Group items tagged

Great Larvatus Prodeo post over the weekend, written for Electronic Frontiers Australia about the internet filter. Quite long, but here is a key quote: "The Internet ... is part of that secular movement towards the democratisation of social relations; and of knowledge. It's precisely because the Internet affords so much promise for those who wish to decide their destinies in common, to learn, to form an informed judgement and habit of thought that its freedom from state interference is so important at the level of principle." http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/04/16/left-reasons-to-oppose-the-net-filter-nocleanfeed/

This article gives a closer look at the controversial study that suggests regulating the Net will cost millions. You can even dowload the 23-page of PDF report In interested in Net neutrality the following reading titled "Net Neutrality rules would damage business, says industry-funded study" (26 April 2010) provides complementary information: http://news.techworld.com/sme/3221610/net-neutrality-rules-would-damage-business-says-industry-funded-study/

danah boyd recommends Eszter Hargittai's paper "Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the 'Net Generation'". This collection looks particularly interesting for discussions about the Digital Divide and Gender &Technology.

danah boyd recommends Eszter Hargittai's paper "Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the 'Net Generation'". This collection looks particularly interesting for discussions about the Digital Divide and Gender &Technology.

A really interesting conversation thread on Slashdot about the US Government's concern over Australian ISP filter proposals, and Conroy's denial that his office has been contacted. Posters discuss net neutrality, US and Chinese interests, ACTA, practical realities of filter implementation etc.

If users are to blame, who should provide media literacy programs?

The Internet is changing every seconds and obviously getting to be worriyng in some aspects. However, free access to information, free expression and participation, and thus free access to the world is now becoming narrowed due to govermental regulations and censorship. And who is going to decide which websites should be banned or not? It seems to be worried that increasingly soficiticated leak could be created by computer geeks to retrieve the freedom of the internet.

The US Federal Communications Commission has been dealt a major blow in asserting its right to regulate net neutrality with a district court ruling the FCC had "failed to demonstrate" its authority to interfer with activity undertaken by internet service provider Commcast. Comcast had been moving to restrict the internet access of customers using peer-to-peer sharing software, which uses large amounts of bandwidth and is a common mode of illegal video and music piracy.

D.Net, a not-for-profit research organisation has set up a program in Bangladesh called InfoLadies which involves women armed with netbooks, mobile phones to provide information gathered from the internet to villagers who would otherwise lack access to this information. The types of information provided typically cover hygiene, farming and childbirth. The program is an extension of the MobileLadies program which came before it. Another, more detailed article here: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=99804 Can programs like this contribute to a decrease in the digital divide?

A fair amount has been written about the politics of net neutrality, but its technical aspects have generally pushed the debate to the fringes of the mainstream press.

An interesting interview with Austin Heap, a programmer from California who created 'Haystack', software that allows people to avoid the internet censorship imposed by governments. This software was created as a reaction to the increased censorship imposed by the Iranian Government during and after the elections. It allowed Iranians to skype, email and surf the net in relative safety. Other points of discussion include the apparent values of free speech embedded in the software, the relationship between Google and China, and Australia's proposal of censorship.

If you missed Abbott on Q&A last night the full transcript is here (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2859473.htm?show=transcript) or I've extracted the main bit about ISP filtering on my blog (http://logocopblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/facebook-v-isp-filtering-via-abbott.html). This article from the Oz also provides a good recap of Abbott's comments and some analysis...

Is Conroy backing down or just trying a new approach. the Minister has described the MISP as a 'modest measure today', in an effort to make it sound like a perfectly normal - or uncontroversial - thing to do...

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.

Court decision suggests that American internet operators are not forced to maintain net neutrality. The sentence implies that FCC has no authority to demand from internet providers a neutral treatment of the traffic that they manage on their networks

Australiam Government may take some actions to prevent online piracy, now with the iinet case is still on going, AFACT urges the government to do something to stop repeat copyright theft in cyber world.

The founder and Chief Executive of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, announced at a recent conference that Facebook's Open Graph project will soon enable an even greater degree of personalisation as people surf the net. I think this probably has implications for user experience, in terms of viewing popular sites through the prism of social networking - and it gives sites more authority to store data about individuals. Because Facebook seems to be so pervasive nowadays, it seems like we won't have much say in the matter...

Allison, that's a great point, I've tried to quit using the site but I stop when I realise that I won't know about upcoming social events - unfortunately its the primary means of communication used by some friends!

Yes and I think Facebook take full advantage! A lot of my friends have been posting notes on FB about changing privacy settings now that the new features have come in. So, people are trying to resist but in a more subtle way than dropping out of FB altogether.

Founder of the infamous Australian Whirlpool Forums Simon Hackett outlines five points about the impending government ISP level filter. Interesting as it highlights the gap between the governments ideals for online family security and the realpolitik for control.

The National Broadband Plan has to be thought in terms of social progress, and keep in mind the true nature of the open Internet. David Stephen argues in favor of the National Broadband Plan but reminds that the FCC should not be focused in regulating only.

This offers an overview of how the debate over the proposed mandatory internet filtering law has played out to date. In particular it outlines key voices in the debate and their stance.