Slashdot Log In
Australia to Offer Widespread ISP-level Filtering
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Aug 10, 2007 09:24 AM
from the definitely-thinking-of-the-children dept.
from the definitely-thinking-of-the-children dept.
Phurge writes "According to a Sydney Morning Herald article, the Australia government has decided to take the controversial step of having internet service providers filter web content at the request of parents, in a crackdown on online bad language, pornography and child sex predators. 'The more efficient compulsory filtering of internet service providers (ISPs) was proposed in March last year by the then Labor leader, Kim Beazley. At the time, the Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, and ISPs criticised his idea as expensive. Three months later Senator Coonan announced the Government's Net Alert policy, which promised free filtering software for every home that wanted it. She also announced an ISP filtering trial to be conducted in Tasmania. That trial was scrapped. Today Mr Howard will hail the ISP filtering measure as a world first by any Government, and is expected to offer funding to help cover the cost. Parents will be able to request the ISP filter option when they sign up with an ISP. It will be compulsory to provide it. The measures will come into effect by the end of this month.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Report Warns Against Well-Meaning Net Censorship 123 comments
athloi writes "A report entitled 'Governing the Internet,' was issued Thursday by the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The document, which highlights the increasing environment of internet 'policing' around the world, characterized the practice as 'a bitter reminder of the ease with which some regimes -- democracies and dictatorships alike -- seek to suppress speech that they disapprove of, dislike, or simply fear.' From the article: 'The OSCE report says Kazakhstan's efforts to rein in Internet journalism in the name of national security is reminiscent of Soviet-era "spy mania," and it says Georgian law contains numerous provisions curbing freedom of expression online. Web sites, blogs and personal pages all are subject to criminal as well as civil prosecution in Kazakhstan, and the country's information minister, Yermukhamet Yertysbayev, has vowed to purge Kazakh sites of "dirt" and "lies."'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What's the big fucking deal??? (Score:5, Funny)
Jesus H. Fucking Christ Almighty, it's only goddammed fucking words.
Re:What's the big deal??? (Score:3, Insightful)
We choose not to profane our conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Choose is the correct word here. I choose what profanity I use. I choose what profanity I find offensive and ignore it. Others should not be able to decide for me what is profane.
However the article did say that the filters was upon request. However, I think people need to be educated about filtering. They need to know that it is far from perfect and no substitute for good judgment.
Re:What's the big deal??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:What's the big deal??? (Score:5, Funny)
Profanity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.
Parent
And your point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And your point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess: One is full of sexy pictures, trash, lies and people manipulating the truth, the other is myspace?
Parent
Re:And your point is? (Score:4, Insightful)
After 40 odd years, I still vividly remeber getting a slipper thrown at me the first time I said "oh fuck" in front of my mum, I had no idea what it meant I was just parroting the "big kids".
And you don't think that is ridiculous? All you were doing was making sounds come out of your mouth. Without knowing the meaning behind the words, it is not profanity, it is just language.
If I sit there and swear at you in Japanese (assuming you don't speak Japanese), is it going to offend you? Of course not cause you have no idea what I am saying. So those words would not be profanity then.
The proper response should have been for your mother to sit down with you and explain what that word means, why some consider it offensive, and how it should only be used in the presence of people who find it acceptable - and if you do not obey those rules then you will be punished.
Kids are not as stupid and ignorant as some lawmakers and parents make them out to be. In actual fact they're usually ahead of the curve.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, we don't actually. We did sorta four decades ago. It had its pluses and minuses. It was nice to be able to let your kids watch network programming without too much risk of having to explain homosexuality to an eight year old or having your six year old inform you that her first grade teacher is a bitch.
But those days are gone and their demise is not the fault of the Internet in any way shape or form. IMO, the enemy is us, not our in
Re:What's the big deal??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the enemy is us. For those that think its a 'risk' to tell a child about same sex relationships the adult is the one with the issue. At what age do you tell a child they're adopted? At what age do you tell a child that in some families a man/woman and another man/woman can be together. If they grow up with it, there wont even be an issue. The wider generation behind us are going to grow up with it as acceptable, except for those homeschooled and only learn about it in college - along with a fear of many other things.... those of our generation who cannot get their heads around it will have to live with it.
In Samoa, they may raise a boy child as a girl (see here [wikipedia.org], where some might call that Transgendered and 'unnatural' it is actually normal in their society. So this boils back the the OP's comment: "In modern society, we have a thing called "decency." It depends who defines "society" and its usually the aristocracy that are calling things indecent, not the general public.
Aussies are well known for using bad language, and are pretty open about sex, un-married sex, wet t-shirt competitions, male strippers, Dame Edna and the guy who entered Australian Idol as a girl.
Come to think of it - knowing the number of Aussies I do, if wider society of Australia was setting the filter parameters of their entire internet they'd probably only ban Goatse and tubgirl.... or they'd only let it through if it had Johnny Howards, or Warwick Cappa's face on it..
Parent
It is an election stunt (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that either, It's just pure election year hypocracy. The *.cx domain is under the control of the Australian government since it is the domain for the the territory of Christmas Island.
What we are seeing here is an election stunt appealing mostly to a cult called the "Exclusive Bretheren" which has recently started putting a lot of money into Australian politics. There is also a mob called the Hillsong Church which is an almost purely commercial local copy of the worst
Re:What's the big deal??? (Score:4, Insightful)
There.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. What there is, are some retarded middle-ages numbfucks who give the utmost attention to fucking superficial details, and do not give a flying fu
Re:What's the big deal??? (Score:4, Insightful)
This really needs to be parsed in some detail, because it's a wonderful example of marketing techniques applied to social debate.
What It Says
This is a declaration that asserts three things: that there is a thing called "modern society"; that we are part of it; and that "decency" is a mandatory characteristic of "modern society".
What It Literally Means
Since it is written in the present tense, for any of it to be true "modern society" must mean the collection of all people in the modern age who are alive right now. It must be that generalized, because of the further assertion that "we" are part of it, and "we" could well be people from anywhere, living in any circumstance.
This group of people has a defining characteristic called decency.
Its Marketing Purpose
Modern marketing has a few crude tools that get used over and over again. One of them is what I like to call "The Boss". The Boss tells you things with presumed authority so they sound axiomatic while in reality they are no more than unsubstantiated statements. This is popular amongst amateur marketing enthusiasts who have read "How to Win Friends and Influence People", and various books on how to pick up women. Those types of books tell you to give people orders in such a way the targets don't realize they are being pushed around. For example, have you ever heard a person start a pitch to you like this..."Listen, I have something to tell you..." The word "listen" is a command. You are being ordered to listen to that person.
In this case we are presented with three declarations that, objectively, are various degrees of wrong. Any definition of "modern society" that is so general as to include anyone who might read this can only share the most basic of characteristics. Any property as nebulous as "decency" can't possibly be uniformly defined. But the Boss tells us it can.
What It Says
"We" are members of "modern society" who share a new property called "self respect". This property is responsible for making use feel like "needless profanity" reduces our self worth.
What It Literally Means
All members of modern society are now presumed to share two characteristics: decency and self respect. A further characteristic is implied, the ability to tell the difference between "needless profanity" and (presumably) "mandatory profanity".
What's more, we members of "modern society" agree that "needless profanity" is debasing.
Its Marketing Purpose
This is more Boss talk. The purpose here is to inject the words "self-respect", "debase" and "needless profanity" into the text. The implied meaning is that we must share these properties since we are necessarily part of modern society.
We start to see the emergence of a second age-old marketing bludgeon here: Exile. Don't be left out. Don't be left behind. Don't be a loser. This second use of the meme "we are part of modern society" starts to sound like a threat: if you don't act this way you won't be a member.
The problem with The Boss is that if you hit people over the head too hard for too long they start to notice. This second sentence starts to sound a little preachy, reducing the overall effect of the spot. The Boss is completely useless if the target catches on.
What It Says
Formal language is to formal communication as lack of profanity is to everyday conversation. We consider it uncouth to use profanity in e
Parent
Re:What's the big fucking deal??? (Score:5, Funny)
Judd Apatow: "What do you think of profanity?"
Stephen Colbert: "I think it's bullshit."
Parent
First step towards ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the complete lack of technical insight behind this statement, why exactly would the Australian Government want to do this?
No paranoid delusions please.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The government is telling the ISPs they have to install the filters. Currently the government is telling the ISPs that the control of those filters is delegated from the ISPs to the ISP's customers.
My "complete lack of technical insight" sees the filter control delegation as a configuration that the ISP manages. All that needs to be done is for the government to tell the ISP to stop delegating the filter control to the customers o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about censored content is, by definition you don't know what it is unless you find some way to (illegally) circumvent the censors, so it's difficult to criticize
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the prevention of serious crime.
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's something I'd be proud to admit.
Re: (Score:2)
could this actually be a good thing? (Score:2)
Re:could this actually be a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, my TV is "filtered" - even my cable TV. I can call the cable company and unblock the "filtering" (e.g. get access to channels that are not "filtered") - as long as I'm willing to pay $19.95 a month extra per unfiltered channel. ISP's are salivating over the prospect of applying this "business model" to their service. "Unfiltered" internet (that is, paying them to stop doing something you didn't ask or want them to do in the first place) will CERTAINLY end up being more expensive that "filtered" internet. I give it one year, tops.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not meaning to be glib, but why do you expect your neighbors to pay for your porn and "moviez"? It makes perfect sense to charge people extra for these tipes of extras, expecially on a shared connection such as residential cable.
Insurance companies charge smokers or drunk drivers, or speeders more for coverage because they impose undue burden on the system. Why should smut users be any different?
First, there's the possibility that they'll filter out more than porn. (See the already existing debates on other threads.)
Second, if they want to charge by the amount of data transfered, then they should just charge by the amount of data transfered. If I want unfiltered access to essays on dissident website X, why should I have to pay more than the guy who watches YouTube all day?
Even if they never filter out anything other than porn, are you going charge people who look at still image porn more than the
What's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
The ISP is just being forced to provide filtering software at your request.
It's censorship... if you want it.
What's the big deal?
What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you've quoted was the old election promise, from 1 or 2 elections ago. As well as dropping the trial, the filter software deal was later watered down to become "ISPs are encouraged to offer web-filtering software to customers at a reduced price" (which turned out to be "somewhere between $RRP and actual retail sale price").
The current one - as far as can be told from the announcements, which are as slippery as a bucketful of grass snakes in a lard factory - is ISP-b
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Never underestimate the resourcefulness of teenage hormones."
I've got some fairly significant blocks on my network. The firewall completely blocks the kids' computers by MAC address. The only way for them to get out is via a web proxy set up on my server. They hav
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see why this is needed at all; parents can already buy filtering products if they are worried.
Another Spin on the Story (Score:5, Informative)
Considered part of the campaigning for this year's Federal election in Australia, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, announced [abc.net.au] a $162 million USD plan to protect Australian Internet users against various Internet nasties, including porn, during a web video address to a number of Australian churches. The address was also joined by the leader of the Opposition, which suggests that the proposed plan will be left in place if they succeed in taking power later this year.
With plans to provide free internet filtering software for families, more funds for online predator detection, opportunities to lean on ISPs to stop allowing access to objectionable content, and a working group to work out ways around the privacy protection enjoyed by predators (but apparently not by the people they are supposed to protect), it is likely to become a $162 million dollar black hole, for a number of reasons [beskerming.com].
It is important to consider who the presentation was pitched to, and who supported it. Unfortunately most of the dissenting voices from within parliament seem to be based on lines of religion (i.e. die-hard atheists complaining that Christian representatives spoke to Christian gatherings), and not on the technological shortfalls of the plan.
Only the first step ... (Score:4, Insightful)
This sounds so nice and sweet on the surface: the government is going to protect your children by filtering the Internet content to which they have access. What could be wrong with that?
Of course, once you have an official filtering mechanism in place, it can be used to filter other "anti-social" content. And it will. It's just a matter of time. The next step will be the restriction of some universally loathed faction, like the Nazis. Neo-fascist sites will be banned as will sites from other "extremist" groups, terrorists, etc. Then illegal drug related sites will be banned, and later hard alcohol sites.
Eventually, you can be expect to be protected from Twinkies and Ding-dongs. But not the Ding-dongs that you voted into office. Somehow they will always be exempt from filtering.
What's the difference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Gosh... (Score:3, Insightful)
What the Hell (Score:5, Informative)
Election pandering (Score:5, Interesting)
Previously Howard has played the "OMG the illeagal immigrants" card (google for Tampa and babies overboard).
Hopefully this time the Oz public won't fall for it, bu then again we re-elected Howard in the election after the Tampa incident even though it had been shown that that was all a stunt.
Of course my opinion of Howard has been coloured ever since I listened to "How green was my cactus" many years ago, and he was always referred to as "Little Johnny Howard" (this was before he became supreme ruler).
I also liked it when a Japanese (I think) paper referred to him as "Shrub"
That's what I call strict! (Score:2)
Who is paying for this? What about competition? (Score:4, Interesting)
Filters tend to be abused (Score:2, Interesting)
Opt in today, opt out ..? (Score:2, Insightful)
Australia only had one internet policy over the past 10 years:
How can we filter it?
Please join or donate to Electronic Frontiers Australia
http://www.efa.org.au/ [efa.org.au]
only pedophiles... (Score:5, Funny)
Kids are not too breakable (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a program on our local community TV station that was made by high school kids (I'm guessing they had an average age of 14 years old). This show had a voxpop style segment where kids spoke about issues arising from the Internet.
It was amazing to see how mature they were about the evils that they had found on the net. Sure, they said, they had come across some "creepy guys". Sometimes they string them along a bit, but mostly they just ignore them. They had seen porn, and they spoke of how it was a pain how much porn-spam they received. We can talk about this stuff without sniggering behind our hands - and kids can do that too.
I really wish that the hysterical parents and politicians would actually spend some time listening to the kids. They are not fools. Talk to them about the potential dangers that they may face before they start surfing by themselves so they know what to expect and how to avoid problems. Don't be sensationalist; just be straight forward and mature about it. Do this so they know they can come to you to get advice on more mature situations.
Where the bloody hell are you? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How many large scale (10+ people) shootings of school students have you heard in Australia ?
Gun control has its +/- points, but that is offtopic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. There has never been anything like the tradition of gun ownership in Australia as in the US. In the last 20-30 years gun crime became more prevalent and the population generally supported tightening of restrictions on gun ownership. I've never, in my 50 years, met anyone who I knew owned a handgun. In rural areas, farmers had r
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, they won't beat us in the USA. If they implement internet filtering, we'll plant microphones in everybody's house and have "profanity police" listening in periodically. Nobody is going to out-big-brother us - we're number one! we're number one!