Group items tagged

A media rights watchdog has listed Australia in a report on countries that pose a threat of internet censorship.

Why does everyone get so worked up with the word "censorship"? In some cases, like with child porn, if a medium is used to violate a human right or indeed foments a crime, then there should be some sort of control. Why look at it from a b&w perspective when there are so many grey areas?

Is this really where Australia's future in censorships is heading?

A step back- looking at censorship in Australia under the Rudd government. Going back to when the ISP filtering laws were first proposed David Marr observes an underlining level of conservatism in Australia in particular light of the governments pursuit of censorship. He looks at the governments approach to undesired content on the internet by reflecting back on the Bill Henson case.

This article is criticizing the attack lunched by Anonymous. It said, the any protest against the Mandatory ISP filtering plan is encouraged, however, the bring down government website is an illegal way to make political statement, and will render the protest null and avoid. Instead, even the anti-censorship community advocate legal way to protest the Mandatory censorship. In my opinion, this attack is interesting, although it is illegal, it doesn't cause big cost, just threw little troubles to government website, it can be considered as a prank, not a crime. Anyway, no one can be convicted, as it is an anonymous attack by hacker, lol.:)

The Four Corners report mapped the issue from when internet censorship was bought forward as a policy issue in a report by the Australian Institute in 2003 to how the Howard government and now how the Rudd government has approached the issue of internet censorship. \n\nNot only can you can watch the report you can also read the transcript, watch the extended interviews and there are also links to further resources.\n

"One of the big challenges in the debate so far has been combating the myth that the filter is - or ever was - a cyber-safety tool designed to keep kids safe online. It's not. It's designed to "harmonise" censorship laws, not protect children from inappropriate content. It's censorship for its own sake." This is interesting as EFF Australia are running a campaign to educate people not normally involved in debates around the internet - indeed, the campaign targets people who may be inclined to suport the idea of a filter: mums and dads.

It gives you information on government policy and laws regarding Internet censorship in various countries around the world including South Korea and Australia. It is a bit old version, but we can get some ideas how various countires have changed internet censorhip historically.

An article about Internet Censorship Policy.

This is a report, summarizing the main policies and laws about internet censorship of several countries around the world. Including Australia, China, USA, UK, France, etc.

The conversation first looked at internet censorship from an international perspective covering issues of internet governance from and internet freedom. Unfortunately one or two members of the panel were prone to regurgitating policy rather than engaging in an actual debate. Towards the end inevitably the discussion was drawn to the proposed filtering laws within Australia. The general consensus from the panel members was that education had to be an essential part of policy when addressing online safety. Interestingly the government representative, the Minister for Home Affairs, was a keen supporter of this policy stance.

Many people do not know that the internet in Australia is already heavily censored, even before the Rudd Government's plan for mandatory ISP filtering is implemented. In fact, Australia almost undoubtedly has the most restrictive internet censorship regime in the Western world. Under amendments made to the Broadcasting Services Act in 1999, material rated as low as MA-15+ can be prohibited.

Listen to Radio National- Australia Talks. Presenter Paul Barclay mediates a discussion about the proposed mandatory internet filtering system. He talks with Minister Stephen Conroy and Colin Jacobs, Vice President of Electronic Frontiers Australia. Together with two experts, Mark Newton a network engineer and Andrew Graydon Chief Operations Office of Netsweeper, who both provide technical analysis on the efficiency of the filtering system.

The article looks at the growing global trend for net regulation. Our interest is where Australia, as a result of our drafted internet filtering system, fits in this global picture of regulation. Reporters Without Borders has drawn up lists which groups nations in terms of their level of regulation. Appropriately as a democracy Australia is not listed under "Enemies of the Internet" which names China, North Korea, Egypt and Cuba. Yet disconcertingly we are given the label of "Under Surveillance" which lists us alongside Turkey, Russia, South Korea and the UAE.

YouTube could be among high traffic sites given carte blanche to self-monitor under the federal government's internet censorship efforts if the recommendations of a leaked whitepaper are implemented.

The Government's plan for censorship would allegedly mean the majority of the population wouldn't be able to access this game. But those who were tech-savvy enough, and wanted to enough would be able to.

Informative and sometimes humorous tips for Australians who want to protest against the Government's proposed ISP filtering, including links to local members of parliament, senators etc. Note all the paid advertising from Optus on the site - taking a political position?

A new paper on Australia's proposed mandatory filtering plan in context of Australia's broader stance on child pornography. It uses the example the consumption of "Japanese Boys Love" manga by people (mainly girls) underage to explore issues around censorship and governance

Blog post number 1

Blog post 3

Watch the live debate from Intelligence squared -Governments should not Censor the Internet? Intelligence Squared uniquely provides a forum for debate on crucial issues within Australia. On the Affirmative Antony Loewnstein- freelance journalist, author and blogger Ross LaJeunesse-head of Public Policy and Government Affairs for Google David Marr- reporter for Fairfax, broadcaster ABC On the Negative ELizabeth Handsley- specialist in media law as it affects children Kaiser Kuo- Beijing-based columnist and commentator on tech and politics. Alastair MacGibbon- founder of the Internet Safety Institute and Manageing Partner of internet consultancy the Surete Group.

Media hyperbole or a serious threat? Threatening posts on the '4chan' boards has the government ad the SMH worried...

Although in some respects, the public response to Australia's push to impose mandatory internet filtering, there has been a violent and disturbing response from a select group calling for the assassination of Stephen Conroy and advising on how to make bombs.

Some great analysis and summary from Fast Company on Google pulling the plug on their Chinese search engine, and how this relates to their submission to the Australian Government regarding their proposed ISP filtering. If you're not familiar with Fast Company, this is how they modestly describe themselves: "Fast Company sets the agenda, charting the evolution of business through a unique focus on the most creative individuals sparking change in the marketplace. By uncovering best and "next" practices, the magazine and website help a new breed of leader work smarter and more effectively. Fast Company empowers innovators to challenge convention and create the future of business."

The elderly in an effort to uphold their right to freedom of information are undertaking workshops which teach them how to circumvent the internet filters so that they can still access information regarding euthanasia which would otherwise be fettered with the proposed ISP filtering law …..how effective are these filters going to actually be?