way in which this will cripple small ISPs, dramatically slow down our (already shithouse) internet speeds, and the fact that it just isn't feasable but the Government wants to do it anyway, but they seem secondary to the frightening idea that the Australian Government really thinks they should have control of what we can access on the internet.
If you're an Australian, and you didn't know about this, please think about it. If it bothers you, please contact your local MP, and tell other people so they can think about it as well.
If you're not an Australian, you might want to keep an eye on how this goes down. We're meant to be a liberal democracy. If it can happen here...
I did a bit of digging about, and found No Clean Feed, An article on this issue by Danu Poyner, and it's also been covered extensively on Somebody Think of the Children.
Essentially, the newly elected Labour Government (which is our left leaning major party - little l liberals) proposed a plan where there would be an "opt-out" internet filter, operating at ISP level, to stop children accessing inappriopriate materials. Such as porn. I'm a little unclear as to whether this is meant to be a filter or a blacklist, as government spokespeople seem to use the terms fairly interchangably.
What is only just coming out, however, is that there will be a second blacklist, which is not opt-out, which will stop adults accessing "illegal" material. Such as porn. ISPs will be forced to enforce this, and there will be no way around it (apart from all the ways around it - proxies and so forth, which is an issue the goverment has so far completely failed to address).
There has been very little coverage of this second blacklist, and when it has been mentioned it is mentioned in the context of this first list. The common response to opposition of the plan seems to be of two varieties:
1) We have to protect the children!
and
2) If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.
Apart from the fact that your government is trying to insitute a system which will control what you can see online and is refusing to offer any transparency about what will actually be filtered. So far, there is just a lot of throwing the word "illegal" around, but no indication of what they're actually talking about. Porn? Music/video piracy? Websites discussing euthanasia?
There is also the fact that 2/3rds of Australian households with a broadband connection do not actually have children under the age of fifteen, so it seems a little overkill to demand that all households have a filter in place to protect these children.
There are other issues, such as the way in which this will cripple small ISPs, dramatically slow down our (already shithouse) internet speeds, and the fact that it just isn't feasable but the Government wants to do it anyway, but they seem secondary to the frightening idea that the Australian Government really thinks they should have control of what we can access on the internet.
If you're an Australian, and you didn't know about this, please think about it. If it bothers you, please contact your local MP, and tell other people so they can think about it as well.
If you're not an Australian, you might want to keep an eye on how this goes down. We're meant to be a liberal democracy. If it can happen here...
What would Zombie Pirate LeChuck Do?
burntheladle on
0
Posts
Anyway, now that is out of the way, do you have any sources other than blogs and whatnot on this? I can't find any mainstream media sources on this, so I'd be inclined to say this is possibly some alarmist bullshit.
Are you sure they won't give out packages that can be bought based on family structures?
And I want to use the word 'liberal' for the same reason Americans do. Liberal Party are the far right conservative wackos.
Although, I could be wrong - it is not something I've followed intensely.
EDIT: Actually, Ars Technica did an article on it a while ago, IIRC, but they said it would be largely ineffective, which can be found here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081016-net-filters-required-for-all-australians-no-opt-out.html
Also, the adult ratings only don't exist because of one solitary dickhead senator from SA. The mixers policy I can't argue with, though :P
My bad.
Goddamnit.
Good on the Liberal Party for defending the rights of teenage girls (and boys) everywhere to binge on high-alcoholic sweet drinks. They have their priorities set straight.
This government seems to be making a whole lot of interesting decisions very quickly, ranging from the extremely good to the extremely bad to the extremely stupid. I think this would fall in the extremely stupid pile. The enjoyable thing about this government is the fact that it doesn't have control over the senate (which i think was Howards downfall), which means that this rubbish hopefully won't be passed. All it takes is Fielding to side with the Liberals to kill it so we should be alright.
Also the 78% reduction in internet speed is incredibly poor considering our internet speed is already comparably shit.
I cant bring myself to get involved though. I feel like I should become more actively involved in lobbying Government, but over protecting internet speeds? It just seems a little flippant and self-interested. Surely there are better causes to get behind.
There is also the Computer World article, which isn't a great mainstream media source. I'm having trouble finding great mainstream media sources because Australia doesn't have a very good mainstream media.
There is fairly extensive coverage on the website of Electronic Frontiers Australia , although this is mainly relating to the "opt-out" filter.
Porn is a really interesting issue in Australia, because in most places it is illegal to sell porn, in a few places it is illegal to buy porn, but it doesn't actually seem to be illegal to possess porn. So it's fairly unclear as to how porn actually fits in with the "illegal" material that this blacklist is meant to be targeting. If porn isn't the target, that pretty much just leaves video/music piracy as things that the government can say they're targeting - and this seems seriously overkill just for that.
Australia already gives out free internet filtering software to parents who ask for it.
And I'm not exactly viewing this as inevitable. There are a lot of things that Rudd says he will do that don't seem to get done, not to mention it really just isn't practical to implement. I've emailed the Senator who is pushing for this, I've emailed my local MP, and I've been passing this stuff on to people at my university (and the vast majority of people I've spoken to had no idea that this was even on the table).
o_O It's not as if you are limited to only ever supporting one cause.
This is the stupidest argument for or against something I have heard in a long time. What precisely were you attempting to accomplish by posting it? Were you just sniping to be a jerk, or do you actually think that this was a good attempt at debate? I just, my mind boggles.
man, everyone I know who isn't fully employed is buying bargain spirits and home-mixing, which is so much more dangerous than getting a set (fairly low) dose per bottle.
Also much easier to roofie up
Also, you know, freedom.
Wait, so you didn't mix drinks at home before?
Over here it's kind of a thing. The only people I know who don't are teetotalers.
I think the common factor is the government's trying to make decisions stupidly fast, which leads to variable outcomes and lots of backtracking when they fuck up. Censorship and FIO issues are getting bigger here across the board, thankfully. Its the one field of discussion where you're really strongly reminded that this country used to be a prison and that some attitudes stuck...
I don't really have a problem with the alcopop tax, but the focus on protecting girls explicitly kinda wierds me out. It seems a bit patriarchal: If men are responsible for the vast majority of social problems stemming from binge drinking, why all this talk of protecting girls? Sorry for tangent.
That fully reflects the attitude of most young libs I know, god to see the party is reflecting the will of its younger branch.
Seriously this whole filter will just be a massive sink of money and at worst a lag fest for the country.
If the government was serious about net security it'd be educating the kiddies about the dangers of perverts in hello kitty chat rooms and how to steer clear of them just like the safety campaigns about road/water precautions etc etc.
Thats pretty much the most effective protective the government can give without banning the net.
What the fuck happened to the governments position of improving our broadband system?
I think its just the perception that teenage boys drink beer, teenage girls drink alco pops (and i don't need to point out why targeting beer would be bad).
Anyway, aussies are largely lazy, although plenty of people mixed at home before this. Premixed's were popular among youngun's (and the rest of us) because they were convenient. I'm not a fan unless I'm, yes, lazy, and feeling like a G'n'T, but the campaign against them was pure moral panic and a grab for cash from the government. The stated effect of their policy was to reduce teen alcohol consumption, but its done exactly the opposite, which is bad.
What makes you think Fielding doesn't want this? This falls right into Family First - they are protecting the children, and at the same time, they are stopping adults from accessing things they don't think adults should have access too.
From what I've gathered, and I'm not too clear on Fielding or Family First so I'm not sure how accurate what I've been reading is, this is something that Fielding wants, and is meant to entice him to help Labor pass other things that he's not so keen on. I'm not entirely sure on that one, but I certainly can't see any reason for Fielding to block this.
Its pretty closely related; yes the policy was sexist as well. That's a common thread in booze control by government though, the QLD gov't are currently running ads that effectively blame girls for getting raped while drunk. The ads say 'don't give your female children alcohol in case they get raped', when it should logically be 'don't give your sons booze, they might rape someone', since its not like women get raped by fucking elves.
angryangryangry
True, but he did help block the alcopops thing and that was also 'protecting the children' garbage.
I was reading a bit of an article on Fielding the other day, seems like hes not as hardcore as his party, far more moderate (supports abortion etc) and tried to make another third party with Tim Costello.
Makes you wish for the glory days of Jo-Bjelke Peterson right?
Really.
What.
man, do you know he tried the 'sieze medical records of women who had abortions so as to harass them' trick like twenty years before that asshole Phil Klein (former Texas AG)? Dude was a pioneer of bastardry.
Are you also angry when they tell you to stay in groups when there's a murderer around? The awareness of drinking is like a self-defense course: nobody's going to blame you for not getting one, but it might come in handy if you have some really bad luck.
I must say that it would be kind of cool to be the government porn assessor for a living.
I'd say the culture of male drinking is too entrenched in Australia for any political party to tackle head on. How much money does the Labor party make from pubs and clubs? What percentage of working class men -courted by both Labor and the Libs- drink heavily? It'll never happen. So instead they make this song and dance over impositions on 'youth drinks' and 'girls drinks', which I imagine are only a tiny part of the problem. Damn kids- stop drinking alcopops on my lawn!!!
You remember the last rape thread we had? There was a lot of toying with how "it's not blame, exactly, but like..you know...shared responsibility or some such"(I don't remember the exact words.). So, that should be.."Nobody blames a rape victim........except on the PA forums!"
Anyway, on topic, this is one of the worst ideas of internet filtering policy I've heard, I don't know what should make you Aussies madder, that they are actually pushing such a blatant "censorship" law or that they plan to spend money on something that has 0 chance of working for anybody who actually cares to sidestep it.
If no one does, what are you so worried about?
reported for trolling
Places that DO that generally are ran by mustacchio'd people. Beards, too. I'm looking at you, Iran. Actually I can name 10 countries where women are oficially blamed for being raped, and that's only because I don't want to look up how many there really are.
Basically, democracy and human rights were a fad in the 20th century, but face it folks, the world is moving on. And women are always the first victims.
Seriously, I just responded to a post from you saying this is a case of something by saying that I don't think it is, and you immediately respond by swearing and saying that my point, that this is not a case of something, by saying that nothing is a case of that something, which I'm under the impression should be a point for me.
Given the huge slap this would give to our nets I cant see this going through. (I have freinds still on dialup slow down for them would be like trying to connect to the net using a banna instead of a modem.) I cant see this going anywhere. However I never credited any government anywhere with an abudance of sence.
edit:
Mabye Im just sleep deprived but Bwuh? o_O