-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Internet filtering: You can't opt-out (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter jb_nc
- Start date
youBROKEmyLIFE
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Her mobile isn't picking up 
youBROKEmyLIFE
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Lets put Conroy and G Leonard in the same room and see what happens.
Will Shakespear
mumbo magic
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,186
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Net filters may block p0rn and gambling sites
*
* Email
* Printer friendly version
* Normal font
* Large font
* Saved
Asher Moses
October 27, 2008 - 12:35PM
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Latest related coverage
* How government tried to gag censor critics
Advertisement
Family First Senator Steve Fielding wants hardcore pornography and fetish material blocked under the Government's plans to filter the internet, sparking renewed fears the censorship could be expanded well beyond "illegal material".
The Opposition said it would most likely block any attempts to introduce the controversial mandatory ISP filtering policy, so the Government would need the support of Senator Fielding as well as the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon to pass the legislation.
Industry sources said Senator Fielding's sentiments validated ISPs' concerns that the categories of blocked content could be broadened significantly at the whim of the Government, which is under pressure to appease vocal minorities.
A spokesman for Senator Xenophon said, should the filtering plan go ahead, he would look to use it to block Australians from accessing overseas online casino sites, which are illegal to run in Australia.
In a Senate Estimates hearing last week, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, confirmed that his proposal would force ISPs to implement a two-tiered filtering system.
The proposed censorship is more advanced than that in any liberal democracy and would put Australia on a par with oppressive regimes such as Iran, the internet industry says.
Despite his earlier promises that Australians would be able to opt out of any internet filters, Senator Conroy said the first tier would be compulsory for all Australians and would block all "illegal material", as determined in part by a blacklist administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
The second tier, which is optional, would filter out content deemed inappropriate for children, such as pornography.
But asked to specify the categories of content that Senator Fielding would like blocked by the mandatory first tier, a Family First spokeswoman indicated the party would want X-rated and refused classification (RC) content banned for everyone, including adults.
"Family First would consider a mandatory ISP-based filtering system that protects children by blocking illegal content like child pornography, but allows adults to opt out of filtering to access material classified R18+ or less," Senator Fielding's spokeswoman said.
According to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, X18+ content includes hardcore pornography, while content that is refused classification includes that which depicts drug use or sexual fetishes. Both are a step above R18+ content, which typically includes adult themes.
The online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia expressed fears that the internet filters could be used as a bargaining chip every time the Government needed to pass a piece of important legislation.
"Any group with an axe to grind and political clout will be lobbying the Government to blacklist websites which they object to," EFA spokesman Dale Clapperton said.
"Having all Australians' internet access subject to a secret and unaccountable government blacklist is completely unacceptable in a liberal democracy such as Australia."
Clapperton said most adult pornography on the internet was already "prohibited content" under the Act, and pro-euthanasia, pro-anorexia and pro-piracy websites could easily be caught by the system.
Today, such prohibited content, if hosted overseas, is added to ACMA's blacklist but Australians are still able to access it if they wish. This would not be the case if mandatory ISP filtering was introduced.
"Senator Conroy talks about blocking access to 'illegal material', but the ACMA blacklist of 'prohibited content' is not limited to material which is illegal - it includes X-rated material, and R-rated material unless it is protected by a government-approved restricted access system," he said.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam expressed similar concerns when grilling Senator Conroy in Senate Estimates last week.
He said all sorts of politically sensitive material could be added to the blacklist and otherwise legitimate sites - for example, YouTube - could be rendered inaccessible based on content published by users.
"The blacklist ... can become very grey depending on how expansive the list becomes - euthanasia material, politically related material, material about anorexia. There is a lot of distasteful stuff on the internet," Senator Ludlam said.
John Lindsay, carrier relations manager at Internode, said: "I don't see that what Fielding has just described to you is necessarily any different to what the public should expect from the Government's as yet unstated filtering regime, because we haven't got a clear explanation as to what the Government's actual mandatory blacklist looks like."
The Opposition's communication spokesman, Nick Minchin, said it would take "a lot of convincing" for the Coalition to support the Government's filtering plan.
"That's the problem with having this sort of highly centralised government-mandated nationwide filtering system," Senator Minchin told the Herald in a telephone interview.
"The argy-bargy that would result over what is in and what is out strikes me as being almost impossible to manage and it would be a cat chasing its tail."
The Government's own laboratory trials have found that presently available filters are not capable of distinguishing adequately between legal and illegal content and can degrade internet speeds by up to 86 per cent.
Despite this, and significant opposition from ISPs, the Government will soon seek expressions of interest from telcos seeking to be part of a live trial of the filters.
*
* Printer friendly version
* Normal font
* Large font
* Saved
Asher Moses
October 27, 2008 - 12:35PM
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Latest related coverage
* How government tried to gag censor critics
Advertisement
Family First Senator Steve Fielding wants hardcore pornography and fetish material blocked under the Government's plans to filter the internet, sparking renewed fears the censorship could be expanded well beyond "illegal material".
The Opposition said it would most likely block any attempts to introduce the controversial mandatory ISP filtering policy, so the Government would need the support of Senator Fielding as well as the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon to pass the legislation.
Industry sources said Senator Fielding's sentiments validated ISPs' concerns that the categories of blocked content could be broadened significantly at the whim of the Government, which is under pressure to appease vocal minorities.
A spokesman for Senator Xenophon said, should the filtering plan go ahead, he would look to use it to block Australians from accessing overseas online casino sites, which are illegal to run in Australia.
In a Senate Estimates hearing last week, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, confirmed that his proposal would force ISPs to implement a two-tiered filtering system.
The proposed censorship is more advanced than that in any liberal democracy and would put Australia on a par with oppressive regimes such as Iran, the internet industry says.
Despite his earlier promises that Australians would be able to opt out of any internet filters, Senator Conroy said the first tier would be compulsory for all Australians and would block all "illegal material", as determined in part by a blacklist administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
The second tier, which is optional, would filter out content deemed inappropriate for children, such as pornography.
But asked to specify the categories of content that Senator Fielding would like blocked by the mandatory first tier, a Family First spokeswoman indicated the party would want X-rated and refused classification (RC) content banned for everyone, including adults.
"Family First would consider a mandatory ISP-based filtering system that protects children by blocking illegal content like child pornography, but allows adults to opt out of filtering to access material classified R18+ or less," Senator Fielding's spokeswoman said.
According to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, X18+ content includes hardcore pornography, while content that is refused classification includes that which depicts drug use or sexual fetishes. Both are a step above R18+ content, which typically includes adult themes.
The online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia expressed fears that the internet filters could be used as a bargaining chip every time the Government needed to pass a piece of important legislation.
"Any group with an axe to grind and political clout will be lobbying the Government to blacklist websites which they object to," EFA spokesman Dale Clapperton said.
"Having all Australians' internet access subject to a secret and unaccountable government blacklist is completely unacceptable in a liberal democracy such as Australia."
Clapperton said most adult pornography on the internet was already "prohibited content" under the Act, and pro-euthanasia, pro-anorexia and pro-piracy websites could easily be caught by the system.
Today, such prohibited content, if hosted overseas, is added to ACMA's blacklist but Australians are still able to access it if they wish. This would not be the case if mandatory ISP filtering was introduced.
"Senator Conroy talks about blocking access to 'illegal material', but the ACMA blacklist of 'prohibited content' is not limited to material which is illegal - it includes X-rated material, and R-rated material unless it is protected by a government-approved restricted access system," he said.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam expressed similar concerns when grilling Senator Conroy in Senate Estimates last week.
He said all sorts of politically sensitive material could be added to the blacklist and otherwise legitimate sites - for example, YouTube - could be rendered inaccessible based on content published by users.
"The blacklist ... can become very grey depending on how expansive the list becomes - euthanasia material, politically related material, material about anorexia. There is a lot of distasteful stuff on the internet," Senator Ludlam said.
John Lindsay, carrier relations manager at Internode, said: "I don't see that what Fielding has just described to you is necessarily any different to what the public should expect from the Government's as yet unstated filtering regime, because we haven't got a clear explanation as to what the Government's actual mandatory blacklist looks like."
The Opposition's communication spokesman, Nick Minchin, said it would take "a lot of convincing" for the Coalition to support the Government's filtering plan.
"That's the problem with having this sort of highly centralised government-mandated nationwide filtering system," Senator Minchin told the Herald in a telephone interview.
"The argy-bargy that would result over what is in and what is out strikes me as being almost impossible to manage and it would be a cat chasing its tail."
The Government's own laboratory trials have found that presently available filters are not capable of distinguishing adequately between legal and illegal content and can degrade internet speeds by up to 86 per cent.
Despite this, and significant opposition from ISPs, the Government will soon seek expressions of interest from telcos seeking to be part of a live trial of the filters.
Silver Persian
Banned
So the liberals are opposing?
And presumably the greens will too?
*relaxes*
And presumably the greens will too?
*relaxes*
The Greens are speaking out against this and plan to block it.
So is the opposition Liberals. Pity they proposed their own internet filtering scheme just a few years ago. Still, I won't turn down anybody who plans to block this moronic bill.
Fucking Xenophon plans to vote for it so he can ban online gambling.
So is the opposition Liberals. Pity they proposed their own internet filtering scheme just a few years ago. Still, I won't turn down anybody who plans to block this moronic bill.
Fucking Xenophon plans to vote for it so he can ban online gambling.
The Greens are speaking out against this and plan to block it.
So is the opposition Liberals. Pity they proposed their own internet filtering scheme just a few years ago. Still, I won't turn down anybody who plans to block this moronic bill.
Fucking Xenophon plans to vote for it so he can ban online gambling.
So is the opposition Liberals. Pity they proposed their own internet filtering scheme just a few years ago. Still, I won't turn down anybody who plans to block this moronic bill.
Fucking Xenophon plans to vote for it so he can ban online gambling.
chicky_pie
POTATO HEAD ROXON
I'm happy the Greens and the Liberals are opposing this communist internet censorship.
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Nah suck shit to every cock sucker in this country who voted for Labor.
Suck.
It.
Hard.
Suck.
It.
Hard.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
We made a decision, but it wasn't based on this unknown policy, you tool.
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Nah you should have known you were voting in a fuckstick.Nebuchanezzar said:
Blame is on your shoulders.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
You invaded Iraq.
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
They had it coming to them.Nebuchanezzar said:
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
You smell like cheddar