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 "
This seems a bit obvious... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, if they reveal the list, everyone will start second-guessing their judgements. Anyone can tell you that any slight lack of confidence on behalf of the people is very bad for people in the government. With some people out there, give them a slight reason, and you'll see pipe bombs coming through your front window.
If only there were a way for the government to publish the list without getting themselves deeper in the alligator pit, they would likely do it. But until then, I fear they're SOL.
I may not like our government, but I am thankful for what I have here in the US...
.
Re:Fascist? (Score:1, Interesting)
Can you say censorship?
I knew you could
The Parallels are sooo obvious.. (Score:0, Interesting)
The irony here is just ridiculous.
I assume... (Score:2, Interesting)
Government censorship is fascist (Score:4, Interesting)
It's obvious that the reason they are keeping the blacklist secret is because they are afraid of public scrutiny and backlash against it. No doubt, like virtually all censorware, they have censored many sites that clearly oughtn't be censored. Australia is not as bad as China, but is certainly working in the same direction.
Censorship accomplishes nothing, and does so at a very high cost: your freedom. Regardless, the government can't stop you from viewing what you want on the net, and there are countless ways to circumvent any censorship. The average computer literate 10 year old could probably bypass australia's censorshp.
-Tuxinatorium
Ineffectual hot air , no real impact (Score:5, Interesting)
My guess is that the government is too embarrassed to show how pitifully few sites have been taken down for the money expended
You need to remember that Alston et all are only really interested in pandering to the popular press, and not in actually making any real changes.
As far as I can make out, I still have unrestricted access to everything I have ever had
i saw this because:
I have NOT been forced to install blocking software
My ISP is not running blocking software (nor any others to my knowledge
If the ABA has taken down a site, I'm sure it's just popped up again overseas
It's probably just more boring pr0n anyway ..
ho , hum , back to work...
How hard would it be... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the point has been missed here.. (Score:5, Interesting)
They do not filter incoming content, They just shut down those sites within the countries borders that, in effect are breaking the law (Kiddy porn etc..)..
How effective that is, well, thats another debate.
But at least this way there is some accountablilty for what these people put on the net.
There has (to date) been no policlitical/anti govt. sites closed down that I am aware of.
Perhaps the government... (Score:4, Interesting)
The censorship laws were a joke when first proposed - a joke that could damage Australian content providers, but which could have little or no impact on Australian's access to illegal materials. At the recent ACIS 2001 [scu.edu.au] conference, a paper was give (full text available [scu.edu.au] as pdf) arguing that the whole thing was pointless as far as pornographic sites were concerned, as they were all offshore already (due, in part, to expansive hosting on Australian servers) and therefore outside of Australia's juristiction.
I can only think of two good reasons for not releasing this material - they fear that examination of the material will show that many of the sites should not have been blacklisted (as per peacefire's work), or that they fear it will show how ineffective the legislation is.
Re:Timothy complaining about censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The paradox of government secrets... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Rosenbergs were executed after a trial in which the US Govt used selected parts of intercept evidence. The parts that indicated that the wife probably had no knowledge of the spying were suppressed.
At the last military tribunal to be held in the US the government claimed that the saboteurs had been caught by surveilance methods they had to keep secret. In fact two of the sabotage team went to the FBI within hours of landing and tried to turn themselves in, only to not be believed. The military tribunal was arranged so that the administration did not look stupid for giving Hoover a medal for his detective work.
Re:The government doesn't care (Score:2, Interesting)
For an example where this power has already been used, have a look at Raymond Hoser's website [smuggled.com]. Strident, I know, and he could use some pointers on HTML and page design, but the story is the same. He published a book on Wildlife smuggling, and the collusion and corruption he found in the NSW wildlife service, and was hounded out of NSW. He later, as a result of his experiences as a Taxi driver in Melbourne, wrote 'Victorian Police Corruption' Vols 1 and 2. As a result of these books
I can't help thinking how the blacklisting of the list (and any information on punitive actions taken, from warnings to charges), serves mainly to hide the exact proportion of kiddy-pr0n vs real political dissent.
Hey, maybe I'm just paranoid, and The Government really is just here to help us (by telling us what it is too dangerous to be allowed to read). But I doubt
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
The responses to this article... (Score:3, Interesting)
The responses I have seen fall mainly into these groups:
I think we can ignore number 5. As for the others;
2. There is no filter. As several people have pointed out, this legislation is to provide for the prosecution of ISPs for hosting a site which is mentioned on the blacklist. There is no consultation. And, as the list is itself censored, there is no appeal.
1. It also means that the public who is funding these actions, and are directly affected by them are forbidden from finding out a] what is being done in their name, and b] how effective it has been in eliminating the societal bane of being able to look at nekkid ladies.
3. Kudos to these people. Sometimes, you can be paranoid and they're out to get you.
4. Yes they have. Raymond Hoser's site [smuggled.com] may not be the prettiest, but deserves to be looked at for what he is trying to say. (just try to ignore the ugly banners and flashing GIFs.)
Refer also to my reply to point 2. When we don't know what has been gone after, how the hell can we turn around and say "but they haven't gone after any political sites!" What is the evidence for this? More to the point where is the evidence? In that file, and the most likely explanations for its censorship are either a] reflexive beaurocratic obstructionist B.S. or b] the protection and hiding of potentially sensitive or incriminating evidence.
As I said before, Sometimes you are paranoid, sometimes they really are out to get you. How are we supposed to tell which is true when the official government line is "keep doing what you have been doing. If it is illegal, we (might) tell you."
Freeflow of information (Score:2, Interesting)
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal,
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
I believe these words have a glimmer of truth in them. Unfortunately, in the western world I see the signs of an increasing desire to collect and conceal information from the public.
Isn't it ironic... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Timothy complaining about censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, answer #1 - I'm quite sure that posts don't go to -2 and get deleted. The only posts that have been deleted were at the behest of Scientologists and Microsoft (and in the latter I'm not even sure if
As for mod points, I have no idea. The instant I signed up my account a few years back the first thing I did was sign myself as unwilling to moderate.
And lastly regarding the whole offtopic conundrum, here is a solution. Allow posters to check a box (right by the "post anonymously" and "no +1 bonus" if they have it) that marks their post as a "Tangent". Tangents are *immune* to "offtopic" moderation. They can still be modded down as trolls and flamebait and such, but cannot be offtopic. Then, one of the widgets for each and every
Just my two cents though.
Oh and if a moderator just happens to read this, do consider modding it up. I realize that'd be the not-norm for the situation these days, but I for one think I have an interesting idea (yes I realize I'm obviously not exactly objective) and would like more people to read it.