Censoring Australian Censors' Blacklist 365
steveroehrs writes: "'Your access to the Web is being censored by the Government -- but it refuses to reveal exactly what it is we are not allowed to see.' Despite the attempts of Electronic Frontiers Australia in obtaining a copy of the Australian Internet black-list, the Australian government is still refusing to release the list to the public. This is in stark contrast to the situation for film classification, where the list is freely available. Article here "
Re:How hard would it be... (Score:3, Informative)
It's all just hot air...albeit very expensive hot air.....
In theory ISPs are supposed to offer filtering software at a reduced price to new subscribers, but the subscriber is not forced to use it, and I am unaware of any ISP actually doing it anyway.
The government doesn't care (Score:5, Informative)
However, when the government actually looked at implementing the legislation, they realised that all they could practically do was require ISPs to *offer* commercial filtering software, and for those commercial filtering providers to filter stuff that the classification board deemed offensive. It's not like the Great Firewall of China, people.
In practice, everyone's happy. The government is seen to be doing stuff (thus keeping the wowsers happy), the Bloggs family installs the filtering package on their PC, young Joeseph Bloggs gets around the filtering package, and the rest of us keep downloading porn and bomb recipes totally unencumbered by any filtering software at all :)
I agree that an unenforced bad law is still a bad thing, but it's a hell of a lot nicer than an enforced bad law.
Being an australian... (Score:3, Informative)
1) The government publishes a list containing URLS for child pornography, bomb making, and anti-copyright law propaganda.
2a) Someone asks for the child pornography sites to be unblocked. Police jump on them. Quite rightly.
2b) Someone uses the anti-copyright law website in a campaign for freedom of speech. Quite rightly.
The problem is a complete lack of checks and balances on the governments ability to censor what we watch. In addition, the censorship process in Australia is very dodgy indeed.
So many of our censorship laws were enacted so that the Government could buy off Senator Brian Harradine who held the balance of power in the Senate. Brian Harradine, a Tasmanian senator, has extremely conservative views - vastly different to the mainstream views in australia.
Studies have shown, time and again, that the australian population does not agree with the TV and movie censorship ratings given out. The official classification almost always condones more violence and less sex.
mick
Yes and no (Score:3, Informative)
About 20 years ago, a constitutional referendum to introduce a bill of rights was put up (by the other major party, the Australian Labor Party) and soundly defeated in a referendum.
There are reasonable (in my view, not sufficiently convincing, but credible) arguments to suggest that extensive bills of rights are unnecessary and that regular laws passed by a democratically elected parliament (whose functioning *is* constitutionally protected) are a better safeguard of human rights. Amongst others, it is argued that elected politicians are likely to interpret human rights more in keeping with the electorate's views better than unelected judges, and as views on human rights evolve laws can adapt better than constitutions can.
appealing to the ignorant voters (Score:4, Informative)
for some reason it seems to work well tho (see the basis for the current australian govts recent election win; keeping out illegal immigrants) so im sure it will be a big hit with parents so lacking in parenting skills that instead of thinking that maybe they might possibly need to be the person required to guide their childs internet surfing, they can just sit back and let the govt turn into criminals anyone who wants to display anything the current govt doesnt agree with.
and who can possibly claim to properly be able to regulate what is 'suitable' and what is not? surely not some out-of-touch politicians. it all comes down to a point of view thing. i am tired of being told what to do and what to look at and what i can buy based on rules that are applicable only to 'minors' (i am 24). is there some way of getting a transfer to another planet for people who dont need to be told what to think and what they can look at and what they can do? not that it matters, im sure the site for that particular travel agency is blacklisted as well
'This site is intended for people over 18, but only because kids shoot each other if they hear the word "fuck"' (seanbaby.com)
(btw, to all you other aussies out there who missed out on GTA3, order it from a UK games site, mine only took 7 days to get here, and it all up cost about the same as it would have to get it from here. but im sure you all knew that anyway)
Re:I think the point has been missed here.. (Score:2, Informative)
2. The government banned the books by threatening the bookstores if they carried them. The australian address in question is the PUBLISHER (who has also been sued for defamation and such for publishing these books). They were very briefly available in bookstores (which is when I found Vic. Policce Corruption Vols 1&2), and then disappeared without trace.
3. The site desperately needs to be edited for layout, clarity, badd speling, and grammer. I think its obvious that they mean 'pay us in Australian Dollars, or in US dollars to an equivalent amount as per the current exchange rate
Re:Timothy complaining about censorship (Score:1, Informative)
Is that true? And which very-famous post?
This one: [slashdot.org]
Moderation Totals: Offtopic=213, Flamebait=4, Troll=25, Redundant=3, Insightful=57, Interesting=123, Informative=29, Funny=7, Overrated=9, Underrated=40, Total=510.
It's currently at +4, just watch how fast it goes back down to -1, once the censors^H^H^H editors find out about it again.
Re:The Australian government has a bad track recor (Score:2, Informative)
Your use of the misnomer "illegal immigrant" makes it pretty clear that you've swallowed the rhetoric that our Immigration minister spouts at every opportunity. He knows that demonising these people in this way strikes a chord with the large numbers of Australians who need someone to blame for their misery. As far as he is concerned, it's better that unhappy Australians blame their problems on a bunch of faceless, voiceless, suffering people who they don't understand, than on his government. Who do you think is most responsible for your problems?
These people are not illegal immigrants, they are asylum seekers. They are fleeing their own country because they fear for their lives. Is this a situation that you have ever had to face? How do you think you would deal with it?
Australia is a voluntary signatory to the UN's 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Because of this, Australia is obliged under international law to offer support to those fitting the (very specific) definition of a refugee.
If you still don't accept this, how do you suggest that these asylum seekers obtain "legal" entry into Australia? We don't have any diplomatic presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. The queue that they are supposedly jumping does not exist.
I certainly think that my taxes are better spent helping these people than on a pointless attempt to censor the Internet.
I'm happy to discuss this topic with you further, if you like, but off-site [mailto]. It's getting way off topic.
Back on topic...
Yes, I realise it would be technically difficult to implement a national filter to effectively censor the web content available to Australians, and that there would always be ways arounds it. But surely that doesn't mean that a partially-effective solution could be implemented. Australia only has a finite number of ISPs, and a handful service the majority of the market.
You may not be aware that by law, Australian telecommunications companies are required [austlii.edu.au] to provide government agencies with the ability to intercept communications. I have worked for a large Australian telephone company, and I know that various law enforcement agencies use this provision on a very regular basis.
Given that:
- the government has the legal ability to force carriers to intercept communications; and
- I know they regularly use this ability to intercept telephone calls
I'm not willing to discount the possibility that they're not doing this to some extent with Internet content. I'm not insisting that they are doing this, I'm just not as certain as you that they're not. The fact that they're not willing to be transparent with their blacklist certainly doesn't make me feel any better.explaining it carefully. (Score:3, Informative)
The last moderation, which took it to 5, was "funny". The other preceeding moderations were not for "funny". Of course, it has been down moderated since then. Now, as to why:
Australia, where there are aussies, sometimes pronounced "auzzies", is sometimes called the land of OZ [google.com] by Australians.
You then have this line:
This almost sounds like a version of the land of OZ where the wicked witch never died.
which must have tickled someone funny bone. A bit of dry humor which requires a certain amount of familiarity with the venacular given above.
So there were several moderations done, including one for humor, and several by humorless folks who thought that the +5 meant that everyone had said it was funny. Which is a bug in the moderation system
[shrug]
and now you know.
No real banning... (Score:2, Informative)
From The Age [theage.com.au] Under the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill, the public will be able to lodge complaints about offensive material with the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which will have the power to direct Internet service providers to remove it or face hefty criminal penalties.
As quoted from Australian Personal Computer [apcmag.com] The government has a rather interesting interpretation of 'success' when it comes to Internet censorship. When the first (decidedly rubbery) figures on the Internet censorship scheme were released a mere nine months after it started, officials decreed that a system which had only managed to identify and shut down 62 'offending' sites was an outstanding success. When APC did a quick check using a search engine, we found roughly 7 million potentially offensive sites. Drop in the ocean anyone?
What's worse about this is the laws were passed to gain the support of two independant senators so that the government could press ahead with the second sale of Telstra. (Telstra is the federally owned telco company, of which the government has sold 49% of). 62 sites, most of which hosted porn without AVS controls, or bomb-making instructions, isn't something to get up-in-arms (excuse the pun) about.