Group items tagged

A Crikey article on DBCDE's proposal of mandatory filtering and the "Submissions on measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material". The Government's courting of mandatory filtering has drawn widespread criticism from such stakeholders as Google, the Internet Industry Association and highly regarded academics such as Professors Catherine Lumby, Lelia Greean and John Hartley. One of the main concerns is that the scope of the filtering is too wide and will have major implications on what content is available online. This article also helpfully provides links to some of the submissions.

Call for consultation regarding Australian government's mandatory internet filtering scheme. 

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.

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.

Two of the world's leading providers of online services Google and Yahoo have criticised the federal government's plan to censor internet content as heavy handed. The Australian government are now trying to enhance accountability and transparency of the mandatory ISPs filering schema.

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.

Minister Stephen Conroy challenges Google's credibility in response to the search engine giant's criticism of Australia's looming mandatory filtering. Interestingly he also says he is unaware of complaints from Hilary Clinton - which his department responded to in the previous article I posted. Interesting...

In the words of one infamous US President, Australia - "you are either with us or against us". Australia's proposed mandatory filtering laws runs contrary to stated US foreign policy championing an open internet. Read US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's remarks on internet freedom.

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

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.

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.:)

Four Corners and Q&A are covering the mandatory ISP filter debate tonight, should be a great double bill. Now its off the agenda till after the election, so the Government clearly misjudged the public reaction. Thanks to widespread media coverage on the inherent flaws of the MISP, coupled with the activism of protest movements such as Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Pirate Party, its fair to say that the general public have moved beyond the Government's black and white positioning of the proposal.

Thanks for the reminder!

Google Australia says here that the mandatory internet filtering is too wide and they believe that the filtering not only would slow user access speeds, but also questions the legitimacy of the measure because of the associated restrictions on access to information

A speech by Stephen Collins, member of the EFA Board, that he gave at Parliament House recently to highlight the problems with the mandatory filter.

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.

The spat continues between Google and Stephen Conroy with their arguments looking to be ongoing ad infinitum in a bid to get back at the other. Although the Greens also pipe up with saying Conroy looks as though his vehement criticisms of Google do appear to be consequence to their outspoken criticisms of the mandatory filter.

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.

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.

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?

Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State for the US has 'raised concerns' with Australian officials as part of the ongoing relationship between the countries on the plan to implement mandatory filtering. If the government succeeds, Australia will join the likes of Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, North Korea, Egypt, Iran and other countries often less than co-operative in foreign affairs.