Are we just going to let Mr Lipstick Man remove free speech on the internet in Australia, or are we going to do something to stop it?

Anyone know what's being done about it?

Good point. At least the Greens are trying to do something about it.

<< Net censorship plan backlash

November 11, 2008 - 4:59PM

As opposition grows against the Government's controversial plan to censor the internet, the head of one of Australia's largest ISPs has labelled the Communications Minister the worst we've had in the past 15 years.

Separately (sic), in Senate question time today, Greens senator Scott Ludlam accused the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, of misleading the public by falsely claiming his mandatory censorship plan was similar to that already in place in Sweden, Britain, Canada and New Zealand.

Despite significant opposition from internet providers, consumers, engineers, network administrators and online rights activists, the Government is pressing ahead with its election promise of protecting people from unwanted material, this week calling for expressions of interests from ISPs keen to participate in live trials of the proposed internet filtering system. >>

Continued at:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/net-censorship-plan-backlash/2008/11/11/1226318639085.html

I admit I have a limited knowledge of the government's plans on this but isn't only the illegal stuff that is being filtered? And by illegal one can assume they mean violent porn, snuff movies etc.

I don't have a problem with self-censorship of hard porn on the Internet in the form of filters, especially for families who may not want their children exposed. It does seem ironic that while movies are classified based on age appropriate viewing that the Internet is an open source of pretty much everything and anything.

Possible solution: Why not a choice via your ISP of two streams - one that is filtered and one that is not. Subscribers then can choose according to their own circumstances and beliefs.

Unfortunately, in Australia we actually have very few inalienable rights. As far as free speech is concerned, we actually have none except for the limited case of political comment.

Our main protection from this filtering idea is that it has such severe limitations that it will not prevent access to any site that a person really wants to access. If the worst comes to the worst, people will have to use foreign proxies that provide HTTPS access. HTTPS cannot be filtered because its content is not visible to the filter.

My main concern is that the Government is spending a lot of money on something that ultimately won't work anyway.

One has to wonder at what's driving this politically. Clearly the electorate doesn't want it. It must be some deal with a minor party, with Family First being the obvious candidate.

Sylvia.

Go here

http://nocleanfeed.com/

and click on Take Action. Politicians take way more notice of letters and phone calls, particularly if you're from their electorate, than of petitions. A lot don't bother with email at all. Your ISP, on the other hand, will respond to email.

Also, go to KevinPM.com and leave a message there.

If you use Twitter, follow Kevin Rudd and let him know what you think that way.

The ALP already has a standard letter of reply that doesn't address any of the concerns about internet speeds, software misidentifying innocent sites (like advice for new mums on breastfeeding confused with porn), the open ended wording on blacklists (what will they ban in future? Opposition websites?) or the fact that most yucky stuff and piracy gets around via peer to peer (not ISP), which the filters won't change.

pelican: but isn't only the illegal stuff that is being filtered?

I am rather hoping this reply will shock you into doing something about looking this up, pelican. Others have posted links.

In a word: no, it isn't about illegal stuff. The proposal uses the term "unwanted material". On ABC Radio National's "The Media Report", when pressed on the issue this the good Senator Conroy said this would include euthanasia. At other times he has mentioned anorexia sites. Possessing material on euthanasia is not illegal. In fact, information on euthanasia is not currently censored in any media to my knowledge. But as you are probably aware it is "unwanted" by our current crop of pollies.

The rather flexible definition of "unwanted" is one aspect to it. Since I have faith in our democracy I presume that will be tightened up, once someone hits Conroy with a clue bat. But there are other problems. Others will view this "list of bad sites" as "a list of the juiciest sites on the internet". Obviously it will be secret, but it must be handed out to the staff in 400 odd ISP's in Australia. It will be worth money. How long to you recon before it leaks?

It is probably just as well it will. Because that list has a magical property. You can anonymously and secretly put something on it, and it disappears. An example. Finland, a strong a democracy as ours, has such a list. Unlike our proposal its use is voluntary. A activist in Finland had political objections to it, and protested loudly about it. In response his protest site was added to the list.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9874155-38.html