Compulsory internet filtering in Australia

[John]

I can't see how it can possible be effective. When internet use first became common in Primary schools in the mid to late 90's our State Government tried to cache all the "acceptable" sites and only give students access to them. It didn't work. Half the sites we wanted kids to access they couldn't get into and other highly objectionable sites consistently found their way into the cache.

[whispered_envy]

^They filtered our high schools internet use, and I was trying to do an assgnment on wine grapes, but I wasn't allowed access to any of the sites! It was so ridiculous.

I'd prefer all those creepy people who are into that stuff use the net rather than go out and prey on innocent people. I'm definitely not condoning their behaviour, but if they don't have the net to chat to other people like themselves or whatever then they're going to get frustrated and angry and who knows what they'll do. I hope that makes sense...

[Slade]

I can't see how it can possible be effective. When internet use first became common in Primary schools in the mid to late 90's our State Government tried to cache all the "acceptable" sites and only give students access to them. It didn't work. Half the sites we wanted kids to access they couldn't get into and other highly objectionable sites consistently found their way into the cache.

It can be effective. As you stated above during the mid to late 90s they unsuccessfully tried to cache sites that were deemed to be acceptable. Technology has moved on a long way since then and I can tell you from first hand experience that this sort of thing has vastly improved. If companies now want control and monitor internet access for their end users they will either use a proxy server or some sort of Webfilter which points to a database of categorised websites. These databases are updated virtually every day. You do get sites which are on occasion miscategorised but this does not happy very often.

The issue is not whether they can control access for people but whether it is right. I personally don’t feel they should be doing this as this is simply reverting back to the police state type mentality. It would be better to monitor people and log their access to some sort of server for future use. I guess the government would delegate the responsibility of doing this to the ISPs.

[Mrs Bishop]

My mane Isp is Aol and they have hosts that police the internet chat rooms also any unwanted mail they will filter out and if you go on a website your not sure of you get a box come up asking if you want to carry on so really if the Isp were to police a bit more we wouldnt need the govement to get involved.

[Alexei]

Nation wide protests on the 13th of December

http://wiki.efp.org.au/index.php?title=Main_Page

[John]

I can't see how it can possible be effective. When internet use first became common in Primary schools in the mid to late 90's our State Government tried to cache all the "acceptable" sites and only give students access to them. It didn't work. Half the sites we wanted kids to access they couldn't get into and other highly objectionable sites consistently found their way into the cache.

It can be effective. As you stated above during the mid to late 90s they unsuccessfully tried to cache sites that were deemed to be acceptable. Technology has moved on a long way since then and I can tell you from first hand experience that this sort of thing has vastly improved. If companies now want control and monitor internet access for their end users they will either use a proxy server or some sort of Webfilter which points to a database of categorised websites. These databases are updated virtually every day. You do get sites which are on occasion miscategorised but this does not happy very often.

The issue is not whether they can control access for people but whether it is right. I personally don’t feel they should be doing this as this is simply reverting back to the police state type mentality. It would be better to monitor people and log their access to some sort of server for future use. I guess the government would delegate the responsibility of doing this to the ISPs.

Certainly you are right about technology advances but it seems to me that as soon as you start to cut off direct access to the internet and direct people's searches to some sort of Proxy Server you run into the problem of who decides what to populate the proxy with. There will always be disputes as to what is and isn't acceptable and to whom. I'm sure it can be done in a restricted environment like a company or government department but for the whole population.................. My query about effectiveness was not whether access can effectively be blocked but how access can be allowed to all the multitude of different users with different needs, ages, levels of maturity etc. with each getting the appropriate level of access.

[Slade]

I'm sure it can be done in a restricted environment like a company or government department but for the whole population.................. My query about effectiveness was not whether access can effectively be blocked but how access can be allowed to all the multitude of different users with different needs, ages, levels of maturity etc. with each getting the appropriate level of access.

Obviously everybody uses an account for their internet access so what you can effectively do is create groups for different types of people such as home users, businesses, public sector places like libraries etc and grant the access to the websites as appropriate. However this is far from perfect as if you are an adult home user for example how do you guarantee that a child isn’t using your internet account to go to inappropriate sites? This is the reason why (referring to the original post) that the censorship plan would include mandatory filtering for all Australians. I guess the other filter could be used for businesses or certain sectors of the government. And doing it for the whole population would not be a problem either, as the Government would simply make it a requirement for the ISPs to impose these measures and it is relatively straight forward for them to redirect all Web traffic through some sort of proxy.

[emmasi]

I think the point is that a democratic government shouldn't take away it's citizens rights to decide what they view and post on the internet. If they are trying to stamp out pedafiles, then here's a crazy idea, why not pay attention to the sites and find out who's operating them, rather than covering your eyes and ears and pretending they don't exist? If the aim is to stamp out anorexia, how about providing more support for sufferers or better access to mental health care so that people can be helped to see when they have a problem, rather than taking away the one thing they may feel they have a choice about in their life? If the aim is to stamp out illegal euthanasia... uh, LEGALIZE it so that people have the same right to end their suffering as a sick dog does. I know that one's controversial, but there are a lot of good people who believe in it for the right reasons, and to take away their voice will only ensure that desperate people will resort to desperate measures, not knowing that there might be a safer and easier way to go, rather than sticking a shotgun in your mouth or something just as pleasant and leaving your loving family to scrape the pieces off the ceiling.

Next they'll filter websites on abortion, contraception, stem-cell research, and non-Christian religions.

[Alexei]

Would anyone like their national postal service to open every single letter or parcel addressed to them and decide whether it's suitable or not for delivery based on a secret list of criteria?

That's effectively what censorship of the Internet means.

Do you trust future governments not to use the extraordinary power Internet censorship offers them?

[John]

Would anyone like their national postal service to open every single letter or parcel addressed to them and decide whether it's suitable or not for delivery based on a secret list of criteria?

That's effectively what censorship of the Internet means.

Do you trust future governments not to use the extraordinary power Internet censorship offers them?

No!!