Government internet filtering in Australia

[chops 111]

The Australian Federal Government is pushing forward with a plan to force ISPs to censor the Internet for all Australians. This plan will waste tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and slow down Internet access.

Despite being almost universally condemned by the public, ISPs, State Governments, Media and censorship experts, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is determined to force this filter onto all Australian internet users.

It hasn't taken long for the Labor party to become the arseholes they campaigned against in the last federal election, almost a year ago.

Australia already has second-rate internet infrastructure and highly overpriced internet service. For example, I pay $70 a month for 256Kbs DSL, capped at 12GB.

http://nocleanfeed.com/index.html

Hopefully enough of a stink will be kicked up and this idiotic plan will get shot down in flames.

[cozza 24]

That sucks arse. and I voted for Labor. But I think i read somewhere the other day there talking about having a R-rating for games now.

[Commando84 0]

lol im glad to live in sweden but yeah the goverment has given companies next year more ways to chase downloaders by going to the Isp's and claiming the adresses...

I think its a really maffia methods that are spreading and its bad and im wondering if more games will be sold when the financial crisis is hitting everywhere

[General Barron 0]

Oh god. Didn't this same government spend millions of dollars on a filter for schools that some kid figured out how to bypass the day it launched?

I'd say "good thing this can't happen here in the USA", but I don't really think that is true. We already have an FCC that is just dying to get its filthy little hands all over our interwebs. They've already started regulating what the ISP's can freely do with their own internet (i.e., prioritizing traffic). Its just one step in that direction.

Oh boy, I just can't wait for the day when a little old lady can make a telephone call to the government about an "offensive" website, and then it gets shut down. That's pretty much how TV and radio is regulated here.

When are we going to grow up as a society, and realize that we should take matters into our own hands, instead of always wanting the government to "protect" us? How is the government supposed to "protect" us from something that is completely subjective, like what is "offensive"?

Good luck fighting this one. Like you said, the internet is already terribly slow and expensive in Oz. But hey, I'm sure there's nothing better to spend your tax dollars on, right?

Why not just send out a free blindfold to every internet user instead, with instructions: "put this on when you see offensive content".

[MehMan 0]

Gen Barron: Not so safe in the US

Although, judging by the large negative feedback, if you click on a random state and random district you'll see tons of user comments, I think it won't get passed in easily.

[raedor 8]

Yeah, politicians tend to do weird stuff when they are bored. Or when they see that they can't cope with the REAL issues. Very smart idea.

In Germany they want to completely ban "violent" games.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

:D

[cozza 24]

well I didnt find sliced bread that important.

only voted for Rudd because the unions came to my school and told everyone to vote for labor or else we wont get jobs lol

[sanctuary 19]

Australia already has second-rate internet infrastructure and highly overpriced internet service. For example, I pay $70 a month for 256Kbs DSL, capped at 12GB.

And i thought sometime i was paying too much myself at +/- 37$ a month for a simple but at least unlimited DSL connection as i thought my country was backward in term of internet technology and overpriced those second rate hardware...

But for an internet access not really fast and worse of it capped each months, this is ridiculously overpriced.

I hope your government will get their minds back.

Especially as Internet is an important source of knowledge and allowing you to have more source of information than just a governemental controlled media (and usually why some country living under dictature censor it), as you can learn more about how informative porn can be everyday

[Average Joe 0]

Hahaha hahaha ha

Australia

[Maddmatt 1]

Poor Aussies

Amazing how governments will waste so much money and energy on something that so many people are against, yet they ignore real issues that are actually important like crime. I guess most governments are guilty of this

It's all about votes, power and money. They don't give a crap about the average person as long as they get their votes.

Quote[/b] ]

Australia already has second-rate internet infrastructure and highly overpriced internet service. For example, I pay $70 a month for 256Kbs DSL, capped at 12GB.

LOL, even New Zealand is a bit ahead of you there

I pay about 100NZ$ per month for the phone line and 7.6MBit ADSL with 20Gig cap.

They are also in the process of upgrading everyone to ADSL2+, so when they do that my connection will be even faster.

A month ago my usage limit was 10Gb but they doubled it for free  

Of course this is still behind the rest of the world but it's not bad.

[chops 111]

I forgot to mention in the first post, that upgrading internet infrastructure was one of the Labor Parties key policy platforms during the last federal election. Here's an article from 2007.

2007 - "Vote for us! We'll give you wonderful interwebs!"

2008 "We'll further retard your already shitty interwebs, lol."

So far, this plan is getting a pasting in all the media. The Liberal Party (who are conservative) opposition have said they will not back the legislation, so the government will need the support of The Greens and Fruitcake senator Steven Fielding to pass this bullshit.

What an awful waste of money!

[General Barron 0]

Gen Barron: Not so safe in the US

Meh. I'd argue that part of a truly free internet is one in which an individual ISP is allowed to filter or prioritize content. You always have the option to choose another ISP, if you don't like your current one.

This website seems to be against that. This is what I'm talking about. When you start passing legislation like this one, supposedly to protect somebody's "rights", you suddenly open the floodgates to other legislation, protecting other "rights" that you might make up. Case in point, this stupid AU legislation.

Governments should keep their hands off the internet in all cases, no matter which group they think they are protecting. The reason why it is such an innovative place is because it's basically the freest place on Earth, due to lack of government regulation. And if you don't like it, you can simply turn it off.

[gsleighter 0]

On the other hand, it's also a wealth of information, and if you start limiting that information to people because those with the resources can buy all the bandwidth and leave the rest with a narrow pipe, it's much less democratizing.

[General Barron 0]

On the other hand, it's also a wealth of information, and if you start limiting that information to people because those with the resources can buy all the bandwidth and leave the rest with a narrow pipe, it's much less democratizing.

"democratizing"? You are talking about forcing someone to provide a service that they might not want to provide.

If I go out and start up an ISP, why should I be FORCED to provide the kind of internet service that YOU say I should provide? That's like slavery in a sense.

A free society would be one in which I offer my service in the market, and if not enough people want to buy it, then I go out of business. I should never be FORCED by the power of government to provide the service that one group wants, no matter how "unfair" you think it is.

Would it be "fair" for me to force you to work at a job you don't want to be in? What if I thought that job was "democratizing"?

It isn't your "right" to force other people to provide you with a given service. No matter how essential you think that service is.

[MehMan 0]

If I pay you, yes I can. If you are not willing to provide me with the kind of access I want I will switch to another provider, leaving you with less buisness.

[lecholas 2]

It isn't your "right" to force other people to provide you with a given service. No matter how essential you think that service is.

If I pay you, yes I can. If you are not willing to provide me with the kind of access I want I will switch to another provider, leaving you with less buisness.

As far as I understood, General Barron was saying that you can't FORCE someone by the LAW. Forcing someone to provide a given service by the law means that if someone don't provide you with the service he can be sentenced to prison or to pay a fee. You're talking about different FORCING. Not by the law. A costumer force someone to provide him a given service threatening that he could kick him out of business but he can't put him into jail.

There are always a lot of people who want to introduce 'social justice'... Always at someone else's expence. If you think people should be provided with very cheap (or free) and high-speed internet, go and provide them with it by yourself, don't force others to do so.

[gsleighter 0]

Because the internet it more than just a service, like electricity. It's a library, and its a means to get information about laws and services that protect the lower-class from rampant exploitation. It's already hard enough for people to find necessary information, i.e., the tenant-landlord act to protect themselves from being taken advantage of.

I shudder to take myself to the logical conclusion of your ideals, Barron. There needs to be balance. In the US, there's the capacity for unrestricted access in most areas, so there should not be a cap on access based on how much you can afford to pay, nor should you be able to buy up so much bandwidth that others with less resources cannot access the same amount of information as quickly as you can. I'm not suggesting the government become an ISP, but there has to be rules and regulations to prevent the formation of one large ISP that makes its own rules and sacrifices service solely for profit.

[lecholas 2]

Sorry, I can't see in what respect internet (libraries) or electricity are something more than a service... (I presume what arguments you can bring forward but I don't presume they could convince me )

[gsleighter 0]

My argument is that it's already hard enough for people to find the information they need to defend their rights. Information for contacting legal aid and labor law organizations is found rapidly and accurately online, as well as detailed information on tenant-landlord law. Employers, landlords, and corporations already know everything they need to know about these laws, that information is most accessible there on the internet. I guess I can see where internet use could be seen as a luxury, and I don't presume that my arguments are going to change anybody's minds. I guess I concede that while the internet is a luxury, I'd like to see the above information become more accessible to all, either through public or employer-provided kiosks, regardless of social status.

[lecholas 2]

I didn't say internet and electricity are luxuries. They are goods. Just like bread, screwdrivers, cars etc. If you want to eat a breakfast you need to buy a loft of bread (paying its producer for building a bakery, employing bakers etc). If you want to mend something you need to buy a screwdriver (and pay the Chineese for producing it, or wait - are there still any screwdrivers which are not produced in China?). If you want to light your house you need to buy a bulb and some electricity (if you say that electricity is not an ordinary service maybe a bulb isn't an ordinary good too?) or a candle. If you want to find an information on your rights you can choose from some of ways of obtaining it. You can go to a library or some government or non-government institutions which can provide you with such informations (one of the basic conditions, formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas IIRC, a law must meet to be a law is that it can't be secret, it has to be promulgated), you hire a lawyer who will find the informations for you, or you can surf the internet. You say that the information can be found rapidly and accurately online. A hired lawyer would do it even better. Does it mean that there should be some regulations that not only rich people can hire a lawyer, or that you can't be able to buy up so much 'lawyer-bandwidth' that others with less resources cannot access the same amount of information as quickly as you can. Information is also goods and if you have a lot of money you will always have a better access to the information than someone who hasn't got the money (you can hire sciencetists, prophets etc.) You will never make an ideal state in which everyone is equal or have an equal access to information. In my opinion you shouldn't even try to make such a state. People born unequal (eg. unequal in ability to understand the information) not on your, my or any of the states fault. It's just a fact. I'd love to play in NBA but i'm too short and I'm not any good in basketball. Should my state give me compensation? And if it's nobodys fault that we are unequal, nobody is RESPONSIBLE for trying to make people equal (BTW those who tried always failed). But that's a subject for a different topic.

[Rhodite 3]

lecholas Please consider using parapgraphs and or spacing. If you want forum users to read your post with ease or even bother at all, make it easy TO read.

Thanks

[General Barron 0]

I shudder to take myself to the logical conclusion of your ideals, Barron.

No matter how "essential" you think a given product or service is, I personally think it is immoral and unethical to force someone to provide you with that service, against their will. That is a mild form of slavery, in my opinion. It also hurts society as a whole, to benefit a small group of people.

The Australian government creating some giant filtering scheme is doing the same (wrong) thing, only on a larger scale. It is forcing taxpayers to fund a service they wouldn't otherwise pay for. The government is coming in and benefiting a small group of people (those who want the filter) are going to benefit at the expense of society at large (those who don't want it).

And, as always, they will justify it using all sorts of "good intentions". No matter if the end result isn't what society would choose on its own. But, I guess the government is smarter than society, right?

A short, easy to read, yet mind-changing book that I would recommend you read is called Economics in One Lesson. It takes about 5 minutes to read "the lesson". The rest of the book is examples of it in practice. Heck, I'll even post the lesson here:

Quote[/b] ]"...The whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence: The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

-----

Edit

Blah, I had written a really big post, but I see that its taking things totally off track from this discussion. So I've shortened it above, and brought it more in line with the topic.

[Serclaes 0]

No matter how "essential" you think a given product or service is, I personally think it is immoral and unethical to force someone to provide you with that service, against their will. That is a mild form of slavery, in my opinion. It also hurts society as a whole, to benefit a small group of people.

Is it unethical to force a health insurance enterprise to take care of people with chronical, terminal or other illnesses who could not afford treatment? I'd say no its not unethical. The opposite would be unethical.

I am for freedom of the network but there are some things that can not be free because some sick parts of our society do some sick things but that should be already taken care of. Hence i would agree that filtering the internet is again a step closer to 1984.

[General Barron 0]

Is it unethical to force a health insurance enterprise to take care of people with chronical, terminal or other illnesses who could not afford treatment? I'd say no its not unethical. The opposite would be unethical.

What if the owners of those companies want to spend their money on something else? What if they don't want to be in business anymore, and instead want to retire to spend time with their families? How can you say it is "ethical" to force them to spend time away from their family, to take care of someone who didn't pay for it?

Instead, wouldn't it make more sense for you to spend the extra hours working to take care of that patient? After all, you are the one who thinks it is unethical to not care for them.

Or is it just a matter of "I think this should be done, but I want someone else to do it"?