Australia plans to introduce web filters

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Teh_K42**

BBC News wrote:

Australia intends to introduce filters which will ban access to websites containing criminal content.

The banned sites will be selected by an independent classification body guided by complaints from the public, said Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

A seven month trial in conjunction with internet service providers found the technology behind the filter to be 100% effective.

However, there has been opposition from some internet users.

Twitter users have been voicing their disapproval by adding the search tag "nocleanfeed" to their comments about the plans.

"Successful technology isn't necessarily successful policy," said Colin Jacobs, a spokesperson for Electronic Frontiers Australia, a non-profit organisation that campaigns for online freedom.

"We're yet to hear a sensible explanation of what this policy is for, who it will help, and why it is worth spending so much taxpayers' money on."

Mr Conroy said the filters included optional extras such as a ban on gambling sites which ISPs could choose to implement in exchange for a grant.

"Through a combination of additional resources for education and awareness, mandatory internet filtering of RC (refused classification)-rated content, and optional ISP-level filtering, we have a package that balances safety for families and the benefits of the digital revolution," he said.

The filter laws will be introduced in parliament in August 2010 and will take a year to implement.

'noble aims'

"Historical attempts to put filters in place have been effective up to a point," Dr Windsor Holden, principal analyst at Juniper Research, told BBC News.

The "noble aims" of the filter could be lost in its implementation, he warned.

"Clearly there is a need to protect younger and more vulnerable users of the net, but one concern is that it won't just be illegal websites that will be blocked," he added.

"You have to take extreme caution in how these things are rolled out and the uses to which they're put."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8413377.stm

I can see what they are trying to achieve (the internet is rather effective at killing innocence) but I can also see this quickly devolving into a mess run by the moral mafia, taking out hits on anything that vaguely indecent on face value.

If they use a light touch and only ban extreme sites and are accountable about what has been banned to the public I might even support it. But I imagine we will have a ham-fisted and a very liberal interpretation of what 'criminal content' is.

What say you, depraved web-junkies of dakka?

**Emperors Faithful**

Aye, save the little ones...

It's too late for me anyway...

**Kilkrazy**

I think it's great that Australia is developing a powerful censorship tool. There are several markets around the world which will pay big money for it, like China, Burma and Saudi Arabia.

**Orkeosaurus**

So people can buy this filter they've developed, and install it into their computers to make sure they don't accidentally go to any websites they don't want to see? That sounds like a great ide- oh wait, no, they're imposing this on everyone. But it's for the children!

Their aims aren't noble enough for this to be a noble failure.

**Kilkrazy**

I also like the plan to subsidise ISPs who filter out unpleasant websites.

It should be pretty easy to build sites automatically by script, in order to ban them for the grant.

**Cane**

I wonder if 4Chan and other forums will be affected by this.

Seems like a wasted effort that could start a slipper slope to a China-esque Internet. Aren't there parenting-locks available already from most ISPs that filters out such content already? Is the law addressing a problem Australia is having - I don't know much about that country period much less their crime rates and their source of info.

Are books like these banned down under too?

**Albatross**

Hmmm... tricky one - they could block access to child porn (which is a plus), but they could also decide to block access to legal porn (:( booo!).

**Kilkrazy**

Any internet site which the independent screening council takes a dislike to will be put on the banned list, so it could easily affect 4chan.

Remember earlier this year the UK Authority For Interfering In Internet Stuff banned Amazon because they have an album cover which has a picture of a naked girl on. It's been on sale since 1975 or something.

**FITZZ**

While I agree that monitoring what your children (and indeed all children) have acess to via the interwebs,I can not condone censorship and the posibility of "slippery slope" politics concerns me.

**Cane**

I'm sure the recording companies and the entertainment industry's lawyers will love this stuff though. Australia just might be the biggest player in the "illegal downloading war".

As a citizen its too close to 1984 and China for comfort. Give me my Anarchist's Cookbook and the choice to access Finalgear.com; a forum for those unfortunate not to live in the UK to download pure episodes of the best show on TV today: Top Gear. BBC America edits out the music, segments, etc and just sucks in comparison to the original.

**Wrexasaur**

Albatross wrote:... but they could also decide to block access to legal porn (:( booo!).

Dear lord, WHY!!! ANSWER ME!!!

**Albatross**

@FITZZ - We have to have SOME censorship (they can't show kiddie porn on breakfast news shows, per ejemplo...) - the difficulty is knowing where to draw the line. I think it is intended to prevent illegal activity (pro-terrorism web-sites, paedo stuff, white power stuff, illegal downloading) - but it IS a slippery slope, for sure.

**FITZZ**

Albatross wrote:@FITZZ - We have to have SOME censorship (they can't show kiddie porn on breakfast news shows, per ejemplo...) - the difficulty is knowing where to draw the line. I think it is intended to prevent illegal activity (pro-terrorism web-sites, paedo stuff, white power stuff, illegal downloading) - but it IS a slippery slope, for sure.

I agree with you concerning the need to monitor/censor/eradicate sights that would exploit children,advocate terrorism and such.
I just have a "knee jerk" reaction when I see these sort of "for public saftey" ideas being brought to the table,maybe I'm just searching for "orwellian overtones",but they always make me a bit wary.

**rubiksnoob**

This is appalling. If I lived in Australia. . . gak would go down between me and the government.

This is the first step on a very slippery slope. The fact that people would even be considering this is terrifying.
Why people feel the need to control other people's lives is completely beyind me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:@FITZZ - We have to have SOME censorship

No. ANY censorship is wrong. If something offends you then don't bother with it. Just because you don't agree with something, or even if the vast majority of people don't agree with something, that is no reason to censor or ban it.

**Albatross**

@Rubiks

OK cool, so Bin Laden should be allowed to advertise on US TV for new terrorists? Child porn should be legal? Animal porn should have a place in mainstream broadcasting?

Do behave.

If a picture of Christ with an erection appeared on US TV, your country would erupt.

**dogma**

rubiksnoob wrote:
No. ANY censorship is wrong. If something offends you then don't bother with it. Just because you don't agree with something, or even if the vast majority of people don't agree with something, that is no reason to censor or ban it.

Yes it is, and has been for some time. When something is censored or banned it doesn't disappear, it just gets harder to find, and therefore easier to ignore. You're essentially yelling at people for doing exactly what you recommend.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
If a picture of Christ with an erection appeared on US TV, your country would erupt.

Shhh...don't reveal the plan.

**Albatross**

Dogma wrote:
If a picture of Christ with an erection appeared on US TV, your country would erupt.

Shhh...don't reveal the plan.

@Dogma - Listening to some Dakkaites, you'd think Obama used it for his campaign-poster!

**rubiksnoob**

@Albatross

I don't think I'm getting my point across.
The government shouldn't be the one to determine what is or is not allowed. Those choices should be up to the individual. If a television network wants to have bin laden ads, good for them but I won't be watching that channel. If something is offensive to you, ignore it.

P.S.
Please don't make sweeping generalisations like that about people's countries. Not everyone in the US are white consevative christians, as many people like to think.

P.P.S.
As an atheist, if a picture of Jesus with a boner popped up on my tv I would probably laugh.

**sebster**

Cane wrote:I'm sure the recording companies and the entertainment industry's lawyers will love this stuff though. Australia just might be the biggest player in the "illegal downloading war".

The more conspiratorial parts of my brain are wondering if this is really all about illegal downloading. Then I remember that the Rudd government are a bunch of wowsers... Either way this sucks.

**Orkeosaurus**

What on earth is a wowser?

**Emperors Faithful**

rubiksnoob: So you're saying that we SHOULD have Child Porn on the evening news?

"And right after the weather, we'll have some bestiality mixed up with three-year-old girls. We should warn you that some, maybe all of our viewers will find this offensive, if so please change the channel."

**Albatross**

Rubiks wrote:I don't think I'm getting my point across.
The government shouldn't be the one to determine what is or is not allowed. Those choices should be up to the individual.

So in your opinion we should legalise Heroin, theft, child Pornography, terrorism and murder - because of 'Choice'? That is effectively what you're saying. Governments exist to govern people - that's what they're for. The amount of individualism you are talking about is unrealistic.

Please don't make sweeping generalisations like that about people's countries. Not everyone in the US are white consevative christians, as many people like to think.

No-one mentioned race, babe. Or Conservativism. The US is an overwhelmingly Christian nation, such an image would offend even moderate christians in any country.

As an atheist, if a picture of Jesus with a boner popped up on my tv I would probably laugh.

Me too. Shhhh.

**rubiksnoob**

I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that anyone controlling anyone else's life is wrong.

Completely different.

**Albatross**

And I'm saying you're a little naive if you believe you have absolute control over your life. Read Althusser.

**darkkt**

Cane wrote:
Are books like these banned down under too?

Books? What be these daemons you call books? We shalt not let the beast of information pierce the protective light of heaven & ignorance cast by our father who art Rudd.

**sebster**

Orkeosaurus wrote:What on earth is a wowser?

Someone who uses their morality to justify ruining other people's fun.

**rubiksnoob**

@Albatross

I would not be opposed to the legalizing of heroin or any other currently illegal drug for that matter. If people want to do crap like that to themselves let them. Personally, I wouldn't but people should be allowed to choose for themselves. I obviosly would be opposed to legalizing murder, theft, etc. Laws are good when they protect people from violating other's rights, such as protecting people from being murdered, stolen from, as those violate your rights to life and property. However if a website contains information that you find offensive then don't visit that website. simple as that. No government interference needed.

**Teh_K42**

rubiksnoob wrote:This is appalling. If I lived in Australia. . . gak would go down between me and the government.

This is the first step on a very slippery slope. The fact that people would even be considering this is terrifying.
Why people feel the need to control other people's lives is completely beyind me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:@FITZZ - We have to have SOME censorship

No. ANY censorship is wrong. If something offends you then don't bother with it. Just because you don't agree with something, or even if the vast majority of people don't agree with something, that is no reason to censor or ban it.

No, not everyone in the U.S. is a conservative christian, but there are a LOT of Christians who, conservative or not, would be outraged at seeing their savior in a sexual context.

The government SHOULD determine what is and is not allowed. That is what it does, and laws it creates should reflect the will of the people. There is a good reason why I can't murder my neighbour on a whim or hire child porn at the local VideoEzy. They are condemned by the vast majority of moral codes we live by.

The censorship is probably a slippery slope that draws comparisons to China, but surely you can't allow open slather forever? We aren't talking about smothering political discussion (although a potential for this abuse may exist), it is concerned with stopping people from reading and seeing things that are abhorrent. About a year ago I met a 14 year old girl who casually mentioned that she uses 4chan.

Woah, ninja'd many times.

**Orkeosaurus**

Teh_K42 wrote:About a year ago I met a 14 year old girl who casually mentioned that she uses 4chan.

Was she hot?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:What on earth is a wowser?

Someone who uses their morality to justify ruining other people's fun.

You'd think with the number of them running around here I'd have known they were called that!

**rubiksnoob**

@ the k42

Unless the government is a complete and total direct democracy, the governemnt should not be in charge of what is or is not allowed, AS IT PERTAINS TO PERSONAL FREEDOM AND CHOICE. I am not saying that they should legalize murder. In the representative democracy that we live in (in the US) Our elected representatives do not always make choices based on what the majority of their constituents want, but based upon their own personal biases.