::fibreculture:: Rather Than Respond To Criticism Of Aussie Censorship Plan, Conroy Attacks Google
Geert Lovink
geert at xs4all.nl
Fri Apr 9 11:29:08 CEST 2010
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100330/1005548787.shtml
Rather Than Respond To Criticism Of Aussie Censorship Plan, Conroy
Attacks Google
by Mike Masnick from the that'll-win-them-over dept on Tuesday, March
30th, 2010 @ 11:53PM
With more and more complaints coming in about Stephen Conroy's plan in
Australia to start censoring the internet, it appears that Conroy,
rather than responding to the critics, has decided to just lash out at
them. For example Google recently filed comments with the Australian
gov't suggesting that the plan was "heavy-handed" and raised "genuine
questions about restrictions on access to information." Now, these
seem like legit concerns -- and from what we've heard, many citizens
in Australia agree. So you might think that Conroy, the main backer of
the plan and Australia's Communications Minister would take the
complaints seriously and respond to them.
Instead, he just starts trashing Google over a variety of totally
unrelated issues and taking quotes totally out of context:
"Recently the founders of Google have got themselves into a little bit
of trouble because notwithstanding their alleged 'do no evil' policy,
they recently created something called Buzz, and there was a reaction,
and people said well look aren't you publishing private information?,"
Senator Conroy said.
"[Google CEO Eric] Schmidt said the following: 'If you have something
that you don't want anyone to know maybe you shouldn't be doing it in
the first place'. This is the founder of Google. He also said recently
to Wall Street analysts, 'we love cash', so when people say, shouldn't
we just leave it up to the Googles of this world to determine what the
filtering policy should be...." Of course, none of that has anything
to do with the censorship plan. With the Buzz controversy, it's also
worth noting that within hours of the controversy coming out, Google
changed its plans and corrected its mistakes. Has Conroy done that at
all? Nope. The Schmidt quotes are then both taken totally out of
context and also have absolutely nothing to do with filters. No one is
saying that it should be Google who determines what the filtering
policy is, but Google did raise important questions, which Conroy
doesn't even bother to address.
And it's not just Google. As the article notes, these comments were
made on a radio program where the majority of phone calls were against
the censorship proposal. And yet Conroy wants to "defend" the proposal
by attacking Google? On the whole, it seems like a lot more people are
willing to trust Google than trust Conroy to tell them what they can
and cannot do with their internet connections.
27 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 12:27am
by Sarah James
What can you say - Conroy is clearly a buffoon. The only people who
want this filter is a very small but powerful Christian right lobby
who are keen to live in a theocratic dictatorship. All rational
intelligent people are against it because they can see it for what it
is: a serious threat to civil liberties and freedom of speech and
democracy itself.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 12:27am
by Anonymous Coward
wow i love his out of context quotes
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 12:33am
by sinsi (profile)
He (and the Labor party) are in the shit because of ONE senator
(family first) and the need to coddle him to get his votes. Once Sen.
Fielding is dumped at the next election, Rudd&Co can kill this.
Look, how long has this been going on? They are milking it until the
election this year to keep his vote, that's all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 1:13am
ok christians
by NUKE intellectual property
if say you cant afford he fine and goto prison is that were you want a
kid who downloaded a music tune and just how much does that
incarceration cost
YEA suddenly whose not thinking of children anymore.....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 1:26am
Re:
by Big Al
Unfortunately I don't think they will kill it. It's far too useful a
tool if it gets through for them to ignore. After all, 'Refused
classification' can be a very broad brush for censorship of ideas the
Ruddites aren't comfortable with...
(dons foil helmet)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 1:44am
hahha
by JC Carter
Conroy? Unwilling to address legitimate criticism? Stop the presses!
That man is an idiot. He's been told over and over that his pet
project won't work, can't work, and he's been told explicitly why.
Instead of listening, he keeps on trucking ahead. It's no surprise
that he has to lash out like a child having a tantrum; he's not far
removed from that scenario.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 1:52am
What exactly is the problem?
by bigpallooka (profile)
Aside from the fact that it is generally a bad policy to trust a
politician, what exactly is the problem everyone has with the filter?
If what Conroy has said over and over again is true then:
1. The independent tests show the 'slowing down' of the internet that
the filter will cause is micro seconds,
2. The only thing that will be filtered is pages (not whole sites)
that have been confirmed to contain content that is RC (Refused
classification) in Australia i.e. Kiddie Porn, Snuff Films etc.,
3. The list of pages (the so-called blacklist) will be monitored by an
independent body (similar to the existing censorship body) so nothing
that isn't illegal already for an Australian to upload onto a site
will be included.
I realise there is always the chance of the system being abused but no
more than any other government funded institution. The only people I
can see this affecting are people who want to access illegal content.
Please tell me exactly what the concerns are. I'm finding it a little
hard to get excited one way or the other.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 2:03am
Re:
by Anonymous Coward
Don't you mean the Christian Reich?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 2:06am
by JC Carter
1. independent tests don't show the effect of deep packet inspection
on a national scale
2. So we're told. The problem is that nobody knows what's being
filtered, and that's quite convenient, isn't it?
3. See above.
As far as a "chance" of this being abused? It's almost a foregone
conclusion. Not a chance of it being abused - its mere existence is
abuse. The gov't cannot justify this filter because it cannot do its
stated job: kiddie porn isn't trafficked on HTTP port 80 plain-old-
websites, and even if it were, Tor or a VPN service would get around
it without a hitch.
So we have a filter that can't do what it says, but is perfect for
controlling what you can and can't see online. Hmmm.
RE: the red herring comparison to other gov't funded institutions,
that's a horrible analogy because when they really have so few
opportunities to destroy democratic freedoms on this scale.
If you aren't worried about this filter, you simply don't understand
what it implies.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 2:15am
Re: What exactly is the problem?
by sinsi (profile)
You forgot your sarcmark.
1. They tested with 3 small ISP's, less than 1000 people all up, and
it wasn't 'microseconds'.
2. Tell that to the dentist in Qld.
3. We all trust an 'independant body' now, don't we.
It isn't just 'illegal content', it's anything they decide.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 2:18am
I agree
by Del Boy
People just DO NOT like being told & controlled by political powers.
Thats what the fuss is all about.
Conroy should re-consider using this as a political issue & get back
to whats important Health, Education, Employment & stop being a big
nanny.
It should never be a governments job to censor the internet, they are
too bias - look at China.
The internet belongs to the people & if they want to use it illegally
then thats upto them, as long as they can do the time when caught.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 4:51am
Re: What exactly is the problem?
by Seumas Hyslop (profile)
The issue is that "refused classification" is a very broad
classification that doesn't just include child pornography and snuff
films, it can include politically sensitive material (like discussion
of abortion and euthanasia), and it sets the bar far lower than
illegality as the basis for having something blocked. What's more,
there are no safeguards in what is blocked, and we are not told that
it is being blocked. When a film is refused classification in
Australia, we are able to freely discuss the film in the knowledge
that it has been banned and can have a discussion about whether that's
a good thing. With the proposed legislation, we can't do that about
banned sites. Linking to sites that are on the banned list is
associated with big fines and even prison.
A system where someone decides what's banned based on a broad
definition (including material which is not illegal), and then
complete secrecy about its banning? You really can't see how that
couldn't be abused?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 4:52am
Re: What exactly is the problem?
by Anonymous Coward
@bigpallooka
1. Not so. Some tests show up to 17% delay, but that's not really
relevant either, because no tests have been done for the particular
filtering he is now proposing.
Microseconds don't sound like much, but that's per packet, and (as a
computer engineer I'll tell you) when you have hundreds of Mbits or
more flowing through an ISP they soon add up.
2. It doesn't include R or X rated stuff, only RC rated stuff (kids
are still allowed to surf X rated...).
Apart from child porn, RC material is perfectly legal to possess in
Qld, NSW, Vic, SA and Tas.
Material related to petty crimes such as graffiti or shoplifting could
be blacklisted.
Euthanasia and safe drug use would be censored.
Computer games rated 17/18+ in the UK and US are RC here - they would
be censored, despite being perfectly acceptable entertainment for
adults.
Some weird but not illegal fetishes would be censored.
3. Most bizarre of all, WE WON"T KNOW WHAT IS CENSORED.
Perhaps you trust government appointed independent bodies, but I can't
imagine why. I certainly don't. The government will be able to RC
what it doesn't like.
The people who want to access child porn will easily do so:
- The filter can't filter everything (there is simply too much).
-It only filters http traffic (not https, or ftp, or email, or p2p, or
instant messaging, or streaming...).
-Even the censored http content is easily accessed via proxy or vpn
(virtually no knowledge required for either of these).
So we bear the brunt (network performance drop, monitoring costs that
ISPs will pass on to us), and child porn watchers remain unaffected.
We also get put at the top of the slippery slope of secret government
censorship, and gain the dubious honour of becoming the very first
western democracy to use network level filtering (ie what The Great
Firewall of China is made of).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 5:40am
Please explain
by bigpallooka (profile)
Without political bias (if that is even possible) is Conroy just
unable to understand the technology, is he misinformed by his
"experts" or has he just been given a job to do and his doing his
political best to shout down the nay-sayers? I'm trying not to be
gullible but I'm not big on conspiracy theories either. I don't
happen to think it is possible to keep enough people silent (which is
not an issue in this discussion) to believe that nefarious plans are
afoot so why are they so adamant that it will go ahead? Political
expediency? (Please the wowsers) Bloody mindedness? (I'm the minister
so I know what is best)
Putting aside the whole "internet shouldn't be censored" debate,
governments do have an obligation to enable laws to be enforced so is
there an alternative?
Any creditable links would be appreciated. I hate being so obviously
ignorant of the technical issues.
Thanks for the information that has already been provided. It does
give me something to Google!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 5:57am
by Planespotter (profile)
Governments no longer represent the people, whether you are forced
(Australia) or not forced (UK) to vote.
The people have a much harder time getting their voice loud enough for
it to be heard over the racket from paid lobbiests. Lobbiests who
because of the large companies they represent are able to get the ear
of a politician by slipping his campaign fund a few thousand in crisp
notes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 6:12am
Re: What exactly is the problem?
by btr1701 (profile)
> Please tell me exactly what the concerns are. I'm
> finding it a little hard to get excited one way
> or the other.
Perhaps it's just a different philosophical outlook, but as far as I'm
concerned, there is no need for, nor is it the proper place of
government, to be telling me what I can and cannot see, read, hear or
watch. I'm a grown adult and I can make these decisions for myself,
thank you very much. I certainly don't need to be protected from the
big bad world by a bunch of government bureaucrats who think they
know better than me what's good for me.
If people are uploading or looking at child porn, then punish them for
doing it when it happens. But censoring the internet for 22 million
people based on what a tiny few *might* do is ridiculous. It's a
kindergarten approach to government and is unfortunately becoming all
too prevalent around the world.
And if memory serves, isn't in Australia where the government won't
even make the censorship list itself public, so that the citizens know
exactly what their government is hiding from them? Sounds like a
system ripe for abuse.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 6:14am
Re: Re: What exactly is the problem?
by btr1701 (profile)
> Linking to sites that are on the banned list is
> associated with big fines and even prison.
And they won't make the list public so you the citizen have no idea
what's banned and what isn't. So you may end up committing a crime by
accident. Wonderful system!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 6:38am
Stephen Conroy's plan to censor the 'net
by Bruce Heath
It's fools like this who are trying to turn Australia into a "nanny
state". A top heavy bureaucracy, too many layers of Government, too
much interference in private lives "for our own good" - it's time to
vote them out and win back our rights!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 6:58am
Same old plan
by Krusty
It's the old magician's trick of misdirection, and you know if you
repeat a lie enough the sheeple will beleive you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 7:02am
Re: ok christians
by Hephaestus (profile)
Thanks I can use that ... Just say no to ACTA Think of the
children ... ;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 7:17am
Re:
by Boost
It's not the right or the left. It's the people who stand to lose from
people having access to all the information.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 7:51am
Re: Re: What exactly is the problem?
by Krusty
I certainly don't need to be protected from the big bad "DIGITAL"
world by a bunch of government bureaucrats who think they know better
than me what's good for me.
There I fixed it for you, because those lame chuckleheads certainly
can't protect you in the real world.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 9:02am
Google
by Johnny Canada
Google should make an annoucement that they 100 % in agreement with
Stephen Conroy's plan as they have all this technology that was used
in CHINA that is no longer required there. (sarcazm)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 9:56am
Re:
by harbingerofdoom (profile)
speaking of throwing rhetoric that has absolutely nothing to do with
the actual topic at hand...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 10:52am
Growing up...
by Freedom
Maybe I'm just noticing it more as I get older and see through the BS,
but it seems like a growing trend to ignore the questions raised by a
XYZ group of concerned citizens and instead attack them on the
personal front. This is my #1 sign of knowing when one side is full of
it.
In the US we see it with the tea party movement. Does the other party
address the concerns with facts and honest debate? Nope, they instead
call them haters, racists, and imply that they are so ignorant and
stupid that their questions don't even have any merit. Yet, ironically
if that was the case, then why not address the questions raised by the
movement so everyone can really see just how stupid they really are ???
Freedom
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 2:19pm
*sigh*
by marak
As an Australian,
Id just like to say, its nice to have known you all! The last 10 years
have been fun and im sure i can speak for all of Australia when i say
we have laughed, cried, giggled, blogged and gamed our selves through
the collective worlds of the internet.
Soon we we will be no more, you may hear a whisper from us now and
then, but our ''splendid isolation'' will return. Like England of old,
we will be divided by a large ocean, with very little information
about us getting out.
Remember us fondly, we were not that arrogant, we instead were the
flippant ones, always making jokes. We were not the destructive, we
built for fun and laughter. We shall miss you all.
- Australia
A little over the top? Wait until each different group gets their
hands on the ''secret'' filter list.... Ill probably end up in jail
for working around the filter, but by god its going to be fun!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
•
Mar 31st, 2010 @ 2:23pm
....About Senator Conroy
by Daemon_ZOGG
It would seem Senator Conroy is trying to push the initial stages of
returning Australia to a prison colony. I would imagine that after the
information and communication lines have been fully filtered(cut),
limitations on movement and travel will be next. You'll need "special
papers" to go anywhere. He's a Chinese Government Stooge and he knows
it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Name
Email
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
URL
Subject
Comment
this is for spambots, do not use this
Options
Plain Text HTML Save me a cookie
• Plain Text: A CRLF will be replaced by break <br> tag, all other
allowable HTML is intact
• HTML: No formatting of any kind is done without explicitly being
written in
• Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <p> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote>
<hr> <tt>
Close
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Name
Email
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
URL
Subject
Comment
this is for spambots, do not use this
Options
Plain Text HTML Save me a cookie
• Plain Text: A CRLF will be replaced by break <br> tag, all other
allowable HTML is intact
• HTML: No formatting of any kind is done without explicitly being
written in
• Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <p> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote>
<hr> <tt>
Is Buying A Google Ad On Your Competitors' Name A... >>
<< House Passes Ban On File Sharing Use By Government...
|
Search Techdirt
And now, a word from our Sponsors..
Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter
Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter
And now, a word from our Sponsors..
Related Stories
Disney Lawyers Chose Not To Sue You For Posting Your Disney World
Vacation Videos... But They Could! (18)
The Patent System Does Not Scale (19)
Wealth Is Defined By More Than Just Money (26)
Lessig Gives A Well-Timed Speech To The Italian Parliament On Internet
Freedom (22)
Brought to you by Floor64
About Techdirt | Contact Us | Advertise On Techdirt | Submit a Story |
Twitter | Facebook
Close
• Social Web
• E-mail
• del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
E-mail It
• To Address
• Your Name
• Your Address
•
More information about the Fibreculture
mailing list