Australia to "join China" in mandatory internet censorship

[Manedwolf]

Just...damn. I didn't know it was that bad. WILL JOIN CHINA IN... That says it all.

No opting out. Bets on how long till they add guns to the filter? Looks like they get to be a prison colony again.

Australia to implement mandatory internet censorship

AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.

The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".

Mr Conroy said trials were yet to be carried out, but "we are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material."

The net nanny proposal was originally going to allow Australians who wanted uncensored access to the web the option of contacting their internet service provider to be excluded from the service.

Human Rights Watch has condemned internet censorship, and argued to the US Senate "there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, (and) want to control it"

Groups including the System Administrators Guild of Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia have attacked the proposal, saying it would unfairly restrict Australians' access to the web, slow internet speeds and raise the price of internet access.

EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child pornography, as it would not cover file-sharing networks.

"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child pornography it would be a different debate," he said.

The technology companies' move, which follows criticism that the companies were assisting censorship of the internet in nations such as China, requires them to narrowly interpret government requests for information or censorship and to fight to minimise cooperation.

The initiative provides a systematic approach to "work together in resisting efforts by governments that seek to enlist companies in acts of censorship and surveillance that violate international standards", the participants said.

In a statement, Yahoo co-founder and chief executive Jerry Yang welcomed the new code of conduct.

"These principles provide a valuable roadmap for companies like Yahoo operating in markets where freedom of expression and privacy are unfairly restricted," he said.

"Yahoo was founded on the belief that promoting access to information can enrich people's lives, and the principles we unveil today reflect our determination that our actions match our values around the world."

Yahoo was thrust into the forefront of the online rights issue after the Californian company helped Chinese police identify cyber dissidents whose supposed crime was expressing their views online.

China exercises strict control over the internet, blocking sites linked to Chinese dissidents, the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement, the Tibetan government-in-exile and those with information on the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.

A number of US companies, including Microsoft, Cisco, Google and Yahoo, have been hauled before the US Congress in recent years and accused of complicity in building the "Great Firewall of China".

The Australian Christian Lobby, however, has welcomed the proposals.

Managing director Jim Wallace said the measures were needed.

"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access," Mr Wallace said.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html

[MicroBalrog]

Soon in a country near you.

[Balog]

Yahoo was founded on the belief that promoting access to information can enrich people's lives, and the principles we unveil today reflect our determination that our actions match our values around the world."

Yahoo was thrust into the forefront of the online rights issue after the Californian company helped Chinese police identify cyber dissidents whose supposed crime was expressing their views online.

One of these things is not like the other.......

[ilbob]

Obama will no doubt include Rush Limbaugh as a banned site.

What a terrible idea.

[Waitone]

Coming to a nation near you.  The US variant will combine internet control with fairness doctrine. 

Enjoy!

[Manedwolf]

They gets missing what they had. They get so lonely for the high-scrapers and the video. And they does the pictures so they'd 'member all the knowing that they lost.

So much for tomorrow-morrow-land, Australia. You need a free and open web for that. Oh well.

Maybe they'll figure out that it won't work too well as soon as thousands of agile proxies pop up.

[Standing Wolf]

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Followed by firearms in short order, I'm sure.

This sort of so-called "thinking" will be warmly welcomed in America before long. In Mussolini's day, it was called "making the trains run on time." Today, it's being called "public safety" or "public health."

In plain English, it's tyranny.

[Don't care]

Australia first starts by banning guns.

Now censorship of the internet.

Anyone see a pattern?

[seeker_two]

AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.

The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.

Orwell couldn't have written it any better.... 

[AZRedhawk44]

Anyone know if APS is blocked by Chinese proxy filters?

[seeker_two]

Not sure.....we'll send Mike to Beijing to check....

[TF_FH]

How long after everything is filtered do they just start REMOVING websites that they don't like?  Denying static IP's to people so that every time they try to have people go directly to the site without a DNS lookup, its a hit and miss guess game/message everyone with the IP thats only good for a day?

[Manedwolf]

How long after everything is filtered do they just start REMOVING websites that they don't like?  Denying static IP's to people so that every time they try to have people go directly to the site without a DNS lookup, its a hit and miss guess game/message everyone with the IP thats only good for a day?

Who would base a site there?

[AZRedhawk44]

How long after everything is filtered do they just start REMOVING websites that they don't like?  Denying static IP's to people so that every time they try to have people go directly to the site without a DNS lookup, its a hit and miss guess game/message everyone with the IP thats only good for a day?

I don't see this ever happening here.  Between Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Peaceably Assemble and Freedom to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, it's kinda hard to make a Constitutional argument in favor of squelching the Internet.  

Also, due to the non-broadcast nature of the 'net, it's unlikely that the FCC will have much jurisdiction.  After all, you have to TELL a sight to send you information, rather than the current TV model where signals are constantly sent and tuning from one channel to another can involve traversing several more channels in the process.  You get what you WANT to see, what you choose to see, when you get on the net.

Like this:



 

[mtnbkr]

Who would base a site there?

It doesn't have to be based there.  The folks that run the filter can start filtering based on IP rather than name.  All sorts of ways to do that...

Chris

[De Selby]

What they need is a free speech amendment buried in that mini-novel of a constitution.

America leads the world in freedom of speech, far and away.  It's a bit frustrating to come down here and meet folks who don't feel that there's any need to protect it so militantly like we do in the states.

[Standing Wolf]

I don't see this ever happening here.  Between Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Peaceably Assemble and Freedom to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, it's kinda hard to make a Constitutional argument in favor of squelching the Internet.

The Bill of Rights is a paper restraining order against government. Government is responsible for enforcing it.