In his first major TV appearance regarding the filter since Q&A and Insight in early 2009, Senator Conroy will head back to the tube Wednesday evening in an attempt to sell government’s mandatory net censorship plan to the masses on Channel 10′s The 7PM Project. A rare occurrence for a Minister we are used to seeing tight-lipped and mediaphobic after criticism of his plan. I guess it’s hard to avoid when the criticism is coming from the likes of Google.
In public submissions on ‘measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material’ released today by the DBCDE, Google said moving to a mandatory ISP level filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond child pornography is heavy handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.
Our primary concern is that the scope of content to be filtered is too wide.
Yahoo! agreed:
Yahoo! are entirely supportive of any effort to make the Internet a safer place for children, however mandatory filtering of all RC material could block content with a strong social, political and/or educational value such as:
Safe injecting and other harm minimisation websites,
Euthanasia discussion forums,
A video on creating graffiti art,
Anti-abortion websites,
Gay and lesbian forums which discuss sexual experiences,
Explorations of the geo-political causes of terrorism where specific terrorist organisation, and propaganda is cited as reference material.
Read all of the submissions here and remember: If you’re in the mood, watch Senator Conroy on The 7Pm Project, Wednesday 24/03/10 at 7PM AEST, Channel 10. Just don’t expect anything new.
24 comments
Ralph says:
Mar 23, 2010
I have one question: how does a site once banned get off the banned list? After all, as it is filtered no one can visit it to verify it is ok. Does this mean the government has their own unfiltered feed? One internet for the government and one for ‘the people’ sounds a larger issue than the filter itself.
Womp says:
Mar 24, 2010
Expect new lows in Journalistic quality, because it is only a pretend news show. I’m guessing that is why Conroy is interested in appearing, he expects gullible presenters who aren’t clued in on the facts.
Stilgherrian says:
Mar 24, 2010
@Ralph: The while question of how the Refused Classification blacklist is currently under review. The 174 public submissions received were published yesterday, and many submissions have pointed out issues such as the ones you raise. Currently there is no answer to your question.
There’s nothing sinister or incompetent about that. That’s how policy-making works. Ideas put forward, the problems exposed, the policy reviewed until there’s a consensus. Or at least until not too many people are pissed off.
Stuart says:
Mar 24, 2010
@Ralph – Of course the Government would have an unfiltered feed. Not only would it be required for the operation and management of the filter itself, but many government agencies would require it to be able to do their jobs (ie. the AFP would require access to be able to police CP, ASIO would require it for information gathering, etc.). There will always be both necessary and unnecessary exemptions from filtering – expect politicians and their offices to be completely exempted from the filter.
@Womp – I don’t know why Conroy doesn’t just buy infomercial time in the morning shows. He clearly has no intention of appearing before anyone who is going to ask him real questions. This is just going to be a softball lovefest for Conroy and the ALP courtesy of Channel Ten.
Jimmy says:
Mar 24, 2010
@Womp – that is exactly the conclusion I came to as well. I was actually looking forward to tuning in until I read up on the show and who hosts it. Now I don’t think I’ll bother.
In my opinion (and somewhat ironically), protecting this kind of monopoly on information is what the filter is really all about.
Fictitious1 says:
Mar 24, 2010
I don’t hold out much hope for any hard hitting journalism to occur tonight on the 7PM project – they aren’t the 7:30 Report after all.
I think that if they play into the trap of just being an ill-informed, petrified of modern life, I’m-conservative-now-I-have-money, middle class aspirational cheer squad for Conroy, then we should give them s much stick as they deserve.
I think the more people who hit the 7pm forums and suggest what should be asked, the better.
stormcentre says:
Mar 24, 2010
Just in case you missed it, the 7pm project interview with conroy is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2WBsjOspNo
dingus says:
Mar 25, 2010
Surprisingly, they asked conjob some hard questions. Unsurprisingly, he gave the same tired responses. They repeatedly shut him down, which was good to see.
HTA says:
Mar 25, 2010
Wasn’t too bad for a channel 10 semi-news sort of thing.
Thanks for the youtube link.
Daniel says:
Mar 25, 2010
Seeing as how Google has just pulled out of China over mandatory filtering…This whole thing is just getting more incredulous by the hour.
I want to see this play out. Call me cynical, but now I kinda want to see Conroy get to implement his filter and the shit hit fan.
It would teach the bland bureaucrats in his department a lesson they really need to learn: you cannot control free speech on a network invented & built to resist control.
I’m not so worried about this. The internet anyway was built exactly to withstand this kind of attack.
stormcentre says:
Mar 26, 2010
@ Daniel,
I hate to point this out, but the “bland bureaucrats” (as you call them) only exist to implement Government policy – not to formulate it. Responsibility for this policy lies with the Minister and with the ALP, not with the Austalian Public Service. Every time someone blames the bureaucracy for this policy, it takes just that little bit of heat off those who are truly responsible and who have the power to stop the filter going ahead.
Pharaoh says:
Mar 26, 2010
Out of his own mouth, somewhere in the vicinity of 350 ‘child porn’ sites out there online. Out of over 1,000 on the blacklist and countless billions on the Internet at large.
And blocking that is worth the millions of dollars of taxpayer money, near-unanimous opposition from the industry itself and public reactions ranging from apathy to downright hatred?
bolt says:
Mar 26, 2010
I just watched that clip.
So… are there actually countries where child pornography is legal, for there to be 350 child porn websites on the current list?
I thought child pornagraphy was illegal in every country.
Sean Burns says:
Mar 26, 2010
I don’t know how you find these ’350 child porn sites’all you get on Google search is stories about people being busted.
Steve says:
Mar 26, 2010
Those 350 ‘child porn’ sites most likely don’t exist. If they do it is a law enforcement issue and not a censorship issue. Of course Australia’s definition of child porn is so idiotic that a pornographic version of Bart Simpson is considered CP, is he 10 years old or 20+. Don’t laugh this is the serious issue our tax dollars are devoted to solving.
Kael says:
Mar 26, 2010
A thought occurred to me while watching this. If the filter works as well as they claim, then what’s stopping them from releasing the blacklist. Surely if it works so well and isn’t as redundant and easily circumnavigated as the vast majority of us believe it to be, then there should be no problem with releasing the list.
In short, if they don’t have the confidence to release the blacklist of sites then it is clear that the filter doesn’t work as well as they claim.
Icaria says:
Mar 26, 2010
The 7PM panel came on way too strong. Conroy’s going to get sympathy points from fence sitters and the generally uninformed.
dingus says:
Mar 26, 2010
@Icaria: Nah, I think the panel were pretty fair in asking questions that average people would genuinely want answered.
HTA says:
Mar 26, 2010
@Kael
The problem is that many other countries without filters would not take kindly to our government releasing a huge list of CP websites.
Daniel says:
Mar 26, 2010
@ stormcentre – I wasn’t suggesting that the bureaucrats formulate policy. However they seem happy enough to implement it and sabotage attempts to undermine it, especially when a spokesperson for Conroy’s department comes up with a statement as authoritarian and imperious sounding as this:
“The Government remains firmly committed to its policy for the introduction of mandatory ISP filtering for RC rated content. This is content which the Australian Parliament has determined to be offensive and not appropriate for a civilised society. The Government has indicated that it will legislate to give effect to this policy and we expect people, as is the case with any law, to comply.”
(http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/regulation/36834-conroy-faces-off-with-google-on-censorship)
I expect that by “we”, she was referring to herself and her colleagues as well as her bosses – that’s how I read it anyway.
This is exactly the kind of “do as you’re told and ask no questions” kind of language you get used to from officials in communist states which have filtered their internet, like China & Vietnam (which I had the pleasure of living for 3 years).
European says:
Mar 30, 2010
bolt: CP is illegal everywhere but Australian definition of CP is a complete nonsense, too vast and out of touch with real world. I am sure there would be millions of legal European internet sites that would be illegal and accused of CP in Australia.
Nathan says:
Apr 1, 2010
@European
Like any site with women who happen to have A-cups.
I love this country, but I tell ya, we do some boneheaded things that drive me up the wall…
Ryan Bullard says:
Apr 3, 2010
Just watched that 7pm Project… OMG…LOL
Why is this guy even fighting so hard for it. The main contradictory points here.
1. All that money spent on making the net faster, then spending all that money on a filter to slow it down again (which is fine because…)
2. it’s 100% accurate in censoring content the government deems inappropriate HOWEVER it doesn’t actually censor international websites with content the government deems inappropriate (which is fine because…)
3. it’s a gallant attempt by the Australian government at tackling the distribution of child pornography HOWEVER it doesn’t actually stop child pornography being distributed by P2P (which is fine because…)
4. The government filter is 100% accurate in doing the job the government wants it to do: block content they deem inappropriate. So Senator, explain what’s in it for us again?
Fridge says:
Apr 25, 2010
Fuck this, I’m moving to Canada.