Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The article talks about "Access Controlled", a new book from the Open Net Initiative that examines the new second and third generation filtering techniques employed by governments such as Russia and Belarus that are far more subtle than China's 'Great Firewall' but can censor unwanted content as effectively.

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.

In 2001, the South Korea''s Ministry of Information and Communication promulgated the controversial Internet Content Filtering Ordinance. In addition, new rules are expected, which will set down relatively rigid provisions requiring news Websites to comply with the same restrictions as newspapers, TV, and radio.

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.

This is a website that discusses the reasons that the Internet filter should not be pursued. The main reasons are: 1It won't protect children. 2 The whole country will pay for this ineffective solution

Product alert - but this one is free! Symantec have released 'Norton Everywhere' which aims to provide a holistic security solution to all internet devices. What this means for DNS is rather than defaulting to the DNS server of your internet provider you can use choose to use the Norton DNS. This will filter insecure sites and guard against malicious DNS attacks. Symantec isn't the first to provide such a service. If Norton doesn't appeal there are other free DNS options such as Google Public DNS an OpenDNS. Changing your default DNS setting to one of these providers seems like a worthwhile thing to do.

Describes how twitter is being used for citizen participation and "democracy" in various countries from Moldova, Iran and now China. The author proposes that the best way to reduce censorship and promote "democracy" is not political pressure, but to "flood the Chinese market, and those of other countries that restrict freedom of expression, with cutting-edge technology". My opinion: Although Twitter seems to be good at allowing citizens to organise and to create consensus, it does not seem to translate well to actual policy outcome. 

The Chinese government is planning to engage mothers in an effort to apparently  "protect" children. A genuine concern or just legitimization of censorship?

It seems to be like by-the-book State mechanisms to legitimize policy. Classic propaganda.

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.

"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.

And if so - what are the implications for whichever search engine takes the reins?

"Australia's biggest technology companies, communications academics and many lobby groups have delivered a withering critique of the government's plans to censor the internet." (quoting smh, 23/3/10, 4.40pm)

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.

This is the Iranian government's answer to US anti-internet censorship groups who aim to undermine the regime's strict filtering rules through funding from the CIA. It brings up questions of international involvement in extreme national governance of the internet.

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.

Australian censorship laws reach a new level.

I'm not certain how this fits into the RC internet filtering, but by requiring artists to lodge a $500 application for expert appraisal to certify an image 'art' as opposed to any old image that is subject to child pornography laws, you implicity RC everything else.

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?

Controversial! But the article summarises many of the difficulties of most opinions on this divide... does bad stuff justify bad laws? The second comment - re why do media exacerbate the situation? is also pertinent. The internet has changed power and social relations causing disequilibrium amongst existing controls and power structures and social norms. This marks a highly contested border dispute.

Governments say they need Internet censorship, surveillance of the Internet, internet filtering system and so on to protect their citizens. But they should know that they are taking the freedom of choice away from the individual and also taking the responsibility away from the individual.