Group items tagged

The United Kingdom parliament has passed the Digital Economy Bill, an extensive and controversial piece of legislation, by a vote of 189 to 47. The legislation encompasses online copyright infringement, Internet piracy, regulation of TV and radio, the classification of video games, regulations over ISPs, and a hodgepodge of other digital topics.

My first blog post about my topic - "protest movements". I am specifically looking at the Australian protest movement against the Government's proposed ISP filtering legislation.

As mentioned in the tutorial: Sharleen spent 16 years under 24/7 house arrest in NSW. No one is actually sure what legislation she was detained under. Many other people were, and still are, doing exactly what she did. However, she broadcast the fact on national television and became a scapegoat. The intersection of media and politics, the forcing of action and then lack of transparency around the forced actions are very reminiscent of the Internet Filter and Black List debate.

Baking surveillance, control and censorship into the very fabric of our networks, devices and laws is the absolute road to dictatorial hell. This interesting article discusses legislative measures taken in the UK regarding the digital economy. The first question that springs to mind is - how will it be enforced in an effective way?

With mandatory filtering legislation looming in Australia, Google makes its point about why this is a bad idea. And while their argument doesn't include any ground breaking points, it is a good summary of reasons against the legislation.

Blog from the New Internationalist about the movement taking place in the UK to donate votes for the upcoming elections, called "Give Your Vote". The idea is for UK citizens to donate their vote to someone in Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ghana. These countries were chosen due to the involvement of the UK in all these countries through various ways (ie troops, legislation that has an impact on climate change, trade). In each country they have a sister campaign called "Use a UK Vote". Effectively it is a means for citizens of these nations to voice their opinions. The movement demonstrates global democracy in a sense. A word of warning - if you want to visit the site http://www.giveyourvote.org/ it's not particularly user friendly. Under the heading there are subheadings (however they are invisible).

Blog Post 1 - Online Safety

Digital Due Process is the name of a new coalition composed among other companies by Google, Microsoft and AT&T advocationg for a new legislation to strenght online privacy laws to prevent government access to private digital information in the US

surprise surprise, the MISP is off the agenda till after the election...

"we are not amused".....i don't think this can be resurrected...unless there's a huge public outcry about something and they wheel it back in.

how much time and money has been wasted on these initiatives that get shelved?

Following the government's decision to postpone the internet filtering legislation last week what is the future for this legislation? Post election there is the likelihood of even harsher censorship than that currently proposed. Fitzgerald suggests that the election could be turned in part in to a referendum on the issue? But when it comes down to it which party will actually nominate themselves to lead the charge against the filter in parliament- only the Sex Party??- a party founded on the issue of internet censorship.

This article discusses how a private Labor party polling has indicated that some computer-illterate mums and dads wish to have Conroy make the Internet safer for their children.

Social networking sites are serving as a new breeding ground for sex offenders who use popular sites such as Facebook and Skype to prey upon minors. Is tougher legislation the answer or does more need to be done to keep children safe online.

According to Stephen Conroy, there is nothing that can be done to stop the passing of the legislation implementing mandatory internet filtering. He stands by all the statements he has previously made, and advises this IS occurring in June.

This article is about Stephen Conroy's push for the Internet filtering regardlessof the scrutiny it has undergone over the past months. The government will force ISPs to block a series of websites that have been secretly identified as refused classification.

So, The UK legislated, before the election, to make ISPs monitor subscribers using illegal downloading sites. As you see in the article. The Lib Dems don't like it much. But since they are just the whiney younger sibling in the New Coalition, their opinion doesn't matter that much and the Conservatives decided to keep it for the moment to 'see how it goes'. Watch this space ...

"When ICANN last considered ".xxx," board members also expressed worries that the suffix would leave the agency in the business of regulating content, or the type of material that would find itself there." Aside from all the ways, this is unworkable and unlikely to bring the results anticipated, let's not make ICANN or TLD administrators responsible for regulating anything... else.

"When ICANN last considered ".xxx," board members also expressed worries that the suffix would leave the agency in the business of regulating content, or the type of material that would find itself there." Aside from all the ways, this is unworkable and unlikely to bring the results anticipated, let's not make ICANN or TLD administrators responsible for regulating anything... else.

A cyberbullying bill put to a House sub-committee in the US wasn't met with much enthusiasm as members felt it was an "unconstitutional breach of free speech." The proposed legislation was put forward in response to a 13-year-old girl who committed suicide because she was bullied online

Interesting comparison between Microsoft and Google experiences in China. 

Everyone's probably bookmarked this article already! Sentencing senior Google execs on the grounds of profiting from illegal acts is probably also technically correct. Google's defense is the neutrality of the internet, which is questionable as Google do adjust content to suit, for their own profit. Which layer is this issue on? Will increasing controls on content change our internet beyond recognition? Marcuse says that tolerance can not tolerate hateful speech and acts or it is no longer truly tolerant. That's quite a conundrum!

Google to launch a new advertising product called 're-marketing' allowing google to follow you around the web, serving you up content based on what you've been doing on the internet.

Canada, alongside France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom have issued a warning to Google on the grounds that the company is ignoring privacy and legislation with respect to launching their products (Google Buzz). This is a clear example of when a company, may appear to attempt to protect their users (Google vs. China) while, in the company's own interest, these rules and regulations may be ignored. How much trust should we put into any company that offers services free to the public, and exactly what liberties do we give up when we sign up for that service?