The Australian Government plans to set up an Internet filter to stop people accessing sites that it deems dangerous or distasteful. Censoring books and films in the past has been a dismal failure. Stephen Fry the Communications minister commissioned the Enex TestLab to find out if such a move would be successful. When the research body reported back it said the Government could try to block access but people would find ways to get around it. Despite this finding the Government is going ahead. It is wasting taxpayers' money for the Government to continue. Unless it also blocks free trade between countries, people will buy IP services from offshore companies (see Vista Computer Solutions).
Let's face it the average person is not interested in the sites that the Government is banning. Only those people with devious or damaging tendencies will want to, and they will set out to maintain their access. There are a few sites that have been selected which, in my opinion, the Government should leave for individuals to decide. Banning the "right to suicide" site is interfering with people's right to choose.
Another issue is - Will the Government use the filter for its own benefit in the future? We cannot see into the future. However, once a firm step has been made into censorship it is not much use in hindsight to say we should not have allowed it in the first place. "Terrorist" sites are to be banned. Should all Muslim sites be next? Then ban all Iranian sites? There seems to be no clear line where it is to stop. We plainly see how arbitrary China is with its censorship.
The list of sites will be determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority which categorizes magazines, DVDs etc. But, it will be kept secret from the public. This is a clear danger signal - censorship in secret. An operator of a site cannot apply to have a decision reviewed. Site owners cannot appeal through any judicial process.
National ratings authorities are notorious for getting things wrong by banning films and books in a "knee jerk" way. For example, it is not unusual for restrictions on controversial material to be changed after just a few years. What about sites pushing for legalization of marijuana? Some states in the US allow this drug to be used. To stop Australians from reading the views of marijuana supporters is clearly breaching civil rights. What about pro-graffiti sites? The current classification code allows for anything that promotes crime to be banned.
Ironically, porn will not be banned. Personally, I would like porn sites to be banned. The Government will not even consider this because if it tried porn would flood in like bad grog with Prohibition. Australia had a ridiculous system before the advent of the Internet: porn was banned but Australians could still purchase such material from the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and receive it in the mail.
The Government's Internet filter will fail. Proxy sites based overseas will do good business. What is to stop friends in other countries sending site information via email? Peer to peer sharing is also well established. How will overseas companies like Google be brought on board? Google has already left mainland China. The Internet pervades the world. If the majority of nations restricted access, information would still be obtained from the few free nations that were left!
Let's face it the average person is not interested in the sites that the Government is banning. Only those people with devious or damaging tendencies will want to, and they will set out to maintain their access. There are a few sites that have been selected which, in my opinion, the Government should leave for individuals to decide. Banning the "right to suicide" site is interfering with people's right to choose.
Another issue is - Will the Government use the filter for its own benefit in the future? We cannot see into the future. However, once a firm step has been made into censorship it is not much use in hindsight to say we should not have allowed it in the first place. "Terrorist" sites are to be banned. Should all Muslim sites be next? Then ban all Iranian sites? There seems to be no clear line where it is to stop. We plainly see how arbitrary China is with its censorship.
The list of sites will be determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority which categorizes magazines, DVDs etc. But, it will be kept secret from the public. This is a clear danger signal - censorship in secret. An operator of a site cannot apply to have a decision reviewed. Site owners cannot appeal through any judicial process.
National ratings authorities are notorious for getting things wrong by banning films and books in a "knee jerk" way. For example, it is not unusual for restrictions on controversial material to be changed after just a few years. What about sites pushing for legalization of marijuana? Some states in the US allow this drug to be used. To stop Australians from reading the views of marijuana supporters is clearly breaching civil rights. What about pro-graffiti sites? The current classification code allows for anything that promotes crime to be banned.
Ironically, porn will not be banned. Personally, I would like porn sites to be banned. The Government will not even consider this because if it tried porn would flood in like bad grog with Prohibition. Australia had a ridiculous system before the advent of the Internet: porn was banned but Australians could still purchase such material from the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and receive it in the mail.
The Government's Internet filter will fail. Proxy sites based overseas will do good business. What is to stop friends in other countries sending site information via email? Peer to peer sharing is also well established. How will overseas companies like Google be brought on board? Google has already left mainland China. The Internet pervades the world. If the majority of nations restricted access, information would still be obtained from the few free nations that were left!
No comments:
Post a Comment