This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Internet Filtering: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

Jump to new
The international concern about Australia's proposed censorship of the internet is growing.

We've had the US State Department expressing their concern to Senator Conroy's department (Conroy, astonishingly, denied any knowledge of this in the radio programme I linked to earlier), and now Reporters Without Borders have condemned it.

The following item appeared on both "Asia Pacific" and Radio National's "Breakfast" today:

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/stories/201003/s2860663.htm
 
WOW!! Thats gotta be a record in both participation and one sidedness.
 

Attachments

  • Filter poll.jpg
    18 KB · Views: 115
lakemac said:
Here we have a government minister vehmently FORCING a MANDATORY filter into your lives that will block websites, forums, emails about anything that such zealots deem to be something you should not read or think about.
Click to expand...


If the following statement by Sen. Conroy is true then there is nothing threatening to an individuals internet content access. The only problem I foresee is if keywords are used to block content and everything associated that is morally, legally or naturally correct is also blocked.

CONROY: And what we have indicated that we will block is "refused classification" content, material that is not currently available in a newsagents, in a bookstore, on a DVD, or at the movies or on your television.
Click to expand...
 

So Wysiwyg you will happily let the minister or some unknown bureaucrat dictate without any transparency all the information you can access?

We aren't talking kiddie pr0n here, we are talking every bit & byte you request.
 
Trembling Hand said:
So Wysiwyg you will happily let the minister or some unknown bureaucrat dictate without any transparency all the information you can access?
Click to expand...

The content Sen. Conroy is looking at is presently blocked from the public of Australia now. Is there any evidence of content not mentioned below which will be blocked?

CONROY: And what we have indicated that we will block is "refused classification" content, material that is not currently available in a newsagents, in a bookstore, on a DVD, or at the movies or on your television.
Click to expand...
 
Wysiwyg said:
The content Sen. Conroy is looking at is presently blocked from the public of Australia now. Is there any evidence of content not mentioned below which will be blocked?
Click to expand...

YES

This site for one example of many because its deemed "distasteful".

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page

But that is one of the main points. You will NEVER know because its anonymous. Are you are happy for the government to make decisions without any scrutiny? Do you really belief that they should be able to make a list of stuff that they deem you shouldn't have access with no way of knowing?
 

I think it best slip a choker chain around this internet filtering project and pull tight at the next election if the filtering goes beyond what they state.
 
Wysiwyg have you EVER known a government to stop at just what they say they are going to do?

Governments and their legislation creep. Today's black list is tomorrows thought control.

The key as I keep hounding is why is this filter MANDATORY rather than optional?

It is not about "illegal" content (however you define that. We have laws that prosecute the serious criminal offenses. Having a black list that can have anything anyone with enough clout wants put on there is very very dangerous.

Again I point to the way Conroy is so determined to get this implemented - a portent for what is likely to come if it ever gets put in place. If he is this rabid about it imagine what he and his type will be like once they have us in their grasp.

THERE WILL BE NO TURNING BACK.

Sam76 - you may find it is a rounding effect on those numbers. If you have 45,000 votes all voting no, even a small number of yes or undecided will not show up in a percentage that is not shown to more than 1 decimal place.
 
The thing is even before we consider the issue of censorship the question needs to be raised will the filter actually work?
The answer is No, most child pr0n is shared by underground groups via peer to peer,email,newsgroups. And even if it was available on a web page a proxy server would get around this but these kiddie fiddlers wont risk putting content on web pages as this can be traced. The trouble is the average internet user thinks the net simply consists of the world wide web, believing that once Conroy hits the switch WE HAVE SAVED THE CHILDREN.
I really believe if the coalition oppose this proposed legislation it will be a real vote winner.
 
lakemac said:
Wysiwyg have you EVER known a government to stop at just what they say they are going to do?

Governments and their legislation creep. Today's black list is tomorrows thought control.
Click to expand...

Crime has always been and will always be. Unfortunately for the righteous, certain restrictions of personal freedoms are imposed to combat crime. Why aren't the authorities locating the illegal website owners and prosecuting?

But the concern here goes beyond crime and into the moral arena. Let's uphold good morals and create a better society.
 
What does morals have to do with the government taking away your freedom?

Do you think the Jews in Auschwitz were immoral? Maybe some of them were, but does that mean that 4 million others had to lose their freedom and ultimately die because some oppressive regime decided they didn't like what they stood for?

Ordinary Germans gave up their basic rights under the "brown shirts" of the Nazi party. The Chinese don't have the right to view "controversial" information because their government is oppressive. North Koreans are denied basic rights such as food because of a government that controls EVERTHING they can and can't do, see, hear and almost think. Most North Koreans are brain washed because of it.

Again I am not against filtering.
I am against an oppressive government putting in place what could become a tool to suppress ideas they deem I should not be able to read and/or see.

The State is about control. Be extremely worried when the State becomes rabid in trying to implement something to stop you thinking. They are trying to control you. They will dress it up using some platitude or concern of the day only to take it much further than you ever imagined it would go.

If you decide to give up your freedom to have the illusion of freedom consider this: prisoners in jail have the best security around them - yet they have no freedom.

Me - I choose freedom and with it, personal responsibility.

Those that are for MANDATORY government filtering must, by definition, wish to control other people. They are as much part of a Fascist thought process as the government. They cannot and will not think for themselves. They have already given up their freedom and refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions, preferring the nanny state to look after them.

To those who want or are uncertain about mandatory filtering, I say commit a crime and go to jail - the nanny state will look after you there and you will certainly have security and you will get your internet really well filtered ,along with your mail, personal belongings, meals etc etc etc.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance - Thomas Jefferson.
 
"I predict future happiness for a people if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Click to expand...
Slightly misquoted Thomas Jefferson.
 
Presumably if legislation is passed for this, ISP's will be forced to apply the filter?

Any point in lobbying our ISP's not to participate? Has anyone already done this? What response?

Wysiwyg: don't ever trust what a politician says, especially someone like Senator Conroy. Remember that there are religious zealouts like Jim Wallace from the Christian Lobby (or some such name) behind Conroy et al and they wield considerable influence.

When you have religious beliefs dictating formation of public policy, we are very much at risk.

There's a political risk in opposing this for the Opposition, in that the government will be quick to label them 'unwilling to protect our innocent children" and more nonsense like that.
 

I agree with this, Julia. Extreme religious beliefs are usually very controlling - seems to be a power thing.

I am strongly in support of protecting our kids from predators, but I'm not convinced this proposed legislation will do much, if anything, to protect them. Hopefully the opposition can counter any accusations of this nature by pointing out the obvious that the proposed legislation is unlikely to stop these types of predators.

Thanks for the links that have been posted and well done to those keeping this thread alive. Have done my bit of voting & emailing to voice my protest...
 
which is why you need to distill the issue down to MANDATORY vs OPTIONAL.

Protecting "innocent" children is and should always be the personal responsibility of their parents.

Parents that abbrogate that responsibilty (effectively givin it to the nanny state) should, imho, be charged with neglect.

And as anyone that has ever been a ward of the state or kept up with the news surrounding so called "state care" would know, the State makes a very very very poor substitute parent. Often far worse crimes are committed against children that are in or have been in the care of the state or religious institutions.

Tell your senators and federal member to stick to the issue at hand. Just remind them the state does a very poor job of "taking care of children".
 
Julia, the more they tinker with it, the more ludicrous it becomes. Conroy is up to his third revision now. It is just becoming silly:

  • Optional blocking tier (optional for both ISPs and Internet users):
    The Government will encourage ISPs to block additional content as requested by households, but this will not be mandatory.
    For those families that wish to have a wider range of material filtered, including possibly X18+ [pornography] and gambling sites, the Government will establish a grants program encourage ISPs to offer these services on a commercial and optional basis.

    As at March 2010 the Government has not stated whether the optional tier will involve blocking of only specific URLs
You know, I'm worried about my kids stumbling on pr0n sites. We had a kid at our primary school who had passed on a note to another kid to go to an easily accessible you tube equivalent pr0n site. But that is our responsibility as parents to prevent this, use filters and educate children as to what is acceptable online behaviour and what is appropriate.


A mandatory filter, is not only objectionable from a liberty viewpoint, but seems to circuit around the idea of what its trying to do without ultimately doing very much at all, save denting our liberties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Australia secretly censors Wikileaks Internet censorship list
Replies
2
Views
5K
doctorj
A
Proposed New Website Blocking Laws
Replies
4
Views
4K
Kimosabi
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...