When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Australia to proceed with controversial Internet filter
Australia said yesterday it would push ahead with a mandatory China-style plan to filter the Internet, despite widespread criticism that it will strangle free speech and is doomed to fail.
Australia to proceed with controversial Internet filter
(SYDNEY) Australia said yesterday it would push ahead with a mandatory China-style plan to filter the Internet, despite widespread criticism that it will strangle free speech and is doomed to fail.
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said new laws would be introduced to ban access to ‘refused classification’ (RC) sites featuring criminal content such as child sex abuse, bestiality, rape and detailed drug use.
Blacklisted sites would be determined by an independent classification body via a ‘public complaint’ process, said Mr. Conroy, admitting there was ‘no silver bullet solution to cyber-safety’.
Internet user groups, the pornography industry and others have strongly opposed the plan, saying any such measure would be impractical to enforce, block access to some legitimate websites and slow down Internet speeds.
But Mr. Conroy said a seven-month trial had concluded that blocking could be done with 100 per cent accuracy and negligible impact to connection speeds.
Internet service providers (ISPs) would be offered grants to offer additional filters of, for example, X-rated content and gambling sites, but Mr. Conroy said that would not be compulsory.
‘Through a combination of additional resources for education and awareness, mandatory Internet filtering of RC-rated content, and optional ISP-level filtering, we have a package that balances safety for families and the benefits of the digital revolution,’ he said.
While Australia is not alone in moving to censor online content, experts question the proposed filter’s scope and ethical ramifications.
It is potentially the first among Western democracies to mandate Internet filtering through formal legislation.
Online rights group Electronic Frontiers Australia said there were grave censorship questions about what would be blocked, and who would decide. -- AFP
1 comment:
Australia to proceed with controversial Internet filter
(SYDNEY) Australia said yesterday it would push ahead with a mandatory China-style plan to filter the Internet, despite widespread criticism that it will strangle free speech and is doomed to fail.
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said new laws would be introduced to ban access to ‘refused classification’ (RC) sites featuring criminal content such as child sex abuse, bestiality, rape and detailed drug use.
Blacklisted sites would be determined by an independent classification body via a ‘public complaint’ process, said Mr. Conroy, admitting there was ‘no silver bullet solution to cyber-safety’.
Internet user groups, the pornography industry and others have strongly opposed the plan, saying any such measure would be impractical to enforce, block access to some legitimate websites and slow down Internet speeds.
But Mr. Conroy said a seven-month trial had concluded that blocking could be done with 100 per cent accuracy and negligible impact to connection speeds.
Internet service providers (ISPs) would be offered grants to offer additional filters of, for example, X-rated content and gambling sites, but Mr. Conroy said that would not be compulsory.
‘Through a combination of additional resources for education and awareness, mandatory Internet filtering of RC-rated content, and optional ISP-level filtering, we have a package that balances safety for families and the benefits of the digital revolution,’ he said.
While Australia is not alone in moving to censor online content, experts question the proposed filter’s scope and ethical ramifications.
It is potentially the first among Western democracies to mandate Internet filtering through formal legislation.
Online rights group Electronic Frontiers Australia said there were grave censorship questions about what would be blocked, and who would decide. -- AFP
Post a Comment