Internet site blocking goes forward in Australia
There are few struggles more difficult than censorship vs. personal freedom. That battle is playing itself out in Australia, where a new Internet site filter has been proposed and is being tested.
The Australian government is honing a plan to implement an Internet filter (already being called “The Great Aussie Firewall”) that would block about 1,300 Web sites from being viewed. They say the list of sites, which they will not release, consists mainly of child pornography, excessive violence, instructions in crime or drug use, and advocacy of terrorism. According to an AP story, protests over the plan have grown rapidly in Australia since the plan was first floated earlier this year.
One of the state capital protest organizers, Justin Pearson Smith of Melbourne, says, “This is obviously censorship. … I think the money would be better spent in investing in law enforcement and targeting producers of child porn.” Smith feels that the filter is unfair, since it is not being made public and could therefore be used to further the agendas of legislators.
The filter was initially proposed about a year ago by communications minister Stephan Conroy. At the time, Conroy said, “This is not an argument about free speech. We have laws about the sort of material that is acceptable across all mediums and the Internet is no different. Currently, some material is banned and we are simply seeking to use technology to ensure those bans are working.” The filter was supported by some religious and conservative groups.
Much of the commentary, though, has been negative. As an example, Geordie Guy of the group Electronic Frontiers Australia said, “People don’t openly post child porn, the same way you can’t walk into a store in Sydney and buy a machine gun. A filter of this nature only blocks material on public Web sites. But illicit material is traded on the black market, through secret channels.” Guy was making the point that illicit materials are often traded on a peer-to-peer basis and not on the open Internet at all.
Many parties have made the point that the filter would not be effective in any case, and would allow some illicit sites through while blocking some perfectly legitimate sites. In point of fact, a test of six government-proposed filters missed 3 to 12 percent of the material they were supposed to block, while blocking 1 to 8 percent of sites that they were suppose to allow through. Worse, the most accurate of these filters slowed internet speeds by as much as 86 percent. This plan is certain to continue to generate protest and controversy for some time to come.
Related Posts:
December 27th, 2008
I get why governments across the world want to censor the internet, it’s a giant social communication tool which they primarily have no control over and it scares them.
Being “Government” they naturally feel they should place “Safeguards” to “Protect” their population.
Here’s the problem, there is NO WAY to censor the internet. All of those websites which are blocked are still easily accessible to those who are determined to view them.
So this will end up as another stupid government waste of public money.
December 29th, 2008
Proxy’s get around any http/p2p blocking. But it’s the speed dropping that worries me.
December 23rd, 2010
Yes, even I agree with the above comment. If you place filter then the speed of the net decreases.
November 18th, 2011
Its like you read my mind! You seem to understand so much approximately this, such as you wrote the ebook in it or something. I feel that you could do with some % to drive the message home a bit, but other than that, this is great blog. A great read. I’ll definitely be back.