American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Australia to Implement Mandatory Internet Censorship

More news stories on Australia/New Zealand

Herald Sun (Melbourne), Oct. 29, 2008

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.

Original article

(Posted on October 30, 2008)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — WR the elder wrote at 1:46 AM on November 1:

To 10:41 PM on October 30:

You’re a fool if you think that this censorship will stop with child pornography, or even pornography in general. They always use the problem of child pornography (which everybody is against) as the camel’s nose under the tent. “Hate speech” will be next, I guarantee it. They’ll start with the web sites nobody likes to defend (the ones advocating racial violence), then move on to the holocaust revisionists (safe targets they, neither the ACLU nor Amnesty International offered a peep of protest at the deportation and imprisonment of Zundel or Rudolf), then go after the more hard core white nationalist sites, then go after American Renaissance, and finally they’ll take down any anti-immigration web site. The result will be an internet that permits the full spectrum of political opinion from Marxism to middle of the road liberal (pretty much what’s legal in Canada today).

2 — Der Nonkonformist wrote at 10:25 AM on November 1:

“And for Australia to be the first one! That DOES shock me.”
————————————

Australia is far from being the first western country to implement internet censorship. For years now, Germany has been censoring the internet on a large scale. Search engines may not yield results that may be considered “offensive”, so people will not know that these opinions exist. To keep the people that know from accessing such content, the internet service providers simply block those websites.

Of course, there are ways around it, which are basically the same ways that the Chinese use. That’s where to government kicks in to prosecute the owners of such websites under the thought crime legislations.

http://www.nonkonformist.net

3 — Tiffany Epiphany wrote at 11:06 AM on November 1:

Will Austalians who circumvent this net nanny law be treated by their government like China treats Falun Gong?

4 — Petrarch wrote at 11:31 PM on November 1:

Essentially the first and second ammendments of these United States are continually attacked by global marxists under the guise of making this nation safe, from the misuse of guns and the misuse of speech. The question is…Why did the framers of the constitution include these as the first rights of the citizenry? Was it because they were not accustomed to the danger of guns or the inherent difficulty’s of free speech? To cut to the chase, This country was built on the sacrifice of safety, which they already had under England and risked in war,…for greater freedom of individuality and autonomy as a nation. That is they sacrificed safety for freedom. As we become effeminate by the easier life afforded by yesturyears sacrifices we are more and more willing to sacrifice freedom for safety. SIMPLY PUT people who cannot defend themselves with words or weapons ARE NOT FREE, ARE NOT SELF GOVERNING PEOPLE! WE can also see how the erosion of states rights so gallently defended by the south but lost in the conflict is now in turn evolving into the erosion of nation rights…..We that love REASON JUSTICE and especially FREEDOM need to crunch our brains on which direction leeds to these best…as very unfortunately, soon, again may come a time when words alone will not be enough for their defense…

5 — Gen X in Oz wrote at 12:41 AM on November 2:

Well the AFP (Australian Federal Police) have not kicked in my door yet, here behind the gum-tree curtain.
I was wondering how realistically they could do this.
I had CA antivirus software on my PC for about 1 week because whenever I came to Amren I would irritatingly get a blanket screen warning me I was going to enter a ‘hate site’.
And that had been the only warning of that nature I have recieved up until now in that regard in terms of visiting here. So I guess it would easy to block entire sites easily enough.
But on general censorship, I don’t know how it works in China, but have you noticed how many racist comments (in all directions)there are on sites like you-tube for instances.
Just do a search for Obama or gangsta-rap etc.
Or sending newsgroup type emails, would there a keyword type search engine filter?
Wouldn’t that just change the language ie. a terrorist would just become a terrier etc.
And when John Howard our recently disposed PM (George W clone) initiated a $84 million national net nanny filter last year, typical to these times a 16 year old hacked through the heavily encrypted 6 month Indian engineered software in 30 minutes.
Much to the Countries and the then opposition parties amusement.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&q=Teen+cracks+AU%2484+million+porn+filter+in+30+minutes+&btnG=Search

———————————————————————————————-
From the original article
“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”.
———————————————————————————————-
…….”safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy”.
But thinking about this I suppose if Amren ended up in the same bucket as child porn, Islamic extrememits and hardcore neo-nazi sites who really would defend it.
I am wondering what happened to the saying
“I may not agree with what you have to say sir, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”.
The question where do they draw the line and who decides?

6 — Anonymous wrote at 2:42 AM on November 2:

The result will be an internet that permits the full spectrum of political opinion from Marxism to middle of the road liberal (pretty much what’s legal in Canada today).
Posted by WR the elder at 1:46 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly. Or you could say: anything from Marxist to Moslem …. also pretty much what exists in Canada today.

7 — Skip wrote at 1:48 PM on November 3:

First The Aussies outlawed firearms now they want to impose censorship. The path of a dictatorship, it’s an age old formula

Australia will, I thinki, in the future have a muslim prime minister or whatever they call it now. They will ultimately call the position the Emir of Ozz. Say G-bye mate.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search