ARN

In Conroy’s muddy waters you'll never know what’s being filtered

Critics of Conroy's Internet filtering say Australians will not be able to find out what the government censors online, and ask: who watches the watchmen?
Page:

An Australian law expert has warned that under the government’s proposed mandatory Internet content filtering scheme Australians will have no way of finding out what “illegal” content has been censored and blocked online, while Greens Senator Scott Ludlam voiced his concern over Conroy’s ambiguity regarding exactly what content will or won’t be blocked, and who will be able to opt-out of the filtering.

Concerned about freedom of communication? Click here to sign Computerworld’s Hands Off Australia’s Internet petition. Make your voice heard!

Conroy’s mandatory Internet filtering proposal caused a stir last week when it was revealed a member of his department had tried to censor severely critical comments made on the Whirlpool broadband forum by an Internode network engineer regarding the merits of ISP level filtering.

Graham Bassett is a barrister at Byron Bay Chambers and has taught Internet Law at Queensland University of Technology. Bassett told Computerworld that under current non-digital censorship laws a schedule of content that has been censored is made available to the public, however no such freedom of information will be available for public access to monitor what is censored and blocked under the government’s mandatory Internet filtering scheme.

Bassett pointed to a Freedom of Information application lodged by the Electronic Frontiers Association (EFA) in February 2000 to obtain information about Internet content that had been the subject of a complaint to the then Australian Broadcasting Authority (now ACMA) under Internet censorship laws that came into force on January 1, 2000.

EFA chair Dale Clapperton told Computerworld that the government refused to provide that information and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal accepted the government’s argument that making that information public would undermine its work with international law enforcement agencies.

Every organisation with an axe to grind and any kind of political clout will be lobbying the government to extend the blacklist to block access to whatever it is that pisses them off
EFA chair Dale Clapperton

“The government at some stage along the way actually amended the Freedom of Information Act to say that this type of information could not be FOI’d,” Clapperton said, warning that the ramifications of that ruling mean the list of Web sites put on Conroy’s proposed blacklist will not be accessible to the public.

“We’re not permitted to know what is on it - essentially we have to take their word for it. That was bad before when the blacklist was just being provided to manufacturers of filtering software, but now that the government is proposing to block access to everything on that blacklist by every Australian, it is unspeakably bad.”

Bassett confirmed that Australians will have no recourse to determine what has been blocked, once it is on the blacklist.

“If you have a situation where what is being banned is never made public, then how do we know that there hasn’t been an extension beyond material which infringes censorship publication, for example a political party or some people that might be defined as a terrorist organisation? The content becomes based upon whatever might be the whims of the people controlling those filters and the services that report to the filters,” he said.

Page:

Nominations for the 2012 ARN IT Industry Awards open on Tuesday, June 12.

More about: ABA, ACT, Australian Broadcasting Authority, EFA, Internode, PMC, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland University of Technology
References show all

Comments

1

Tom

Mon 03/11/2008 - 15:03

Conroys muddy waters

And it seems to me that Andrew Hendry is part of the mud.

Mr Hendry are you a journalist?

The foundation for any real criticism is whether the blacklist is made public. I strongly feel it is important for the public to know. Not because I believe the current government would employ underhand tactics but because I believe the last government would. So especially would Christian groups (in this country and the US) and the business and union (I doubt if they would get far) lobbies.

I think there should be a concerted push to ensure the government commits to publishing guidelines and the list which would lead to participation by the community.

Otherwise the story appears to be a load of made up associations and assumptions about what the government plans are. Even when the parties involved appear not to have any formed plans.

And you give it false authority by bring in side issues (and legal experts) and represent those issues as governments (the previous Government and a whole lot of different people) intentions even though the specific FOI refusal could not be viewed as a Government intention.

And Mr Clapperton talks about Axes to grind, I think he has.
But then I do to.

And I think you wish that Mr Conroy appears to have a lack of clarity but may be nothing more than no decision has been made.

And you take the high ground in your last paragraph but I doubt you would get anywhere in those seas Conroy is navigating, much easier to be a critic isn't it.

Do you believe the internet should be monitored?
Ask most Australians and I think the answer is yes, I do.

And your reference to the constitution is misleading I believe the constitution does not contain, nor references a "bill of rights". Any judgements re "right of free speech" are not so and relate to the right of police to restrict speech and relate to common law. Again you misdirect.

Summary: What a load of unsupported assumptions around an important community concern.

You may not trust politicians, I do not trust journalists or their masters and this article is the reason.

2

ovujie

Tue 10/03/2009 - 09:34

TGDQjrQZufSWAi

H393Ob <a href="http://louixmjnbztk.com/">louixmjnbztk</a>, [url=http://nkkdgkhdludy.com/]nkkdgkhdludy[/url], [link=http://rknzcmseaaqn.com/]rknzcmseaaqn[/link], http://rdlllaasvaab.com/

3

tsmzphjkmkt

Tue 10/03/2009 - 13:51

bNALacJGSDyhQK

LSjmxE <a href="http://xjkzswbjweru.com/">xjkzswbjweru</a>, [url=http://hihdycqbivyc.com/]hihdycqbivyc[/url], [link=http://zwcycaupywwp.com/]zwcycaupywwp[/link], http://wzlbquhwksnw.com/

4

zrgrfxd

Tue 10/03/2009 - 13:52

fDAiphGEFgPWguKiWxs

6qxlLx <a href="http://sjaeirkdobfi.com/">sjaeirkdobfi</a>, [url=http://zocwfcfpbbcz.com/]zocwfcfpbbcz[/url], [link=http://pezkgysqvsqi.com/]pezkgysqvsqi[/link], http://zqokeimqoxhj.com/

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Users posting comments agree to the ARN comments policy.
Login or register to link comments to your user profile, or you may also post a comment without being logged in.
Related Whitepapers
Latest Stories
Community Comments
rhs_login_lockGet exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events.
ARN Distributor Directory
Find distributors by name | vendor | location
Channel Deals
/deals/transition-systems-australia/2010-11-15_345_new-wan-optimisation-available
Transition Systems Australia

NEW. WAN Optimisation Available.

More details »
ARN Vendor Directory
Find vendors by name | category

iAsset is a channel management ecosystem that automates all major aspects of the entire sales,marketing and service process, including data tracking, integrated learning, knowledge management and product lifecycle management.