Technology news and Jobs 
Cornered! One small but significant step towards Internet censorship
Cornered! One small but significant step towards Internet censorship | One small but significant step towards Internet censorship |
|
|
|
| Written by Stuart Corner | |
| Wednesday, 02 January 2008 | |
|
The latest instalment in the saga started in March 2006 when the ALP started calling for ISP level filtering to be made mandatory. Then leader, Kim Beazley, claimed that "The reality is that cost and poor computer literacy mean almost two-thirds of parents don't have Internet filters on their family computers." Communications minister, Helen Coonan, dismissed the idea claiming it was impracticable, but did a remarkably swift back flip and announced in June 2006 that the ACMA would undertake a trial of ISP-based filtering in Tasmania, "in an effort to ensure that we are using the most effective means at our disposal to crack down on offensive and inappropriate material on the Internet." This was part of a "comprehensive package of measures to crack down on the scourge of Internet pornography," that included providing every Australian family with a free Internet filter. Civil Liberties proponents were appalled at the idea of ISP-based filtering. Electronic Frontiers Australia chair, Dale Clapperton said: "We are also gravely concerned that this announcement is merely the thin end of the wedge. Once the government-mandated infrastructure is in place at all ISPs to supply this 'opt-in' filtering, it is a very small step to change it to an 'opt-out' system, or even a system where each and every Internet connection is censored by the ISP, whether the customer wants it or not." Well guess what. The first of those steps has already been taken: According to reports the system proposed by the ALP will be opt-out not opt-in. Communications minister Stephen Conroy has been reported responding to accusations that Australia is heading towards Chinese-style Internet censorship by saying: "Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the Internet is like going down the Chinese road...If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree." So if these filters are put in place and are set to block known child-porno web sites then does this mean that if I opt-out of filtering my ISP is going to give me access to known child porn sites or are they going to continue to block them, effectively introducing mandatory censorship? The latter option seems far more likely. Taking that next small step to full mandatory censorship will be so easy, and so easy to justify for such content. But where will the line be drawn? It's a fair bet that before too long simplistic arguments like equating freedom of speech with the right to watch child porn movies will be used to justify the next step from opt-out to mandatory censorship. It might start with child porn, but you can bet it won't stop there.{moscomment}
Get stories like this delivered daily - FREE - subscribe now When you subscribe get a 12 months license for LiveProject Valued at $99 USD  Download the FREE iTWire desktop alert widget
  |
Tags
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Subscribe to iTWire's daily e-newsletter now and get a FREE 12 month license to project management software valued at $99 USD. 
