Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

This article looks at how all eyes are on Australia as the national internet filter is coming to a head. Sensationalist views aside, Getup raise some interesting points and looks at the role of ISP's in this debate.

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.

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.

This article discusses the different ways to access content that is blocked, down etc on the Internet. I'm not 100% sure if this would work around the Mandatory Internet filter in Australia though! But interesting read. 10. Skip Past Annoying User/Pass Requests 9. Read Articles That Rupert Murdoch Wants You Paying For 8. Change User Agents to Get Around Browser Blocks 7. Get to Gmail When It's Down 6. Get Actually Usable BitTorrent Speeds 5. Get To Sites Taken Down by Traffic 4. Control Computers At Home 3. Download YouTube and Other Flash Videos 2. Access Country-Blocked Streaming TV 1. Roll Your Own Proxy to Access Blocked Sites

A great look at Internet sovereignty and how the physical attributes of the internet, cables, modems, etc exist in real physical bordered spaces.

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.

China is looking to strengthen already tough laws on telco and internet companies, forcing them to inform the Government about customers who discuss state secrets. A pertinent article for those who believe that mandatory internet filtering in Australia will only ever be just that. This shows how the reins can so easily get tighter and tighter...

A Brisbane based software company's CEO created a solution to manage his son's internet access which includes time limits and blocks chat and some social network applications. Although it's unlikely to stop the ban, it's great to see people advertising their disdain for the potential legislation and what can be done to protect children in a more efficient way.

GoDaddy.com, the world's largest domain name registration company is taking similar action to Google by deciding to not conduct further business in China. This decision is a reaction to China now demanding that applicants of domain names are to provide additional personal information, including a full colour head shot photograph. While China maintains forcing applicants to register extensive personal information will curb the creation of unsavoury sites (namely pornography) everyone else outside of the Chinese government believes such detailed personal information will equip the government to target any individual (to what extent - who knows) displaying any content that the government does not support. Is this an invasion of privacy? Should people be able to exercise multiple personas on the internet, or should you be who you are? If a government is to collect such information who will ensure the information it collects isn't abused? Do we answer these questions differently when thinking of China i.e. what would the answers be if Australia was to introduce such a law? At the very least, it's a relief to see companies realising that China is compromising the values of the internet and are reacting suitably by taking their services out of the country. More need to participate in the retalliation.

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.

This article discusses how a protest was organised against th Federal Government's Internet and Content filter plan in Australia. However, the attendance for this protest was lacking. Many arguements against the filter have stated that, it is simply a "false sense of security." Protesters continue to urge the public to write emails, make phone calls, and apply public pressure.

Google shows in this maps the requests that different governments have done to remove contents from their services, including the Australian government. A more than respectable effort on transparency.

Google says that this is very much a trial and they don't give details about the requests, mainly all 'legitimate', in the interests of maintaining debate out about internet governance. The site however is launched the same day that 10 governments officially complain to Google about privacy breaches and lack of general accountability, mainly in relation to maps and buzz. I feel there's less transparency than there is positioning!

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.