If you click on the image,
you will be reported to the
Federal Internet Administration.
you will be reported to the
Federal Internet Administration.
Jingjing (right) and Chacha (a pun on the Chinese word for police, jing chá), the cartoon mascots of the Internet Surveillance Division of the Public Security Bureau in Shenzhen, China. In the Peoples' Republic of China, when you surf for things like "freedom" or "human rights" or "Tiananman Square," Jingjing and Chacha pop up on your screen as your first warning that you're straying out of bounds.
After training in China on the latest techniques governments use to censor and block the Internet, Kobber the Kangaroo Kopper will make sure Australians don't access anything inappropriate on what's left of their Internet.
We're doing this to protect you. That's our job, we're the government.
Who says English-language societies are immune to fascism and thought control? "1984" was written in English.
Vleeptron would like to remind everyone with a computer in India, Pakistan, China and Iran that you can read VleeptronZ via the very generous, courageous and freedom-dedicated www.PKBlogs.com .
Vleeptron would also like to tell the new Labor government of Australia and the new PM Kevin Rudd to go fuck themselves. We wish Labor a very short run.
===========
LATE BREAKING BULLETIN
In Germany we pay since 2007 a monthly fee (5,75 Euros) on every computer which is able to acsess the internet.If online or not!
Justification: Public TV provides audio and couldn´t keep up whith it´s service if they do´not charge every household.
All internet traffic, including e-mail, IPs and phonecalls are saved for half a year.Not the content but who contacted who and who looked up which sites.Justification: Fighting them bad boys.
===========
TechCrunch
(blog about the Internet, focusing on business)
Sunday 30 December 2007
Australia Joins China
In Censoring The Internet
by Duncan Riley
The Australian Government has announced that they will be joining China as one of the few countries globally that broadly censor the internet.
The Labor Party’s policy was announced prior to the Australian Election in November (release here) and was justified on the basis that the previous Government’s policy of providing free copies of NetNanny to all Australian households who wanted it didn’t adequately protect children.
As recently as the week prior to the election, Labor Party candidates were telling those concerned about the proposed law that the censorship wouldn’t be compulsory, and that the “clean feed” would be opt-in, not opt-out. Today’s announcement by Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy states that the censorship regime will be mandatory, although people will be able to opt-out of it. The problem of course then becomes if you opt-out questions will be asked as to why you want out, which in itself may lead to Government monitoring.
To be censored by the Australian Government is “pornography and inappropriate material.” X rated pornography is illegal online in Australia, as are casino style internet gambling, certain forms of “hate” speech and R rated computer games. BitTorrent would be a possibility, even if certain downloads for personal use may be legal under Australian law, sharing those downloads would not be. How far “inappropriate material” may extend was not made clear, for example questioning Government policy where it comes to Aboriginal people could be deemed to be discrimination under Australian law and hence blocked by the censorship regime. Worst still, bloggers or those (such as forum owners) who allow users to comment or post could find themselves blocked under this proposal should someone say or post the wrong thing. If there is one certainty in any country that implements broadscale censorship, once they start blocking content it doesn’t stop, and certainly every do-gooder group and special interest lobbyist will be wanting the Government to add to the list.
There is also a potential cost involved to Australian Internet users. The previous Government regularly cited feedback from ISP’s stating that the cost of implementing a “clean feed” would be passed onto internet users, who already pay some of the highest internet access costs in the Western world for on average slow services.
Notably Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was a former Australian Diplomat in China, and speaks fluent Mandarin; given Australia’s boom is fueled by mineral exports to China, it would seem that Australian Government policies are now by China in return. This video from before the election may have foretold some of the future.
- 30 -
=========
COMMENTS:
(There are more Comments)
=========
About TechCrunch
TechCrunch, founded on June 11, 2005, is a weblog dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies. In addition to covering new companies, we profile existing companies that are making an impact (commercial and/or cultural) on the new web space.
TechCrunch is co-edited by Michael Arrington and Erick Schonfeld.
If you would like to contact TechCrunch with suggestions, comments, corrections, errors, or new company announcements, please email editor@techcrunch.com.
TechCrunch has received the following coverage:
Featured on CBS News (again), Technorati 100, Feedster 500, and CNet Top 100 Blogs
Mentioned in the Wall Street Journal online and print editions on December 7, 2005
Mentioned in the San Jose Mercury News online and print editions on January 15, 2006
Discussed at length in the cover story of Business 2.0 magazine (print and online) for September, 2006
Voted the top blog by Business Week readers in a September 2006 poll
Featured in the online and print editions of the Wall Street Journal on November 3, 2006
Featured in a front page story in the San Francisco Chronicle on December 6, 2006
Written up by the Financial Times in December, 2006
Named one of the 50 Best Business Blogs by the Times of London in June 2007
Written up by Wired Magazine in June 2007
Featured with other blogs in the San Francisco Chronicle’s business section on October 21, 2007
Heather Harde (CEO)
Joining TechCrunch is a wonderful new adventure for me. Until now, I spent the last ten years working within News Corporation. I’ve held a variety of corporate development, strategy and operating roles both in Los Angeles and New York. Most recently, I was part of the founding team at Fox Interactive Media and their SVP Mergers & Acquisitions. We spent over $1.3 billion on eight acquisitions and two equity deals during my tenure. Our acquisitions spanned pre-launch start-ups all the way through public-company and pre-IPO buyouts.
Prior to Fox Interactive Media, I held a variety of posts at News America Marketing, TVGuide and ASkyB. Before News Corporation, I also worked for Viacom at Showtime Networks. The common theme in my media life has been working on assignments that focus on the impact of technology on media. This theme continues, of course, with TechCrunch. I started out doing investment banking for a small, private bank Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (hence my love for my HP12C). I had the opportunity to work both in New York and Tokyo on corporate advisory and private-equity transactions. I am a graduate of Mount Holyoke College and Harvard Business School.
Michael Arrington (Founder, Co-Editor)
A few people have asked me to post a little more information about myself. Instead of the standard corporate picture, I’ve included a picture of me and my dad at game four of the Giants/Angels World Series a few years ago. I like this picture, and it reminds me that every once in a while I need to get away from my computer and live real life. If you want to see my corporate bio, check out my LinkedIn profile. You can also check out my Flickr pictures (includes both business and personal pictures).
I grew up in California and Surrey, England. I started college at U.C. Berkeley, and transferred to Claremont McKenna, a tiny college located near Los Angeles, after my freshman year. I majored in economics. I went straight from college to law school at Stanford in 1992, and graduated in 1995.
I spent a few years as a corporate attorney at O’Melveny & Myers and Wilson Sonsini, working exclusively with technology companies. My clients included idealab, Netscape, Pixar, Apple and a bunch of startups, venture funds and investment banks.
The late nineties were heady days in Silicon Valley - at any given time I was working on a number of IPOs, venture financings, and merger transactions. I also co-authored a book on IPOs while I was working at Wilson Sonsini, which is still in print (on its second edition) by Bowne. I worked all the time.
I left law firm life to join a hot startup and run sales and business development. The startup, RealNames, filed to go public but didn’t make it out before the bubble burst. Eventually, RealNames liquidated after raising over $100 million in venture capital. I left that startup as it was going through the IPO process and co-founded a company called Achex. We raised nearly $20 million after the bubble burst and sold the company to First Data Corp about a year later for $32 million. Achex is now the back end infrastructure to Western Union online.
I’ve worked in an operational role at a Carlyle backed startup in London, founded and ran two companies in Canada (Zip.ca and Pool.com), was COO to a Kleiner backed company called Razorgator, and consulted to other companies, including SnapNames and Verisign. In addition to TechCrunch, I am a founder of edgeio and a member of the edgeio board of directors.
I’ve been interviewed in a few podcasts where I talk about my passion for startups and give a little more color on why I started TechCrunch.
John Furrier (on Web 2.0 Workgroup) (October 14, 2005)
Chris Pirillo (October 20, 2005)
Steve Gillmor and Mike Vizard (November 7, 2005)
Jon Gordon (November 11, 2005)
Tom Raftery (November 28, 2005)
Amber MacArthur and Leo Laporte (December 15, 2005)
VentureWeek with Eric Olson, David Hornik & Brad Feld (December 16, 2005)
Gillmor Gang (January 28, 2006)
I’ve also received the following coverage:
CBS clip with Sue Kwon on May 4, 2006
Named a “Web Celeb” by Forbes on January 24, 2007
Named one of “The 50 Most Important People on the Web” by PCWorld in March 2007
In March 2007, had a cameo appearance in the JibJab video “The News” (at the 1:20 mark)
In June 2007, named by CNN in their list of the top 100 business people “who matter now.”
In September 2007, named one of the 25 most influential people on the web by Business Week magazine
In June 2007, a Q&A with Steven Levy was in the print and online versions of Newsweek
In December 2007 I was named No.2 on the Forbes Top 25 Web Celebrities list.
I can be reached by email at editor@techcrunch.com.
Disclosures: I (Michael Arrington) occasionally advise and/or invest in companies that may be written about on TechCrunch. Any conflicts are always mentioned if I personally write about that company. For companies like edgeio where I hold a substantial equity interest, my current policy is to have someone other than me write about that company if they appear on TechCrunch, and the conflict of interest is disclosed - see this example.
My current disclosures:
I am a founder and significant shareholder in edgeio.
I am an investor in a stealth company called Daylife, based in New York.
I became an investor in Dogster on September 14, 2006.
I became an investor in Omnidrive in December 2006.
I became an investor in Dancejam in the Spring of 2007.
I became an investor in Seesmic in November 2007
December 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I’d like to be the first to congratulate Australia for taking a step back. Actually, make that 25 years!
btw- how many employees does Telstra have these days?
December 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
So now we’ll need proxy servers for Australia as well?
December 30th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
I have complete faith in the Australian public service completely buggering up the implementation of this supposed system, jsut like they did for the last lot.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Peter (#2)
until the Government works out that proxies can be used to bypass the censorship by kiddies and they’ll block them as well
December 30th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
With the change of Government I thought we would be taking a step forward, not two steps backward with our expensive, slow and now filtered Internet services.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
How long until America goes the same route? These are the greatest times of the internet. A few years from now, many of us will be looking back at these times and wonder what happened.
Cyber terrorism, piracy, and much more are only a few factors that are going to influence how access to the internet is allowed in the near future. Using the internet is merely a privilege, not a right, under U.S. law.
Enjoy these times, as things will be very different in the future.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Paul (#3)
Big Government = incompetence and corruption everywhere
So yes, it will be a nice laugh
December 30th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
ah, thanks…. just is time to cancel my trip… can’t be supporting that kind of mind
December 30th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
So … I guess democracy is not so democratic after all. I would have expected better from Australia. But then it shows you how much I know.
News like this remind me of the movie “Escape From Los Angeles”. Indeed Snake … press that button.
December 30th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Is it possible to ban using proxy?
December 30th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
ha… porn is just pixels, kids know this, it is the adults who think it is real… and violence? why the internet and not tv??
December 30th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I thought this group I joined after the election might be relevant about now.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5923057837
December 30th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Australia takes another step back, and America is lined up to be the next to do so…
December 30th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
What a beat up for the end of the year.
Many Aus ISP’s have and offer an OPT IN for censorship as part of a “responsible Service Provider code of ehics.”
All the pollies have done is try and win brownie points by making it OPT OUT.
They have assumed, based on what I don’t know, that most parents want the Internet filtered.
Before they had to do a bit of homework. Now they don’t.
I and the vast majority have to tick a box. So what?
Settle down TechCrunch, or in 08 your beat ups will catch up with you.
December 30th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Ahh, this is good that it will filter out the ‘bad’ sites. but undoubtedly it will also filter the innocent sites through mistakes!
December 31st, 2007 at 12:18 am
Matt, what’s good about it? If people don’t want to look at bad sites, they can chose for themselves. Compulsion by the government is not ever a solution unless real harm (aka, child pornography) is involved. Of course gambling and pornography leads to moral complacency, but let them chose for them selves.
All I can say, is God bless the US of A.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:21 am
This is total betrayal. My preferences went to Labor and I never thought they would try something like this, even Howard wouldn’t have tried to broadly censor the internet. We need a bill of rights in this country. I am sick of big government creeping up and attacking our freedoms. I always thought the conservative talk from Rudd was just to win the election, but this is over the top. Most Australians I know have looked at internet porn, and how are we going to know the government won’t block sites that criticise government policy? Stephen Conroy is a fool according to the Latham Diaries, where Latham journals how Conroy just wanted to be a shadow minister and didn’t care what portfolio. He obviously doesn’t give a damn about policy either. Then again, maybe Rudd is angry about the youtube video of him eating his own ear wax.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:22 am
man suks to be me…..dam i hate rudd i didnt remember him tellins me that allthough it says he did….maybe sum1 in the labour side made this article and posted a fake link saying he said it XD wot a lame
December 31st, 2007 at 12:34 am
This is just crap. These damn Socialists. The advantage and the cause of rapid progression in the internet sphere is because it’s an unregulated, uncensored, a really free space for making great, creative and innovative ideas something “real” and useful. They will destroy this spirit.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:35 am
[Argh … third try, for sure]
See my _Guardian_ Column on government Of Australia national censorware plan, from a few months ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech.....on.comment
Note I don’t like the title they gave it (”The internet can’t be censored and it’s wrong for governments to try”). I don’t assert categorically that the Internet can’t be censored, in fact “Can you censor the Internet?” is the question I’ve explored for many years.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:42 am
And I thought Australia was a free, democratic country. Sheese. Protecting “THE CHILDREN” from exposure to the real world is not an excuse for censorship in a truly free society.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:01 am
Could somebody post a link to an article that actually states what the policy is? All I can see here is some xenophobic crap, and a link to an article where the government states what it _isn’t_ doing. If you strip out all the scaremongering, I can’t actually find much content.
The only stuff I can find anywhere else is saying that the government is going to require age verification for sites hosted in Australia with certain sort of content (seems okay), and for mobile services with similar sorts of content (also seems okay). (Would need to see how that’s going to work in practice though.)
Regarding the blocking of stuff that’s illegal in Australia — if people want to look at that, then perhaps they should work to make it not illegal? Is there something wrong with blocking illegal content? You can’t sell or transmit that stuff any other way, so why on the internet?
I also can’t find evidence that there is any great firewall being set up — that’s not to say there isn’t; it’s just that this is another TechCrunch article with no useful links.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:05 am
Blairman (#17)
my House of Reps vote did too (not that it made any differnce), I really wish I hadn’t now.
Simon
http://alp.org.au/download/lab.....safety.pdf
which if you’d followed the ALP link in the post you would have found
Sorry, when you start censoring stuff it never stops. Child porno is the excuse but the net is far, far wider than that. There is a great firewall being set up, read the link details.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:06 am
@ 21. Simon Russell “Is there something wrong with blocking illegal content?”
Who decides what’s “legal”?
December 31st, 2007 at 1:11 am
@ 21. That is the problem, this is one of those stories where politicians legislate via press conference, and there is no documentation to back it up. Although I do have a stab at explaining it here:
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com/.....rship.html
December 31st, 2007 at 1:18 am
Conroy did give some warning though:
http://blog.myspace.com/index......=330513888
December 31st, 2007 at 1:25 am
Despite the groundbreaking work TC did with presidential candidates attitudes towards technology recently the reality is politicians of every shade fear losing power just as much as we fear them abusing it and the internet clearly poses a threat to the way traditional top down politics is done.
This more than any real fear of pornography or cyber terrorism is what will see Governments of every persuasion looking very keenly at any ‘respectable’ development to reign in the freedoms people have become used to on the net.
We have more to fear from politicians than perverts.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:26 am
I voted for this government on the grounds of them building a new telecoms infrastructure seperate from telstra. this is a complete betrayal. i will be voting for the libs again next time.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:34 am
@Duncan
Thanks for the link — but isn’t that just what they announced before the election? I want to know what’s changed, that’s made you post this story.
You are somewhat correct about censorship, but comparing it to China (or any other country with significantly different laws) is a bit ridiculous — there is stuff which is illegal there that isn’t illegal in Australia. And nobody’s proposing Australia start filtering stuff which isn’t illegal.
The use of the child pornography thing by the government is a bit of a cop-out though, I always hate it when discussions come down to that. It’s just a way of cutting off debate, because no-one could possibly argue _for_ the distribution of it.
@23 (Marco)
The citizens of the country decide what’s illegal, via the government. Then there is a separate organisation (that governments frequently disagree with for not being harsh enough) that decides what ratings certain things get — and that’s within the fairly limited scope of the laws as defined at that time, and the current social and moral standards.
Australia has a censorship system that works reasonably well for films, TV, games etc. There seems nothing wrong with extending that to the internet.
There are ways to make this sort of thing work _acceptably_ (obviously there will always be some issues) — mainly the separation of responsibility and power, and no central monitoring.
I’m not saying that this is necessarily a good thing; it certainly has to be implemented properly. But from what I see of their policy, if implemented properly people won’t actually notice — most people probably aren’t visiting these sites.
If sites start getting blocked because of their political content (for example), I’ll be one of the first people protesting, however. Luckily, unlike some other countries with heavy filtering, we’re free to change it.
@ 24 (Paul)
Thanks for the link. You are correct that without ISP involvement, this won’t go very far.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:42 am
I don’t see the similarity with China. Australians have a choice. If “the people” decide they want censors, then isn’t it is still a democratic decision? Just because parents outnumber freedom lovers it may seem a bit unfair. Maybe democracy is overrated.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:54 am
remember this, for this won’t be the first time this labor government treats our liberties with such disregard.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:03 am
One more country that makes a big step back…
Next step… People will allow to visit only the sites that the goverment wants…
Is this the meaning of manipulate a country?
December 31st, 2007 at 2:04 am
These are the same people that did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol after all.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:05 am
@27 Sam H. - I voted for this government on the grounds of them building a new telecoms infrastructure separate from telstra. this is a complete betrayal. i will be voting for the libs again next time.
And that is the problem with TOO MANY VOTERS! Many people hear and focus only on their few pet issues and cast their vote for the candidate/party that best speaks to these issues. Then they get blindsided by the reality of who they voted for after they are safely in office.
Here in the USA, this happened most recently with Bush in ‘04 when many voted for a 2nd term on the single issue of fear of a terrorist around every corner. Now, many are aligning with Ron Paul, similarly based only on consideration of a limited number of talking points, most (if not all) of which he would have absolutely no power to change. You need to consider the total package and look closely at all the positions that the candidate and the party has championed in the past. Yeah, it’s a lot of work but you get stuck with what you choose. You want to try and make the best overall choice possible.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:10 am
back in time
December 31st, 2007 at 2:25 am
Obviously censorship can be a real danger and can’t be the solution to the possible threat that internet can be to children. Selfishly I am therefore 100% against australia’s move, but the truth is I have a couple of young children and that I am sometimes worried regarding them using internet. Netnanny (or similar) is a good solution of course but I can’t help wondering about about my children’s friends whose parents don’t have an idea about how a computer works (let alone the Internet) but who buy a computer and an access to the web for opening the world to their children. There will definitely never be a Netnanny on these computers. So what can be done? Only a few weeks ago I heard about these two girls who committed suicide after diving deep into gothic sites.
All this to say that it is really not simple and maybe some of you who have children know what I’m talking about… There must be some solution which is other than censorship… At one time, for instance, it was proposed that pornograpgic sites all have the extension .xxx , but that went down the drain.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:33 am
Australia following the steps of Mao. How will New Zealand respond ?
December 31st, 2007 at 2:36 am
This sounds familiar…
“Move three steps back”
and pretty soon…
“Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.”
December 31st, 2007 at 2:54 am
How exactly does censorship work if you get your internet through a sat phone? They can censor hard lines but I doubt they can do the same with those guys (owned by private companies).
Jon
December 31st, 2007 at 3:02 am
may the article and picture with some ideology ,I don’t think it’s compatible in TechCrunch as an IT blog 。
OK,it’s a open world,I only Comment it with my little unhappy feeling as a Chinese and TC reader.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:03 am
but its for the kids… i hate it when politicians use the “for the good of our kids” card on matters that go far beyond the initial reactive remarks.
I love how he contradicts himself:
“Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material.”..
Ok so we need to protect the kids from surfing the web + porn at school. Hey i’m for that, lets do that - wait isn’t that what most software out there today does.. but lets add another layer of protection for good measure. SO.. no problem with that so far…
“Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road,” he said.
Oook.. now i’m nervous.. he likes the Chinese way of life… Isn’t labour political colors red.. ok now i have a sinking feeling in my stomach..
“If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.”
There we go, he went for the “..it will stop Child pornography, mark my words” angle. Who could dare to refute that.. Oh wait.. if i recall the kids involved in such content ARE THE ONES GETTING MOLESTED.. not the ones viewing the said molestation.. so i’m still scratching the old head wondering how this is going to rid the world of child pornography.. but none the less it has a great distraction momentum attached to it..
“Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.”
Ok.. now i’m lost yet again… so on one hand they want to protect us from ourselves so to speak, yet equally you have the chance to sign a waiver i guess to say “I want to see Paris Hiltons home video, and i want it now..”
Now i’m guessing.. it’s only a crazy wild guess but that may also be a gateway to allow pedophiles to say “..err yeah.. i want to look at Paris Hiltons goodies to.. honest..” and then before you know it, they are up to their acidic scummy tricks.
So what has changed overall? well a list of people is now being populated with “those that have porn access vs those whom don’t”..
“There are people who are going to make all sorts of statements about the impact on the [internet] speed,” he said.
Um… i don’t think speeds going to be top of the agenda, i think the idea of vocal anger around stupid filters in place to prevent the sky from caving in when in fact the sky isn’t caving in is going to rise to the top of the agenda.. but thats just my initial knee jerk thinking
“The internet hasn’t ground to a halt in the UK, it hasn’t ground to a halt in Scandinavian countries and it’s not grinding the internet to a halt in Europe.”
Correct but that’s pretty much because they figured out a way around it and most of the child pornography appparently comes from Europe anyway (Germany/Austria to be exact).. but hey.. if that floats his boat to get this stupid ruling passed, whom i to get in his way.. as after all.. its about protecting the kids right..
I don’t question the intent, i am glad a politician is bold enough to want to put a stop to something that clearly is the lowest of low. Yet, I question the methods behind such notion, as it’s essentially trying to boil the ocean with a box of matches..
Scott Out.
(Source Links)
http://russiatoday.ru/news/news/2530
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto.....=australia
December 31st, 2007 at 3:22 am
What happens if they block my site by mistake. Is then anyone responsible for my losses and has to compensate that. This could become expensive for the Goverment or ISPs.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:30 am
People may be interested to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship
Perhaps this article should be titled “Australia joins Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and many other countries in blocking parts of the Internet”. Those countries have laws much more closely resembling Australia’s, and have porn-filtering solutions in place that seem to work adequately.
I know I’ve posted several comments, but I should make it clear: I mainly have a problem with the tone of the article; I think more thought should be given to this sort of technological (partial) solution to a social problem — and I don’t support censorship on political or religious grounds. And I don’t think it should be under the control of the government.
It should also probably be opt-out. (Or opt-in — I don’t care really — it would be a useful service for _some_ people.)
Incidentally, the use of the term “clean feed” by the government, are they proposing the use of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....._system%29
Or is it a more generic use of the term?
(I’m also trying to leave politics out of this discussion, something which the original TechCrunch post could possibly benefit from.)
December 31st, 2007 at 3:32 am
to Remy Wilders
Actually… I still think this is some kind of joke.
Nevertheless I wanna express my surprise… do you really believe that gothic sites can make anybody committ suicide? Apparently many people share this point of view. Don’t you think it’s crazy?
I don’t think ANY site is able to make ANY damage to child who has self-confidence and who is growing in loving and supporting environment. And if there is a problem - don’t blame web sites - blame parrents and look for REAL cause of the problem.
I understand… you are worried about your kids. Tell me… you never saw a porn when you were a kid? When I was a kid there was no internet so we had to find dirty magazines. Oh man, how exciting it was to see naked woman for the first time when I was 11. Every boy in my school saw it. Didn’t you, when you were about this age? Did it hurt you? It certainly did not hurt me - I live in beautiful relationship enjoing commitment and sex with loved woman - anything wrong with that?
You are asking for solution. Censorship is no solution. Talk to your kids. Make them feel loved and valuable and they will not evet think about suicide despite any gothic site. Answer their questions about sex and care about them. Show them with your wife what partnership and love mean - and any porn site will not be able to hurt them.
I am sorry about my english.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:35 am
Censorship just makes forbidden stuff even more interesting - and kids are smart. They will always find their way to find what they are looking for.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:43 am
Hey this will be good… for porn distributors in Australia :p
Censoring is never good, education is.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:06 am
@ Jan
(I have another comment awaiting moderation, it says a bit more)
I agree with you, basically. But the porn magazines you looked at when you were a kid were regulated somewhat (depending on where you lived, I guess) — certainly in Australia they would have been. I _do_ (to disagree with you slightly) think that certain material really _can_ affect children negatively.
But things are actually different — there is much more communication going on, stuff can be distributed and hidden more easily. And the stuff probably is potentially much stranger than what you looked at. (I’m talking about distribution between children here.)
And I guess, ultimately, this sort of blocking can’t possibly stop that. So perhaps that’s why it shouldn’t be done. It can’t possibly stop everything bad — so perhaps it would give a false sense of security to the parents who are relying on it. There’s a bunch of stuff that I wouldn’t want my kids (who are theoretical at this point
) to see that isn’t illegal — I wouldn’t want the government to be involved in blocking legal (but questionable) stuff. (And I’m talking from a left-wing viewpoint here — I don’t care if my kids want to read balanced information about drugs or abortion; I’m mainly talking about violent imagery).
Setting your kids up with a good sense of what’s right and what’s wrong is a good idea; it’s essential, for many reasons. But what about the other kids at their school?
The internet does present some new problems (and new opportunities), we can’t just pretend they don’t exist, or that they’re just like the problems of the past.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:17 am
Simon:
It’s not about head in the sand syndrome. It’s more to do with the approach and given there is a lot of issues around simply blacklisting an IP/DOMAIN as being “bad”. As who decides what is bad, when do they do it and if they get it wrong whom compensates.
I like my taxes low, and don’t feel like funding a class action against sheer stupidity based around the moral compass of someone whom is grandstanding over pornography…
More thought is required to a complex issue and knee jerk law making is simply not appropriate.
Scott Out.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:27 am
Fabian Schonholz wrote:
> I would have expected better from Australia.
This is not merely a national policy, but a worlwide trend.
Here in Germany, where I live, from Janurary 1st, 2008 onwards, the data of all email traffic, Internet traffic, phone calls (merely the data, not the contents) will be stored nationwide (!) for six months, allegedly to prevent something (whatever this “something” may be), keep better track of “criminal activities”–we all know those arguments. And: From what I’ve read, this policy originates in the EU parliament.
I find this very frightening, and I wonder where this will lead us in the long run. (Please, note, that Germany has close ties to China as well, and if one takes a closer look, there are attempts to whitewash the Chinsese image (exhibitions on how nice & friendly China actually is; the interesting culture, etc.).
December 31st, 2007 at 4:28 am
This fucking cunt is going down (Rudd).
December 31st, 2007 at 4:31 am
Well, I’m not quite sure that the approach is that well defined — and that’s the main problem with it. I’m always a bit wary of policy announcements that don’t have a firm definition of how they’ll be achieved. An IP/domain blacklist clearly would be a naive way to attempt it.
I’d be interested to see this developed with one ISP, in a small trial. Anything more than that would be irresponsible use of money.
As for funding class action suits — if there ever was one, there’d only be one. And if whoever was in charge of the blocklist made so stupid an error as to block a site that wasn’t illegal — well, then I’d want the associated court case and government embarrassment.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:52 am
to Simon Russell
>>>But the porn magazines you looked at when you were a kid were regulated somewhat
Yes, it was illegal to sell those to kids under 18. Obviously, this regulation did not work.
>>>But what about the other kids at their school?
>>>The internet does present some new problems (and new opportunities), we can’t just pretend they don’t exist, or that they’re just like the problems of the past.
Yes, I agree, absolutely. I am not pretending I have solution. I am just saying - lets talk about real problems and real solutions. I think internet is just some kind of a mirror of our society. We say “when your face is hideous don’t blame the mirror”. Any ban is not going to make these problems disappear - there is no simple solution. And I am not even talking about the fact it’s technically impossible to ban anything on the internet - not without crippling it. Parents might not know how internet works but their 12-years-old kids have no problem with proxies and encrypted connections.
BTW, there are things I wouldn’t want my kids to see. But on the other hand… when I was in the America I saw so many natural and beautiful things censored… what’s wrong with boobs? What’s wrong with talking about sex? What’s wrong about nakedness? I think this kind of censorship does not protect our children - it damages them. Having studied psychology a have seen so many people damaged by making taboos out of natural things - and these people have suffered a lot.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:07 am
Who’s the third world now huh?
December 31st, 2007 at 5:27 am
@Jan
You are right that “moral” censorship in some places goes too far — which is why I think a government-sponsored project may be more useful; it’s more likely to reflect the dominant moral attitude. Australia isn’t the US; nor is it anywhere else — it would need a blocklist that reflects that.
I would have a distinct problem with something that blocked _all_ nudity or something stupid like that. It’s all to do with context.
Regarding the non-internet porn that was illegal to sell to people under 18 — at least it was harder to duplicate. And it at least met the standard of being saleable to people over 18 — not exactly a sign of it having terrific moral excellence, but at least a basic standard. I think it’s a “security through obscurity” type argument, but in the case of children, making stuff difficult does help (a little).
Yes, kids are going to know about encryption and proxies and all sorts of things. At least it makes it slightly more difficult. And if it gives the impression of “forbidden-ness” to things that most of society thinks should be forbidden, then perhaps that’s a useful thing?
December 31st, 2007 at 5:30 am
Obviously, surveillance and censorship is becoming more and more popular with political leaders all around the world.
As mentioned by Claus, in Germany we’ll have a wonderful new law from the beginning of 2008 (or shall I say 1984…) that requires ISPs and other telecommunication carriers to store information about all connections between parties on their network and make that information available to the police for the alleged purpose of fighting terrorism in Germany (for those of you not so familiar with politics in Germany: The number of terrorist attacks over here in the last 30 years equals 0, so sure: Counterterrorism it is…).
At the end of this year about 12.000 Germans already got a taste of what this will bring about in the future to come. They were suspected of being involved in child pornography only because they happened to have accessed some servers with legal pictures of naked women. Of course, most of them won’t be accused at all. However, being involved in legal proceedings as a suspect can in many cases be enough to ruin your career or relationship. So welcome to Brave New World, where everyone is a suspect!
Democracy is pretty much worthless if you do not have the freedom to express yourself, to access the information you want to and to do so without the constant feeling that you’re under surveillance. I mean, what we sometimes mistakenly call democracy (remember Ancient Greece had democracy as well, but they also kept slaves, which by today’s understanding of democracy is not, well, quite democratic…) hasn’t been so tremendously successful during the last century, because we were allowed to choose which kind of party or politician is going to rule is in the next few years, but because we had freedom and essential civil liberties and because there were certain clearly defined limits to what the state (and by definition of a democracy the majority of the electorate) is allowed to do to you! Without these we actually could do without democracy right away!
It is about time people all around the world claim back those liberties and their individual freedom. Although chances seem to be slim, I hope that Ron Paul makes it next year, since American politics does have a huge impact on politics in the rest world and an American president that upholds civil liberties instead of abolishing them would be a kick in the a** for all the neocons around the world.
PS: If you happen to live in Australia, China, Germany or some other country that censors or monitors the Internet in some way or another, just do the following:
1.) Get yourself a server with SSH access (the other specifications of the machine do not matter at all) in some mini-state that is known for not cooperating so well with your local government.
2.) Connect to that machine with ’ssh -D 9999 your.machine.some-domain’
3.) Enter ‘localhost’ as address and ‘9999′ as port in your browser’s SOCKS proxy settings.
Et voilà : All the requests going in and out from your browser will now be routed through the remote machine, thereby circumventing both surveillance and censorship. The only way this could be prevented would be completely shutting down the Internet, since the port (9999 in the example above) can be varied freely.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:05 am
Disclaimer: Haven’t read the law proposal.
It seems to be overly broadly defined, so what is being targetted for censorship is not very specifically defined. Which opens it op for abuse.
And when you first start something like censorship (for whatever good reason), it is far too easy to slip a little further. “If we censor this, why not also that”. Every argument is reasonable, but you’ll soon find yourself too far gone for comfort.
Censorship is dangerous for a democracy, no matter the good intention.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:30 am
Just hope that it doesn’t happen in my country
http://technoq.blogspot.com
December 31st, 2007 at 6:35 am
When we have a clear definition of “inappropriate material”, we can be happy. If it remains open, then virtually anything the majority doesn’t agree with can be censored. I agree with 54: democracies do not censor.
Although if someone were to try this in the U.S. I think the Freedom of Speech might shut it down pretty quickly. There is nothing the U.S. govt could legally block.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:43 am
@ 53 Bjoern
The idea proposed in your PS is nice, but it would only work if the ISP you use to connect to the server in the “mini-state” does not block the IP address of the server. It seems plausible that an ISP could block any IP address they wanted to without having to specify a port number or range…
December 31st, 2007 at 6:53 am
China I could understand but Australia? It doesent make any sense.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:56 am
We (the US) do not allow gambling online, is that censorship?
December 31st, 2007 at 7:10 am
I didn’t hear anyone raising a cry when Aborigines lost their right to view porn 6 months ago, so maybe we all deserve to lose our rights now. Anyhow, we’re not, just opt in!
December 31st, 2007 at 7:51 am
I live in austalia. I voted green, with preferences to rudd (we have compulsory voting here for those who don’t know). This is not an outrage post, but merely to note the lackof attention this has garnered. I myself, voted for a change, and it happened. This was the only “left” candidate available in the mainstream, and this is not score points. But merely to point out to Americans everywhere that so many Australians are sick of absorbing every ounce of left-over American culture; and not beat poets or amazingly new writers riding the avante guarde crest that you seem to create (and don’t stop!). While America does dominate this country (not exactly your choice, I know) I want you all to know that Australians actually do give a shit about all the political shit going on at the moment. I for one will be holding a party the second Bush gets out. Unfortunately for us, the global tide has swept centre-right, and Rudd seems to be the most “left-wing” candidate in ten years, seriously. It’s amazing the lack of concern showed by people that the government is censoring the internet…no care, at all. From the PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE: well, slightly less convervative, bullshit. Well, I share your disdain, and it really just goes to show how politics, one way or another, will get what it wants. As a left-winger, you want unity? World-peace? How about if we form a world goverment, everyone will be united and any “enemy” will be dissolved. Btw, our government has never suffered a terrorist attack on home soil (in recent memory?), in Bali, yes, but the amount of times I’ve had to listen to the “threat from terrorists”. It is ridiculous. The latest propaganda to spew from the murky anus of the government, sickening and not surprising. We are awake.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:31 am
Censoring the internet? who asked for it? old conservatives?’
who’s using it? young liberals!
December 31st, 2007 at 8:36 am
This is bad, it create yet another precedence by a developed country to go against the freedom they once fought for. Other countries can now use this as a lame/ignorant excuse to censor anything and everything. Censoring is a deep gray area and who has the power/control can silence the rest.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:08 am
@29 SR
The citizens of the country decide what’s illegal, via the government.
That’s wrong. I have never voted and so never voted to restrict freedom.
Even in Autralia a lot of people don’t votet for the Socialists to fight against freedom of speach in the internet.
The truth is: “We” decide nothing. Even not our own life.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:14 am
Are they going to ban/censor the nude beaches too?
December 31st, 2007 at 9:15 am
You Americans and your conspiracy theories! Firstly, there is no conspiracy between Kevin Rudd and the Chinese to kill freedom of speech in Australia. As Stephen Conroy said in his announcement, you cannot compare blocking x-rated porn and violence on ISP’s in Australia to what they are doing in China.
Internet users in Australia will still be able to view porn and violence if they want to, but our kids will be protected. Maybe other countries in the world are happy to have their kids exposed to sex and violence on the internet, but we are not. As an Australian, I am appalled at the way this issue has been reported in the media and exaggerated by blogs like yours.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:55 am
“but our kids will be protected.”
You guys are as full of shit as the politicians trying to pass these ridiculous bills in the first place. You actually believe the government is going to protect your child from any so-called harmful material from the internet? What have parents been doing this whole time?
Parenting needs to stop taking a backseat to this political nanny mentality. And should be adult enough in raising your own kids. Keep burying your heads in the sand like this and the government will continually lead you by the hand with everything else.