New Labor Govt Backing Internet Filter

Post by Steve Farrelly @ 02:46pm 07/07/10 | 67 Comments

Anyone who thought we might have cut a break when Gillard took control of the country - and Labor Party - against the Rudd Govt's plan to introduce a net filter needs to think again. Gillard has stated that she is happy with the policy, though acknowledges concerns over its implementation.

"I understand that there's a set of concerns," she said (via ABC News). "Technical concerns about internet speed, and also concerns that this somehow [moves] into taking away legitimate use of the internet - it's not my intention that we in any way jeopardise legitimate use of the internet."

The government has faced strong opposition on the proposal, which would put Australia in line with stringent countries like China. Google, Yahoo and various other organisations have spoken directly to the government regarding their concerns, while an independent body, the EFA (Electronic Frontiers Australia) are constantly going in to bat against the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, who is the proposal's evangelist.

I wonder if we'll at all see a change to the R18+ debate?

australia efa internet government gillard net filter

Latest Comments

Link

FraktuRe
Posted 02:50pm 07/7/10

SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN

Link

Sc00bs
Posted 02:52pm 07/7/10

who do we have to vote at the next election to get this conroy c*** out

Link

fpot
Posted 02:52pm 07/7/10

The phrase 'unbridled f****ry' is not often used to describe a news article, but the f****ry is riding free on the open plains tonight.

Link

FaceMan
Posted 02:55pm 07/7/10

dont let labor control the senate. gg.

Link

TicMan
Posted 03:00pm 07/7/10

THREAD TITLE TYPOWNED!@#$

It's Labor.

Link

NoLogic
Posted 03:01pm 07/7/10

Bummer, still her words are not as stupid as Conroys - define legitimate??

If this filter is "forced" on us, who will be the first to have a crack at it? :) Be an interesting time thats for sure...

Link

Mantorok
Posted 03:02pm 07/7/10

who do we have to vote at the next election to get this conroy c*** out

Not to sound like a broken record about this but Tony Abbott doesn't disagree with the concept of a filter, just the proposed implementation. We could get a filter from either side, as the Lib-Nat Coalition could implement a filter of their own design. We need someone from the Greens, LDP, or Sex Party to hold the balance of power in the senate.

Link

Opec
Posted 03:03pm 07/7/10

She can put in the firewall, the only components that need to change is that default to opt-in for everyone bit. If it's default to opt-out and as a parents you have the option to opt-in then it's not as bad.

But of course I won't be voting for Labor so that's not really my concern.

Link

FraktuRe
Posted 03:04pm 07/7/10

But the liberals already looked into it, and said no, we won't.

Link

Crakaveli
Posted 03:05pm 07/7/10

This "Sex Party" intrigues me, do explain.

Link

Steve Farrelly
Posted 03:06pm 07/7/10

fpot has an enormous e-penis

Link

DM
Posted 03:08pm 07/7/10

If the liberals had a internet filter plan that was opt-out/in then I would give it my support. Just having the simple option to not be part of it is all this needs.

Link

Mantorok
Posted 03:12pm 07/7/10

But the liberals already looked into it, and said no, we won't.

They said no to the Conroy filter, not internet filtering in general.

Link

fpot
Posted 03:15pm 07/7/10

Steve: I wasn't critising your news article, just the content of it that the internet filter is still a go for labor.

Link

Scooter
Posted 03:18pm 07/7/10

They said no to the Conroy filter, not internet filtering in general.

They already had/have their own Government supported parental filter. I like their model much better then a Labor Governments.

Link

neffo
Posted 03:21pm 07/7/10

Here's a better idea, lets ban anyone under the age of 18 from using the internet.

Problem solved.

Link

Spook
Posted 03:22pm 07/7/10

come on julia, everyone knows opt (in or out, i dont care) is the way to go with this

Link

Sc00bs
Posted 03:24pm 07/7/10

Here's a better idea, lets ban anyone under the age of 18 from using the internet.

the next thing will be losing demerit points from ur licence for looking at "bad" sites

Link

fpot
Posted 03:24pm 07/7/10

Spook: she's not into opting in for child porn.

Link

Mantorok
Posted 03:25pm 07/7/10

They already had/have their own Government supported parental filter. I like their model much better then a Labor Governments.

They haven't said they want a return to that system though. Honestly, do you think they'd miss a chance to attack Labor over this? They're keeping quiet because they don't have a policy yet.

Link

hardware
Posted 03:25pm 07/7/10

There is only one Julia worth listening to ever and it's Julia Zemiro.

Link

TicMan
Posted 03:26pm 07/7/10

This sex party actually has policies I agree with..

(no not that type of party)

Link

Crakaveli
Posted 03:27pm 07/7/10

This country is circling the drain i tell you.

Link

neffo
Posted 03:28pm 07/7/10

the next thing will be losing demerit points from ur licence for looking at "bad" sites

And posts like that will get your PC cubed under a Neffo Government Australia.

Link

Scooter
Posted 03:29pm 07/7/10

Also, you gain demerit points for doing something concidered wrong, not lose them.

Link

Drummo
Posted 03:31pm 07/7/10

"define legitimate??" - Exactly what I thought.

"Here's a better idea, lets ban anyone under the age of 18 from using the internet."

Don't give anyone ideas! Next they'll refuse the internet classification, and sever all our connections!

At least if they do this their filter will be easier to configure.

Link

Steve Farrelly
Posted 03:33pm 07/7/10

ah coolies effie buddy - read out of context, easily trolled like a steve :P

Link

greazy
Posted 03:44pm 07/7/10

Also, you gain demerit points for doing something concidered wrong, not lose them.

This is the only time I have ever seen where the following actually applies: Same difference.

Link

HurricaneJim
Posted 04:02pm 07/7/10

Mark Newton wrote
the size of the world wide web is rapidly approaching 2 trillion URLs, with no corresponding increase in the amount of child abuse content. Is it any wonder that our Communications Minister lacks credibility when he suggests that the Government seriously believes in the importance of spending $44.5m worth of taxpayers money on an ISP censorship scheme to block a mere 355 URLs.

and now Rangalard lacks the same credibility.

Link

Raider
Posted 04:06pm 07/7/10

thing is anyone wana place a bet on how long the opt in / out method would last before it was converted to mandatory?

leave my nets alone ffs :|

Link

Trauma
Posted 04:24pm 07/7/10

Thanks, was afraid I might have to actually vote.

Link

infi
Posted 04:34pm 07/7/10

Labor wants to control what you do on the internet :S

Link

reLapse
Posted 02:20am 08/7/10

Just make the use of the filter optional, that way parents and anyone else who has a need for it can use it.

I'll just bypass the filter anyway, but I'll be damned if someone else will decide what I can and cannot look at on the internet.

Link

dranged
Posted 02:48am 08/7/10

She is doing exactly what Rudd did last election, being 'howard-lite'. Do you honestly think we'll fall for it again?

Link

mongie
Posted 08:43am 08/7/10

Lundy should me comms minister...

and more generally, I would like to see a party with a policy of only giving ministries to people with knowledge in that field (at least for technical ministries).

Link

GumbyNoTalent
Posted 10:43am 08/7/10

If this filter is "forced" on us, who will be the first to have a crack at it? :) Be an interesting time thats for sure...

yeah... after all its not like China has a filter already in use or anything, same with North Korea.

Link

trog
Posted 10:46am 08/7/10

Bummer, still her words are not as stupid as Conroys - define legitimate??

If this filter is "forced" on us, who will be the first to have a crack at it? :) Be an interesting time thats for sure...

EFA had a thing last week where they discussed getting around it. noone that knows anything about networking is remotely worried it will be hard to defeat.

Link

thermite
Posted 10:46am 08/7/10

Are children the ones viewing child porn?

Yes, a lot of people charged with possessing, sending, or creating child porn are children.

Link

NoLogic
Posted 10:51am 08/7/10

noone that knows anything about networking is remotely worried it will be hard to defeat.

yer I know it will be easy to bypass, I had to do it in China when they blocked the use of Google when I was there. By "have a crack at it" I meant attack it.

Link

konstie
Posted 10:59am 08/7/10

noone that knows anything about networking is remotely worried it will be hard to defeat.

That's not the point. I shouldn't have to break the law to have full access to the internet.

Link

greazy
Posted 11:01am 08/7/10

Why?

You make it sound like the internet so some sort of right.

P.S It's not.

Link

konstie
Posted 11:03am 08/7/10

Why? You make it sound like the internet so some sort of right. P.S It's not.

Isn't it? Maybe it should be :)

Didn't finland (or a similar country...) just pass legislation where every person has the right to have at least 1 mbps connection ?

Link

NoLogic
Posted 11:04am 08/7/10

Yer Finland

Link

konstie
Posted 11:06am 08/7/10

Yer Finland

exactly, and that's the right direction that people should be going in. by making it a right as a person to have a "decent" connection implies that they are also free to use it as they wish.

granted, i don't support child porn, but i think that's a very small fish in a big sea.

Link

NoLogic
Posted 11:17am 08/7/10

The "child porn" issue is a smoke screen. It's about controlling information imo, they can profit more from having more control. We have a different approach to the net than most countries, so this latest move doesnt suprise me at all - I mean look at our pay per data system. Most other countries lol at us.

GL with trying to make the filter work though, it will get attacked from sources that are not just local :)

Link

konstie
Posted 11:20am 08/7/10

the information superhighway is going to get a massive roadblock

it's upsetting, really.

Link

Corrupt
Posted 12:05pm 08/7/10

no filter client software only, gigantic waste of our tax dollars anyone falls for it is stupid.

no none of this opt-out s*** then your moving all the power into their hands i don't trust the gov with that.

last edited by Corrupt at 12:05:02 08/Jul/10

Link

GumbyNoTalent
Posted 12:06pm 08/7/10

Which Australian Media Magnate is most upset by not being able to profit from the internet?

Which Australian Media Magnate is a major contributor to both political parties?

Which Australian Media Magnate would be really happy if all News on the internet in Australia was only read from his sites?

Child Porn and other stuff isn't the issue, it is censorship of content that is the issue the Child Porn or Pedo labels are only there to scare Mr and Mrs dumb f*** middle class into wanting it for the safty of their 2.4 children because they are too f***en lazy to monitor their own children. So society get royally screwed again and freedom of expression is once again controlled.

The filter will allow the government to filter subversive material, problem is who and what is subversive and who will watch the watch dogs to make sure it used correctly. But these arguments are being stiffled by labeling those that ask the questions as pedophiles and wanting access to child porn. Lets put it clearly only China and North Korea have internet filters, and soon Australia.

Link

TicMan
Posted 12:10pm 08/7/10

Vote for the Sex Party!

no filter client software only, gigantic waste of our tax dollars anyone falls for it is stupid.

Johnny made a client filter for everyone to download.

Link

reLapse
Posted 01:16pm 08/7/10

@Zy

I don't want the government or a chosen body to decide what I can or cannot look at and I'm sure many other law abiding citizens don't either.

Pedophiles are disgusting, but our rights shouldn't be impacted because of some sick bastards or because moron parents don't monitor their children's internet activity and then go crying when something goes foul.

If a pedophile can't access media on the internet don't you think it might increase the likeliness of them acting upon their sick desires and abducting a child?

Link

reLapse
Posted 01:22pm 08/7/10

I'm not saying I'd rather them have access to the media on the internet, just offering food for thought.

Link

MatchFixah
Posted 01:22pm 08/7/10

F*** the sex party.

Wait.. i think that's what they want us to do..

Link

Hogfather
Posted 01:22pm 08/7/10

Can't eat thought. Not mindflayer.

Link

NoLogic
Posted 01:26pm 08/7/10

Can't eat thought. Not mindflayer.

I lol'd ...

monstrous humanoid aberrations with psionic powers - Conroy?

Link

GumbyNoTalent
Posted 01:29pm 08/7/10

I don't want the government or a chosen body to decide what I can or cannot look at and I'm sure many other law abiding citizens don't either.

Thats funny cause you already do http://www.classification.gov.au/

Link

reLapse
Posted 01:32pm 08/7/10

The classification board doesn't stop me.
If i want a game that wasn't allowed for release I buy it from overseas, same goes for any other media.

Link

Scooter
Posted 01:34pm 08/7/10

Thats a pretty fail argument. Because the filter wont stop you either.

Link

trog
Posted 01:34pm 08/7/10

The classification board doesn't stop me.If i want a game that wasn't allowed for release I buy it from overseas, same goes for any other media.

as the entity that decides what material is RC and thus "illegal" under the filter, the Classification Board most definitely does stop you!

Link

thermite
Posted 01:36pm 08/7/10

trog, RC content is not illegal

Link

reLapse
Posted 01:38pm 08/7/10

Ttheir decisions ultimately do not stop me from gaining access to what I want.

Link

trog
Posted 02:00pm 08/7/10

trog, RC content is not illegal

its almost like I put it in quotes for a reason

Link

konstie
Posted 02:05pm 08/7/10

trog, RC content is not illegal
its almost like I put it in quotes for a reason

this concept intrigues me, tell me more!

in relation to earlier posts=-

They may not be able to stop you now... but once they put in the infrastructure for the filter, it's a slippery slope heading to controlling what and where we can go.

Link

NoLogic
Posted 02:07pm 08/7/10

but once they put in the infrastructure for the filter, it's a slippery slope heading to controlling what and where we can go.

not if it's broken

Link

natslovR
Posted 08:21am 09/7/10

I thought physical RC content produced outside of Australia is seized at our border, even non-commercial quantities. Sure it may get through but there are processes to try and stop it.

This is just trying to stop digital delivery of the content.

Link

GumbyNoTalent
Posted 08:26am 09/7/10

Ttheir decisions ultimately do not stop me from gaining access to what I want.

No, but being found in possession of RC material will land you in trouble and even in jail.

Link

ravn0s
Posted 08:32am 09/7/10

i thought it wasnt illegal to own rc content, only to sell.

Link

Mephz
Posted 08:42am 09/7/10

i thought it wasnt illegal to own rc content, only to sell.

Correct as far as games etc. goes

Commenting has been locked for this item.

67 Comments

Show

News

Features

Reviews

World of Warships: Legends