iiNet Pulls Out of Australian Censorship Trial

taucross writes "ISP iiNet today confirmed its exit from the Australian government's Internet filtering trials. iiNet had originally taken part in the plan in order to prove the filter was flawed. Citing a number of concerns, their withdrawal leaves only five Australian ISPs continuing to test the filter."

Hate to say I told ya so

[QuantumG]

Thankfully I'm entirely too lazy to go trolling through my comments on Slashdot from months ago where I said that the Government was primarily interested in blocking "hard core" porn sites.. otherwise I think some "nya, nya, told ya so" would be in order for the slashtards who disagreed with me. The kind of porn people regularly access on the Internet has been "illegal" in every state of Australia (but not the territories) for a long time now. Why do people find it so surprising that those-who-like-to-censor would apply the same standard to Internet porn that they do to video tape porn? It just makes sense that they would. People failed to object to film censorship. They failed to object to video censorship. They failed to object to videogame censorship. Now, finally, when they do try to object, the established censorship mechanism of government is too strong.

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway

[rohan972]

Sites that promote euthanasia, for one, anti-abortion sites for another. Actual URLs I don't have, they are on the list though.

Re:Think of the CHILDREN!

[BarryHaworth]

The sad (and worrying) thing is how these filters fail to work the way they are advertised. An example. I work in an Australian Government office, which has filtering set up on web access and emails. Various sorts of material - illegal, offensive etc. - is proscribed, and automatic filters are in place to prevent it entering the system. The rule of thumb we are told is, if you think your Grandmother would pass it, it passes. If you think she would be offended, don't download/read/send/whatever.

My first brush with this came when I tried to email myself a copy of a text analysis program I had written in a previous job (I had a copy at home). It got stopped, due to "potentially offensive content". After several rounds of emails back & forth, including an approval from my boss, I finally managed to get it released (the means of doing so was by no means easy or transparent). What was the sticking point? Well, the program included some samples of text I had tested it on. What was the oh-so-potentially-offensive text? One of the plays of William Shakespeare...

I confirmed this by sending a copy of the full play (Shakespeare's "All's well that Ends Well") - sorry, it got stopped as "potentially offensive". I leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out just why. (OK, I'll tell if anybody asks).

Since then I have experimented from time to time. The latest "offensive" text I found was the text of the novel "Anne of Green Gables" (yes, the classic story for girls). At least, I think it was classified as offensive, and I think I know why - but all I know for certain is that I sent three different copies of the text, and all three have disappeared without trace, without even a notice of "potentially offensive content". Some things, it seems, are too potentially offensive for government employees even to know about.

I don't think my Grandmother would approve.

Re:They never took part in the trial anyway

[Full Metal Jackass]

Any society that feel the need to implement censorship in order to 'function' is already badly broken and censorship will only prolong the suffering and delay the inevitable, making it unavoidable.

Whilst I completely agree with you, you've just given me an insight into what it must be like to be an Iranian or a citizen of Oklahoma.

I doubt that most Australians agree with this legislation. Actually, I think that most haven't thought about it enough to see the seriousness of it. But that's really the point. The filter in its current form has not been put to the electorate for a vote.