I don't know how effective the AFP is, but that's a sensible suggestion.Why not just pass the sites to the AFP & let them monitor the people who access it & punish them like the way law enforcement is meant to work.
They seem to be pretty effective capturing them so far.
Regards
It will be interesting to see how Stephen Conroy attemps to dismiss it.Vote at The Age
33000 + people say no so far (96%)
gotta be the biggest response I have seen on an online poll
http://www.theage.com.au/polls/tech...s/internet-censorship/20100330-r9ft.html#poll
It will be interesting to see how Stephen Conroy attemps to dismiss it.
I don't know how effective the AFP is, but that's a sensible suggestion.
If the funds allocated for the filter were to be devoted to policing, I'd be surprised if they were not way more effective.
Has the filtering begun yet as I am experiencing nothing abnormal while searching for information or pleasure on the internet?
Certainly they would be. So let's give them some prompting to vote appropriately.If the Coalition vote in favour of this in the Senate then they are as bad as the ALP on this issue.
If the Coalition vote in favour of this in the Senate then they are as bad as the ALP on this issue.
I still found the preview/trailer of 1984 on youtube with the 'Sex Crime' soundtrack song by The Eurythmics. How ironic is that???But when I tried to watch the whole version on youtube the sex scenes were deleted. WTF??? Wasn't that the whole point of the movie??? Of course not, the point of the movie was......
'censorship'.
It's unlikely that all our bleating on this forum will make any difference.
What could make the difference, however, is the refusal of the Liberal Party (the Greens definitely won't endorse it) to allow this legislation to get through the Senate.
Let's send those representations to the Shadow Minister for Communications.
In the time it would take to make a post on this thread, you can send a clearly worded objection to the filter to the Shadow Minister.
#
* FOLLOW ON TWITTER
* YOUTUBE VIDEOS
Tony Smith
Tony Smith is the Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. From January to December, 2007, Tony was Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in the Howard Government. Tony was first elected to the House of Representatives for Casey, Victoria in 2001.
Contact Details
Office:
Suite One
1 East Ridge Drive
Chirnside Park, VIC 3116
Phone:
(03) 9727 0799
Email:
tony.smith.mp@aph.gov.au
Web:
http://www.tonysmithmp.com/
COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN
by Paul Budde
Posted 30 Mar 2010 6:51 AM
Is the free internet in jeopardy?
The venerated BBC World Service recently commissioned a poll involving more than 27,000 people across 26 countries. The findings are unremarkable: some 87 per cent of internet users believe that internet access should be a basic right, and more than 70 per cent of non-users believe that they should have access to it.
Depending on your country, the internet has been available for ten years or more, and for individuals – at least in the developed world – it has since become ingrained in psyches as an essential commodity, akin to access to fixed-line telephony, electricity and potable water. For a growing number, the internet is essential for work, for a greater number it is the first port of call for problem solving and information (Wiki and online Yellow pages come to mind) or getting things done (banking, finding out timetables for travel, etc). Most governments, too, now take the internet as a key component of infrastructure, crucial to a nation’s future socio-economic potential.
Businesses will have to listen to their customers and the message is loud and clear: they are not prepared to pay unless they are convinced there is an added value. People like Rupert Murdoch might not like this, but there is no way back from the models that are set by the users and followed by successful internet media companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, etcetera. The proposed charges to News Limited newspapers such as The Times and the Sunday Times are certainly not in line with that customer sentiment. Bluntly charging for news without following models that the users have clearly indicated they are interested in – example. free content and paid for certain information after that, or particular bundles with certain products and services will prove to be an uphill battle even for a media mogul like Murdoch.
And governments will have to listen to their voters too. A decade’s experience and use of the service has enabled a growing number of governments to manhandle the potential dangers of hacking, fraud and privacy as a means to tighten the screws on their own control of access, and of their nationals’ use of it. This is rightly opposed by the users themselves, over half of whom surveyed for the BBC believing that no government should be empowered to regulate the internet.
In Europe, the ‘three strikes rule’ threatens to become more fashionable, following measures first proposed in France: there, the Création et Internet Bill failed in 2009 when France’s Conseil Constitutionnel ruled that it leaned too much to ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and that it threatened major sanctions (internet disconnection and a national blacklist on access) without judicial oversight. Nevertheless, the government shoehorned the Bill a second time, which this month came before the National Assembly for debate.
The Bill proposes that the scheme be administered by a newly formed group called HADOPI. ISPs notified about alleged file-sharing would be required to send an e-mail to the customer involved, a registered letter at the second alleged offence and, for a third offence, terminate access for up to a year. A database managed by HADOPI could presumably prevent blocked users from switching ISPs.
Italy looks like adopting a similar approach. Having in 2009 sued the Swedish The Pirate Bay site and attempted to force ISPs to block access to its content, the more recent charging of Google executives with criminal charges resulting from YouTube content denotes a government leaning towards authoritarianism regarding the Internet. The Italian three-strikes proposal would be complemented by a requirement that all blogs register with the government.
In the UK, meanwhile, the government is pushing through its controversial Digital Economy Bill, which proposes empowering regulators to disconnect or slow down internet connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Amendments to the Bill passed this month at the report stage at the House of Lords before its third and final reading in the House of Commons, could in theory force sites such as YouTube which host copyright-infringing material to be blocked or forced offline. The UK’s three-strikes rule is similar in its essentials to those of France and the UK, with disconnection following two warnings.
At the European Union level, the European Parliament was initially critical of the three-strikes schemes, largely due to the absence of judicial review. However, this month the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was put forward for debate between the US, the EC, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Canada and Mexico. Aimed at preventing online counterfeiting, it threatens to punish ISPs for content delivered.
Polls show the sincerity of popular regard for a free internet, and suggest that to tackle piracy other solutions than blocking ISPs and throwing citizens offline should be considered. Until they are considered, citizens should, as always, be vigilant about what their governments are legislating, lest they find themselves with a thoroughly policed internet far removed from what they now know it to be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?