Feuer Frei!
04-13-10, 05:13 AM
As some of you may be aware, Australia's Federal Government is planning to introduce mandatory ISP filtering, ie. working off a blacklist to disallow access to unsavory websites and material that contain refused classification-rated content based on the aforementioned government blacklist.
A host of privacy advocates and child groups have advocated for a opt-in filter instead.
Here's Google's take on this:
"In considering the government's plans for mandatory ISP level filtering we have listened to many views, but most importantly those of our users," its 24-page submission says.
"We have talked directly with parents around Australia about their views on ISP level filtering. The strong view from parents was that the government's proposal goes too far and would take away their freedom of choice around what information they and their children can access.
"The importance of a better effort to educate parents and children about online safety was repeatedly highlighted as the area where most effort should be focused."
The filtering scheme is mainly aimed at blocking child pornography web pages.
But Google, amongst others argues that the RC (refused classification) content is much to wide.
It's a category of content that includes socially and politically controversial material, eg. educational content on safer drug use and politically controversial subjects such as Euthanasia.
Google believes the filter would slow user access speeds as it would have to be implemented by hundreds of ISPs and millions of internet users who access billions of web pages.
The live trial last year of a handful of ISPs didn't follow the department's own testing technical framework, Google said, and omitted key aspects such as testing a blacklist of up to 10,000 URLs and piloting new technologies like IPv6.
There wasn't a representative cross-section of ISPs that took part in the pilot and no costs of filtering were gathered.
"There is a risk that these factors (not covered in the trials) limit the usefulness of the trials," it said.
The company reiterated views made in December that the scope of content to be filtered is too wide, and that the government's plan was heavy-handed.
According to Google, moving to a mandatory ISP level filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond child sexual abuse material would raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.
In a speech to The Sydney Institute yesterday, Senator Conroy (who is the Communications Minister for the Federal Government and the champion of this plan) again defended the plan against opponents who believed it was akin to censorship.
"With great opportunity, comes even greater responsibility, and having sensible, appropriate protections in place is also the role of government," he said.
"There are some who want to argue that on the internet, people should be able to publish anything they like - regardless of whether it contravenes laws in the offline world."
Senator Conroy said ISP level filtering alone was not enough to help fight child pornography or keep children safe online, which was why the Government supported the block of content such as child sexual abuse imagery and material advocating terrorism.
"This is a modest measure, which reflects long-held community standards about the type of content that is unacceptable in a civilised society," he said.
I have to say that this is just another way for the government to veil or disguise how they control the public.
I totally agree with Google's submission to the government and especially about freedom of speech, also concur fully with the advocates about the "opt-in" filter.
Very heavy-handed by the government, we Australians knew about this since last year of course.
Hell, even the U.S. has said for Australia to drop this!
U.S. Ambassador to Australia, Jeff Bleich:
"On the issue of the internet we have been very clear. The internet needs to be free," Mr Bleich said. "It needs to be free the way we have said skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They're shared resources of all the people in the world.
"To the extent that there are disagreements (about) trying to find the right balance between law enforcement and respecting that general principle, we work with our friends, and so we've been working with Australia on this issue, we've had healthy discussions and ... I'm sure we'll be able to find the path forward."
The US had told Australia child pornographers could be nabbed without the use of internet filters, Mr Bleich said.
"What we've said is we have been able to accomplish the goals that Australia has described, which is to capture and prosecute child pornographers and others who use the internet for terrible purposes, without having to use internet filters," he said.
"We have other means and we are willing to share our efforts with them in order to allow them to at least look at a range of choices as opposed to moving in one particular direction ... It's an ongoing conversation."
On the one hand championing the fight against abhorrant crimes, on the other hand dictating to the people what we can and can't do in our own homes.
A host of privacy advocates and child groups have advocated for a opt-in filter instead.
Here's Google's take on this:
"In considering the government's plans for mandatory ISP level filtering we have listened to many views, but most importantly those of our users," its 24-page submission says.
"We have talked directly with parents around Australia about their views on ISP level filtering. The strong view from parents was that the government's proposal goes too far and would take away their freedom of choice around what information they and their children can access.
"The importance of a better effort to educate parents and children about online safety was repeatedly highlighted as the area where most effort should be focused."
The filtering scheme is mainly aimed at blocking child pornography web pages.
But Google, amongst others argues that the RC (refused classification) content is much to wide.
It's a category of content that includes socially and politically controversial material, eg. educational content on safer drug use and politically controversial subjects such as Euthanasia.
Google believes the filter would slow user access speeds as it would have to be implemented by hundreds of ISPs and millions of internet users who access billions of web pages.
The live trial last year of a handful of ISPs didn't follow the department's own testing technical framework, Google said, and omitted key aspects such as testing a blacklist of up to 10,000 URLs and piloting new technologies like IPv6.
There wasn't a representative cross-section of ISPs that took part in the pilot and no costs of filtering were gathered.
"There is a risk that these factors (not covered in the trials) limit the usefulness of the trials," it said.
The company reiterated views made in December that the scope of content to be filtered is too wide, and that the government's plan was heavy-handed.
According to Google, moving to a mandatory ISP level filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond child sexual abuse material would raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.
In a speech to The Sydney Institute yesterday, Senator Conroy (who is the Communications Minister for the Federal Government and the champion of this plan) again defended the plan against opponents who believed it was akin to censorship.
"With great opportunity, comes even greater responsibility, and having sensible, appropriate protections in place is also the role of government," he said.
"There are some who want to argue that on the internet, people should be able to publish anything they like - regardless of whether it contravenes laws in the offline world."
Senator Conroy said ISP level filtering alone was not enough to help fight child pornography or keep children safe online, which was why the Government supported the block of content such as child sexual abuse imagery and material advocating terrorism.
"This is a modest measure, which reflects long-held community standards about the type of content that is unacceptable in a civilised society," he said.
I have to say that this is just another way for the government to veil or disguise how they control the public.
I totally agree with Google's submission to the government and especially about freedom of speech, also concur fully with the advocates about the "opt-in" filter.
Very heavy-handed by the government, we Australians knew about this since last year of course.
Hell, even the U.S. has said for Australia to drop this!
U.S. Ambassador to Australia, Jeff Bleich:
"On the issue of the internet we have been very clear. The internet needs to be free," Mr Bleich said. "It needs to be free the way we have said skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They're shared resources of all the people in the world.
"To the extent that there are disagreements (about) trying to find the right balance between law enforcement and respecting that general principle, we work with our friends, and so we've been working with Australia on this issue, we've had healthy discussions and ... I'm sure we'll be able to find the path forward."
The US had told Australia child pornographers could be nabbed without the use of internet filters, Mr Bleich said.
"What we've said is we have been able to accomplish the goals that Australia has described, which is to capture and prosecute child pornographers and others who use the internet for terrible purposes, without having to use internet filters," he said.
"We have other means and we are willing to share our efforts with them in order to allow them to at least look at a range of choices as opposed to moving in one particular direction ... It's an ongoing conversation."
On the one hand championing the fight against abhorrant crimes, on the other hand dictating to the people what we can and can't do in our own homes.