Google and Yahoo criticise Australia's 'heavy-handed' internet filter plans

[Violet_Crumble]

Source: The Guardian

Australia came under fire today from the United States for its proposed internet filtering system, which, if implemented, would be the strictest of any democracy.

A US state department official said that it had raised concerns with Australia over the plans, which are to be voted on by its parliament.

"We remain committed to advancing the free flow of information, which we view as vital to economic prosperity and preserving open societies globally," Michael Tran, a state department spokesman told the Associated Press.

"We don't discuss the details of specific diplomatic exchanges, but I can say that we have raised our concerns on this matter with Australian officials."



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/29/google-yahoo-australia-internet-filter

[BolivarianHero]

1. Typical reich-wing tyranny from a "Socialist" International affiliate...

I'd expect this kind of shit from Aussie Labour though:

You couldn't even buy adult video games in Australia because changes to censorship laws require unanimity from the attorney generals of all the states, and a Labour Christian fundamentalist A.G. has withheld consent for years.

They are stridently pro-Washington.

They oppose equal rights for same-sex couples

But this reflect a pattern of behaviour on the part of the Socialist International:

Former VP Carlos Andre Perez, also the President of Venezuela, implemented austerity-based neo-liberal reforms while in power and massacred his own people when they rebelled. He's since called for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated.

New Labor in the UK...Where the fuck to I start? They appointed an Opus Dei broad to oversee an LGBT rights commission (why anybody outside of the far-right would be willing to deal with Opus Dei is beyond me)...Continued Thatcher's economic policies...Did whatever Bush wanted.

Egypt's ruling National Democratic Party would rather appease Muslim extremists by persecuting atheists than deal with religious fundamentalists the appropriate way. They also rig elections and do whatever Washington wants.

[bananas]

2. I remember years ago, Linux would have been banned, even though it was used by most ISP's in .au

The linux source code had 4-letter words ("this is a work-around for the f*cking brain-damaged chipset ..." or something alone those lines) and since patches were distributed via source code updates linux would have been effectively banned.
As Joe Biden would say, it was a big fucking deal.

[Wednesdays]

8. Could Murdoch be behind this?

:shrug:

[yava]

11. BolivianHero: Friend, you are too tense. Have a drink and

relax

[TheWatcher]

40. He's too tense for merely pointing out the facts?

But maybe you're right.

We should all strap on our complacency feed bags, have a Fosters and feel good about the upcoming American Idol.

Nothing to see here.

:eyes:

[Democat]

3. Australian people seem very outspoken, what's wrong with the government?

Most Australians I've met around the world seem about as far away from censorship as you can be.

Are there a lot of religious fanatics hiding somewhere in Australia that are voting in all of these anti-freedom politicians?

[Violet_Crumble]

4. The religious nutters aren't common or powerful here...

I can't see any reason for this filter to happen. After all, our ISPs are already supposed to filter child porn and other really nasty stuff, and I don't want or need the govt to do it.

[BolivarianHero]

5. They aren't?

Then why do same-sex couples have so few rights? Why hasn't Family First been banned for inciting people to hatred? Why is Labour willing to give fundamentalist Christians a voice?

[Violet_Crumble]

6. No, they're not...

I wasn't aware that same-sex couples have very few rights, probably because while same-sex marriage is still not happening, there's very little else in the way of rights they don't have....

I'm a single mother and I detest Family First, but they're a small number of fruitloops and they most definately shouldn't be banned...

Fundys get a voice no matter what, but my point still stands that religious whackos aren't common here and don't wield much power..

[BolivarianHero]

12. Hmm...

They've still made preference deals with Family First over Green (the country's only progressive save for a few obscure leftist parties) in some races.

[depakid]

14. The Family First senator only got in because Labor played games with the Greens on preferences

Both major parties are rattled by the ascendancy of the Greens, who may well pick up more seats in this election as they have been on the state levels.

And the Greens, holding the balance of power as they do will never go along with Conroy's crackpot scheme.

[valerief]

7. Whoever owns the media makes the rules and creates the perceptions.

You don't need actual people to create perception. You just need a totalitarian media whose masters will ultimately benefit from the censorship. Dumb slaves are useful slaves.

[Democat]

9. Does the media support internet filters in Australia?

It seems to go against their own interests.

[valerief]

13. Whoever owns the media must. nt

[Fool Count]

16. I am not a religious fanatic. I am an atheist. And still I don't

want my children to be exposed to all that internet porn. Is that wrong of me? If you call
an anti-porn internet filter "censorship", I am all for it. I am also all for banning
porn videogames, as well as all other kinds of porn. This kind of filth has about as
much to do with freedom of speech as unlimited political donations, and all those screaming
about protecting the freedom of speech on behalf of porn are just protecting their revenue
streams. I say good on Australia for outlawing this poisonous garbage, I am proud to live
in a country which puts protection of its children first

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. And we have our first Lovejoy of the thread!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo



Sorry to harsh your mellow, but what leads you to believe your kids can't already configure a proxy or VPN
and merrily surf where they want to without interference ?

It's sad to see an otherwise estimable country adopt Iran and China as role models...

[depakid]

25. The argument's been made- and may well end up to be the case for voluntary filters at the ISP level

My bet is that the Greens in the Senate would go along with that.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Then supervise yr children's web activities and don't demand the govt do it!

Banning all porn because some damn lazy and irresponsible parents can't be bothered supervising what their children do online is crossing the line in a big way. You have issues with sex and porn? Then don't look at it. But how dare you say that every other adult has to live by what you deem to be offensive or not....

btw, all that stuff about living in a country that protects its children first? You obviously don't realise that the filter won't block Facebook, which is where a lot of pedophiles hang out to groom kids. See, even if that filter goes up, all you have to do is head to the latest 'memorial' site and you'll see kiddy porn and bestiality...

[Posteritatis]

35. What else would you like to ban?

If you say "nothing" I'm going to assume you're a liar; generally speaking people who howl for censorship of a few things at the government level have more stuff on their list than they mention at first.

[name not needed]

37. You may be an athiest, but you're still a fascist.

[Lance_Boyle]

50. Yes, it's wrong of you. Parent your kids yourself. Don't expect the govt to parent

*the rest of us* on behalf of your kids.

[BagongBansa]

52. a discrepancy

If someone dropped off a mountain of porn on your doorstep every day, you probably would complain to your city government soon enough. Yet when the porn industry sneaks it through the internet, you are happy about it. Explain please.

[Posteritatis]

34. Australia does not recognize freedom of speech.

There's narrowly-defined exceptions for political speech in the context of elections and the like, but anything other than that is merely permitted, not protected.

[NashVegas]

10. Crap! No More Kiddie Porn, Violent Porn, or How-To-Make-Meth Sites

Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

[Socal31]

15. Are you defending this?

Sad.

[Fool Count]

18. What is really sad is when reasonably rational people buy

that garbage about the legalized porn having anything to do with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech, my ass. If one really wants to compare Australia to that shining
beacon of freedom, USA, where they bleep every fucking 4-letter word on television,
yet proclaim their righteous indignation against "censoring" internet porn - I will
take Australia any time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. I see you've already bought your ticket for the censorship security theatre

Australians will get around it by using proxies, virtual private networks, FTP, or chat programs.
But it will officially in effect, and that's all that matters, eh?

The AU government can't even keep the "secret" blacklist of websites secret- it's been leaked on Cryptome and Wikileaks.

How stupid is Australian censorship. Some examples:

Topless photos of small-breasted women are banned- it might encourage paedophila, y'know.

HBO's "The Pacific" was filmed in Australia, and most Australians will never see it uncut (legally).

It has the most graphic of wartime violence, characters casually expressing racial, national, and ethnic hatred that would get them arrested nowadays, and the Bob Leckie character having sex with his girlfriend (who may have been legally underage at the time)- and it is, AFAIK, historically accurate.

Of course, those Australians with broadband that can configure an anonymizing proxy or VPN could have downloaded the whole
series already, the lucky bastards. And they can get all the extreme porn their dirty little minds desire while they're
at it.

BTW: It's only the over-the-air stuff that's censored in the States. Cable and satellite are not- and most people have one
or the other.

[depakid]

20. "most Australians will never see it uncut (legally)"

:rofl:

Australian free to air TV carries things Americans wouldn't even see on pay cable channels!

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Depends on the cable system. I could get Al-Jazeera if I cared to pay for it.

I'm happy to get IFC, Sundance, Current, BBC World News, The Green Channel, Smithsonian, National Geographic, and CNN International. Bridges TV carries Democracy Now, if I'm in the mood. CCTV is there as well.

Most all cable operators are happy to sell you as much pay-per-view porn as you like.

[depakid]

23. Most US systems don't have those options

and there's plenty of straight up pay per view porn in Oz, if that's your thing. Plenty of international news as well that you'd never see in the states.

That and of course, no censorship of films on any channel that would be cut to pieces by American censors (probably why you can't get the really good BBC programs and series').

Some would surprise you. For instance, the pilot episode of Stargate SG-1 has a gull frontal nudity scene. Who'd have known?

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Ah, but that's the point. It's like Franco's Spain, where you had to seek out 'dodgy' content....

..because the fascists (correctly) figured out that what the masses didn't see wouldn't bother them.

If you want international news in the US, you must stream it, download torrents, or pay extra to Comcast, Verizon, RCN (the three ISP + video providers around here),or whatever provider is in your area.

It's economic censorship, actually. If you can't afford high-speed internet, you're stuck with the mainstream US outlets.

If you can't afford the extra-cost options on cable, you don't get "The Wire" or "When The Levees Broke", or the other excellent documentaries on HBO, you don't get the Sundance Channel or IFC or Showtime Extreme (none of whom censor, BTW).

If you want uncensored TV, go the DVD route. Oddly enough, Wal-Mart is happy to sell you unrated video if you're
over 18, while still acting all Hays Office about music. I bought both the director's cut of "Videodrome" and "Henry and
June" for $6.99 each at a supermarket. Go figure.

Or go Amazon.uk for the Beeb stuff that never makes it here, again the great unwashed are 'protected' by the necessity of a region-free DVD player.

[AlphaCentauri]

31. even google .AU will give better results on international news than .com /nt

[KamaAina]

41. Oh noes! Naked birds!!!

the pilot episode of Stargate SG-1 has a gull frontal nudity scene.

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

43. LOL.. Stargate SG-1 started out on Showtime in the US, nudity and all.

I live in deepinaharta, TX and I get all those stations via cable plus a few more. I can get ZeeTV, TVAsia, and a whole slew of other Indian / East Asian programming with plenty of nudity.

[depakid]

44. The point of course is that free to air and standard cable (especially news) isn't censored heavily

as it is throughout the states.

It's one of the reasons why Americans are so woefully uninformed and misinformed about the actual state of affairs in the own country- much less the rest of the world.

It's also one of the underlying reasons why you work longer hours, for less pay with comparatively little (or no) or no vacation time, have a health care system that bankrupts millions of its citizens, and passed financial deregulation without without debate no real public awareness of what was going on- until the crash.

The rest of the world looks at that with as much perplexity and dismay as they did about the "shocked" reaction to Janet Jackson's flash.

[X_Digger]

45. I don't know anyone who looks to network news..

.. even the kooks who turn to faux noise are cable subscribers. Our 'basic' package includes MSNBC, BBC America, Bloomberg, CNBC, 2 CNN's, 2 CSPAN's, GOVTV, NASA (at least it used to, haven't watched it in a while), NAT'L Geographic, a couple of PBSs.. heck, more news / world that I know what to do with. That doesn't include optional stations like those mentioned above.

Sunday morning political shows are still popular, as are some of the 'news-ish' shows like 20/20 or 60 minutes, but that's about the extent that most folks watch network news.

Few in the US use rabbit ears / free to air- look at how little fuss was made over switching to digital and the obsolescence of standard antennas sans digital converters. You got great stuff on antenna? Greeaaaat, and?

[depakid]

46. You're not getting honest, broad based news & analysis in the states from the networks or cable

with a few exceptions- Democracy Now and maybe Rachel & Keith, what you get is highly filtered and parochial -and designed "not to offend the sponsors."

Several years ago British friend of mine commented on traveling to the states "I can't find any news here- it's all dreck."

And she was right. Not only that, but the newsreaders from the major outlets look you and outright lie to you every day. It's to the point where Americans are so bombarded by propaganda and dishonesty that they can no longer even agree of what the basic, objective facts are!

[X_Digger]

47. Keith and Rachel are great

But hey, I don't consider Rachel and Keith to be hard news, either. "News-tainment" / "News Punditry" maybe.

I still watch or listen to Jim Lehrer on occasion, and NPR every morning- no sponsors there, but Jim puts me to sleep sometimes. I can always switch over to BBCA / BBC World news, but there's more than enough news in the US recently to keep me occupied.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Americans *must* be misinformed, they don't run things to your liking.

Brought the tablets down from Mount Kosciuszko, did you?

Face it, you've got Limbaugh Syndrome- in love with your own voice, and absolutely convinced that you know
what is wrong with society.

[depakid]

49. Not talking about the gun problem in the states...

though much of that is media driven, too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. Lucky us, to have you here to take up The Aussie Mans' Burden.

Wouldn't want anyone to confuse it with chauvinsim, no sirree bob!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism

Chauvinism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chauvinism, (pronounced /ˈʃoʊvɨnɪzəm/), in its original and primary meaning, is an exaggerated, bellicose patriotism and a blind belief in national superiority and glory. By extension it has come to include an extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group.

[Fool Count]

26. Australia won't see an HBO show uncut legally? Really?

FYI, they show all HBO shows here uncut on free-to-air television. I am sure "The Pacific" won't be an exception.
Try that in the US. No need to invent crap to scare us into legalized porn for minors. We know what is harmful
and what is not, and our government, with all its shortcomings, still manages to represent the popular will,
unlike in some other countries. If you want your porn bad enough to bother with all that anonymizing-proxy-VPN
stuff, more power to you, enjoy. But why then complain about such an ineffective attempt at censorship?
As far as I am concerned, I am happy that my little girls will be protected from accidently encountering that filth
online.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. The trouble with porn filtering is it becomes "porn + whatever else the government dislikes"

And the point about the censorship work-arounds is that an even moderately bright middle schooler can use them- and do in the UK. Hence my remark about security theatre. The Government can say they are "protecting the children", the naive
believe them, and the fourteen-and-ups just snicker.

You are already monitoring your children's Internet use, are you not? My problem is with those parents who won't
bother to do so, relying on a defective filtering system.

[Fool Count]

36. "Porn filtering" is just what it's called - porn filtering.

It is not "porn+whatever else the government dislikes". Frankly, I am at some loss at how exactly does it "become" something else,
enlighten me, please. As I already stated in this thread, equating porn with freedom of speech is just a piece of porn industry
propaganda. The "first they take our porn, then they take our freedom" paranoia may have some marginal legitimacy in the US,
where religious nuts are close enough to power to really threaten genuine free artistic expression. It is not at all an issue in
most other civilized countries. I have no problem with any kind of erotica, porn, violence on television, because it is easy enough
for parents to monitor what their children watch on TV. Internet is another matter entirely, I cannot constantly stand behind
my children's backs when they are using a computer. And some of the stuff freely accessible to everyone online is so vile that
a single glance can damage a child's mind irreversibly. Even "defective" porn filtering is better than nothing. Besides, it can be
improved. The government is not some external malicious entity bent on taking away everybody's freedom, it may be that in
China or US (though probably not even there), but not in Australia. Here it is just a bunch of people we ourselves elect freely
for the sole purpose of representing and implementing our interests. They may not always do it completely faithfully, but
then they will pay for it at the next election. Most people in Australia are solidly behind the idea of porn filtering, it would not
even be discussed otherwise. And I completely trust the Australian government to implement this filtering efficiently, responsibly
and without damaging public interest in free expression and access to information. Government is already protecting us from
foreign invasion, from domestic criminals, from deception and exploitation by business, from natural disasters and often even
from our own stupidity. Why shouldn't it also protect our children from the damaging effects of online porn? Why shouldn't
it at least try?

[ikri]

39. Yes it bloody well is

Have you ever had a look at the list of blocked sites? It isn't hard to find since it has been leaked a few times.

A couple of examples, they blocked wikileaks after wikileaks leaked the list of blocked site, a good number of the blocked sites are gambling sites. Then there's the dental practice they blocked, or the anti-abortion site they blocked. Nothing to do with porn.

The list does have a lot of sites on it that might contain child pornography (I don't really want to check) but a large proportion of the blocked sites are either adult pornography or have nothing to do with pornography at all.

If you want to filter what your children can or can't look at on the internet, then do it yourself. A government run blacklist can and will end up blocking far more than originally intended and is almost guaranteed to end up blocking political discussion that the current government disagrees with.

[Fool Count]

42. First of all, they are not blocking any sites yet. Certainly not

Wikileaks, I never had a problem getting there. So far this is just an idea being publicly
discussed. So all those so-called black lists, supposedly leaked out, may just as well have
been compiled and "leaked" by anybody. I too can come up with a list and "leak" it out in about
10 minutes. That doesn't mean that the government have any such plans. When the filter is
actually implemented, there wouldn't be any need to rely on "leaks", anyone could see if some
site is blocked or not. How do you think Australian public will react, if a site like Wikileaks
is among them? I consider it a total impossibility that Australian government will filter
anything other then what it publicly declares filtered. I am certainly not worried about
our government filtering any "political discussion" that it "disagrees with". Honestly, I
can't even think of any examples of such.

How am I supposed to "filter what my children can or can't look at on the internet"? Am I to
dedicate my life to seeking and weeding out all the porn sites on the Internet? I only have
one lifetime and many other things to do. Why can't I get together with other like-minded
parents in my country, I don't know, let's say via an electoral process, and delegate this
responsibility to our democratically elected representatives? Wouldn't it save a lot of time
for all of us?

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Here's what a sham your censorship is. Even the elderly can beat it:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/elderly-learn-to-beat-euthanasia-blacklist-20100405-rn6i.html


Elderly learn to beat euthanasia blacklist

GEESCHE JACOBSEN CRIME EDITOR
April 6, 2010


PAMELA LAZEMBY, 82, has beaten cancer: she has no fear of learning how to beat the law.

''Now I'm on borrowed time I can afford to live dangerously,'' she said after attending the first in a series of workshops teaching people how to circumvent a proposed law restricting access to some internet sites, expected to include some on euthanasia.

Websites associated with Exit International and its suicide manual, the Peaceful Pill Handbook, are expected to be refused classification and therefore to be inaccessible from Australian computers once a mandatory internet filter is in place.

Ms Lazemby has nursed four elderly people to death and is determined she will not end up in a nursing home. If the time comes, she says she may want information about how to end her life. ''I'm not going to let that happen to me,'' she said....

[Democat]

30. Are you quoting the Chinese government or Iranian?

Your "violent porn" is some other adult's lifestyle choice.

[NashVegas]

32. Yeah,

Ted Bundy, for instance.

[Democat]

38. Yes, Ted Bundy and people into the BDSM lifestyle are the same!

Nice call. :crazy:

[Posteritatis]

33. Or anything else the puritans of the week in .au's government don't want you to see. (nt)

[Pavulon]

17. Here is the article from the register.. china like

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/30/australia_censorship_policy/

[ManiacJoe]

24. Any one have any links to the details?

From reading the fluff in the articles, it sounds like the problem is that the politicians are trying to legislate a technical fix to a technical problem while understanding neither the problem nor the fix.