Bluelight and the Aussie Internet Filter – Will it affect us?

[puckboy]

* Germany and Italy have mandatory ISP filtering, however in both cases they are of a clearly limited scope. In Germany, the scope is child abuse material and in Italy, it is child abuse material and unlawful gambling sites. Australia's proposed regime would uniquely combine a mandatory framework and a much wider scope of content, the first of its kind in the democratic world.

If Australia chooses to implement this filering system, they should follow in a similar way it seems Germany and Italy have with a limited scope focused on child abuse material.

The idea of having a much wider scope of blocked content is a terrible idea. And Australia are the first country to do this in the democratic world? For fucks sake, we're never the first to make real beneficial changes to social issues, always following in other countries footsteps, yet we're the first to make a change as rediculous as this?

 

[No_Hindrance]

Welcome to ommunist Russia...
We have the same group basically running the western world for many many decades, this s just the start of a controlled world where privacy and free thought is a crime.

Don't they realize this is going to kill the economy, I can't believe this shit is real. Pinch me, am i dreaming?

 

[bit_pattern]

This is the list of marginal ALP seats. For anyone who lives in these electoral districts, start writing letters to your local member and tell them that you will NOT be voting for Labor in this election if this goes ahead, get everyone you know to writ a letter. If you don't speak up then you will be letting the "christian" lobby speak for you.

Macquarie (NSW) ALP 0.009%
Robertson (NSW) ALP 0.1%
Macarthur (*) (NSW) ALP 0.1%
Gilmore (*) (NSW) ALP 0.2%
Solomon (NT) ALP 0.2%
Swan (*) (WA) ALP 0.3%
Herbert (*) (QLD) ALP 0.4%
Corangamite (VIC) ALP 0.9%
Hasluck (WA) ALP 0.9%
Dickson (*) (QLD) ALP 1.0%
Bass (TAS) ALP 1.0%

 

[hoptis]

Just some bits and bytes I found today.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of banning discussion of criminal activity, because it presupposes that the law will never change. If it is black and white, sure, but if it is conceivable that the law could change, then we should never accept a prohibition on discussing it.

What about fiction: are they going to ban a story about abortion or euthanasia or drug taking?

Link

ITNews: Christian Lobby buoyant on filtering after meeting Conroy

Crikey: Bernard Keane’s guide to writing to Ministers

 

[MazDan]

I am very much in favour of this filtering being introduced.

The harder we can make things for filthy kiddy fiddlers and terrorists the better.

If represented correctly then Bluelight will have no problems.

 

[leigh86]

I am very much in favour of this filtering being introduced.

The harder we can make things for filthy kiddy fiddlers and terrorists the better.

If represented correctly then Bluelight will have no problems.

Believe their lies? The proposed filter will not have even the slightest impact on child abuse or terrorism.

 

[lil angel15]

Just before it starts - This is a thread to talk about the filter and how it may influence our online activities if it goes live. Keep the flaming out of it and educate where required.

 

[nabollocks]

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 11

Right of access
(1) Subject to this Act, every person has a legally enforceable right to obtain access in accordance with this Act to:

(a) a document of an agency, other than an exempt document; or

(b) an official document of a Minister, other than an exempt document.

(2) Subject to this Act, a person's right of access is not affected by:

(a) any reasons the person gives for seeking access; or

(b) the agency's or Minister's belief as to what are his or her reasons for seeking access.

Can't we use this Act to demand to know if BL is on the RC list?

We can even demand to know why it is on the list and why...

 

[bit_pattern]

I am very much in favour of this filtering being introduced.

The harder we can make things for filthy kiddy fiddlers and terrorists the better.

If represented correctly then Bluelight will have no problems.

Less than a third of the blacklisted sites had anything to do with kiddy porn. They banned Abby Winters FFS, that's some of the classiest high quality lesbo porn I've ever seen, certainly nothing RC.

And that's just the thing, the list is secret, there is no public oversight, all it takes is a single complaint from some woser with a grudge and a site can be banned arbitrarily. You are pretty gullible if you think it is only going to apply to kiddy porn and terrorism, especially when it has been stated uncatergorically that HR drug sites WILL be targeted. And if you think something as high profile as BL is going to slip through the cracks then you're going to be in for a nasty surprise.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australia...censorship_list_is_related_to_underage_images

You can bet your bum that wikileaks will be among the first to go too

 

[bit_pattern]

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 11

Right of access
(1) Subject to this Act, every person has a legally enforceable right to obtain access in accordance with this Act to:

(a) a document of an agency, other than an exempt document; or

(b) an official document of a Minister, other than an exempt document.

(2) Subject to this Act, a person's right of access is not affected by:

(a) any reasons the person gives for seeking access; or

(b) the agency's or Minister's belief as to what are his or her reasons for seeking access.

Can't we use this Act to demand to know if BL is on the RC list?

We can even demand to know why it is on the list and why...

You won't need an FOI request to know once BL has been blacklisted

But, no, ACMA is exempt from FOI

ACMA is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 1982, and disclosure of information on the blacklist could jeopardise efforts to block access to harmful and offensive online material.

"ACMA would not disclose information if doing so would contradict the Freedom of Information Act," the spokesman said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/row-over-web-blacklist/story-e6frgamx-1111118942430

 

[nabollocks]

A government internet filter without FOI, what ever next?

Biggest load of bollocks I ever heard!

If the banned list is made public then the process is transparent, the very intent of the Freedom of Information Act.

Something smells a little fishy...

 

[No_Hindrance]

Believe their lies? The proposed filter will not have even the slightest impact on child abuse or terrorism.

Your in favor of a slower internet to stop a few lost souls who actually look that crap up?
I don't think many people do,maybe priests..

 

[Raw Evil]

A government internet filter without FOI, what ever next?

Biggest load of bollocks I ever heard!

If the banned list is made public then the process is transparent, the very intent of the Freedom of Information Act.

Something smells a little fishy...

Fishy like a freaking fishery! It's so abusable I don't know where to begin.

Secret blacklist.

No specific criteria for censorship apart from "what the Classification Board would refuse to classify, and other similar types of content" (which are not specified anywhere)

No ability to be treated like an adult. The filter is mandatory.

Conroy has admitted that the blacklist will not stop determined users from accessing child pornography (ever heard of a kiddie-fiddler who *wasn't* determined?), and that its primary goal is to prevent inadvertent access - something which any responsible parent would be monitoring personally while allowing their kids on the net.

The entire thing is purely politically motivated. Read the news on Whirlpool to see what I mean.

No matter. If the filter actually gets implemented, I'll simply move overseas. Which is a shame, because otherwise I kind of like this country. Either way, I refuse to live in a third-world country, especially one which actively compounds the problem of slow net access by slowing it further with ineffective and completely pointless filtering.

Addendum:

Censorship of "illegal material" doesn't end with the current state of our society. It makes the horrific assumption that all laws are static, and not simply a reflection of our society's current moral standpoints. It makes consideration of reform difficult - not only drugs, but other (slightly) less controversial topics such as euthanasia / abortion / etc. If we're not allowed to talk about it, how can we form an informed opinion about something?

This entire thing is tantamount to censoring real life; nay, it is censoring real life! The Internet, while not a physical place, is a real communication medium with real people doing real things on it. It didn't work on Family Guy, so how the hell would it work in a non-fiction context?

 

[hoptis]

I am very much in favour of this filtering being introduced.

The harder we can make things for filthy kiddy fiddlers and terrorists the better.

If represented correctly then Bluelight will have no problems.

People who share child porn and people who are discussing ways to blow up Western civilisation don't exactly start a website like Blueight, buy a domain name and serve up a website to the public.

They use encrypted email, encrypted instant message and peer-to-peer networks. None of which are addressed by this internet filter.

In fifteen years of almost daily internet usage, I have never accidentally "stumbled upon" child pornography... and hope I never do. Nor have I ever happened upon a site promoting terrorism and the destruction of the Western way of life. If I did, it would probably be in Arabic anyway and I'd have no idea what it meant.

On the other hand websites like ours, Exit International and any other sites where people take part in informed and open discussion on illegal topics could be wiped from the internet for the nineteen million people that live in this country.

This is because the ACMA 'RC' classification includes a definition for websites that contain "detailed instruction on drug use". Depending on how this is evaluated, it could be as simple as a single complaint that would cause Bluelight to be added to the RC list. Can you think of a drug forum on Bluelight that doesn't include "detailed instruction on drug use"?

Or using another definition, one that doesn't include "information likely to be of use to a drug user" (Akhenaten's post). This website was designed to be "of use to a drug user" lol...

IMO; the filter with have little impact on child pornography on the internet, or the sickos in Australia who want to get it. It will have a massive impact on our right to read about, discuss and be informed on ideas that are illegal or unsavoury to the general population.

 

[Sameria]

As usual, money also plays a big part in this.

Did anyone notice that ISP's will be given grants per website ban (piece work) by the government? Just to add icing to the cake, the body that will be overseeing the internet filtering would be a non-governmental body, which would no doubt be driven purely by finances.

The sheer idiocricy and stubbornness of politicians never ceases to amaze me. Closely followed by how greedy they all are.

 

[Tronica]

I hope everyone here is seriously considering voting for a minor party in the next federal election. Clearly Labor supports this concept and I don't see Tony Abbott being the kind of Liberal to oppose it either. Use your vote on this issue - I don't believe the major parties think this is serious enough to change votes. I think they have underestimated the importance of this piece of legislation.

The Greens, the Sex Party and the Liberal Democratic Party are just some of the options to register your protest against this bill, come November 2010 or earlier should a double dissolution eventuate.

 

[filenet]

Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save Australia's internet access

...

 

[TheLoveBandit]

This is because the ACMA 'RC' classification includes a definition for websites that contain "detailed instruction on drug use". Depending on how this is evaluated, it could be as simple as a single complaint that would cause Bluelight to be added to the RC list.

So, using those words, and leaving them subject to interpretation behind closed filtering doors....would the vast population of Australia lose online resources for information like Viagra, Aspirin, heart medications, etc? There was no line for (il)legal drugs....just 'drugs'. No line for (il)legal use....just use. Not trying to play dumb or sound a prick about it, but it would appear they used the broadest brush possible to allow their interpretations later on.....but somewhere are libraries of information for the medical community, discussing side effects, long term usage effects, proper storage and administration of drugs - be they life saving, or recreational like on BL.

We can say "surely they wouldn't block medical information?" and I would agree, but to determine how BL is blocked and a cancer survivor's community is not? I cannot see them legally justifying the difference, if brought to a court for review, I would expect we'd be as accessible as other informational communities that aren't out to destroy the world.

 

[mostly-human]

I am very much in favour of this filtering being introduced.

The harder we can make things for filthy kiddy fiddlers and terrorists the better.

If represented correctly then Bluelight will have no problems.

You have got to be kidding right??

Do you actually fathom any idea how bad this thing actually is? Have you actually been researching this or what??

Every opinion poll on every major news site is currently registering >90% against the filtering.

You need to do your research mate if you think this is a good thing.

Baring in mind, that it will do NOTHING to stop people getting access to kiddie porn if that's whats on your mind. In fact, it will actually divert money from the AFP who could actually do something to stop it.

Seriously mate, do some hard reading on what this thing will actually do to our internet and post again.

 

[mepat1111]

No matter. If the filter actually gets implemented, I'll simply move overseas. Which is a shame, because otherwise I kind of like this country. Either way, I refuse to live in a third-world country, especially one which actively compounds the problem of slow net access by slowing it further with ineffective and completely pointless filtering.

I agree, I like this country in many ways, but I would refuse to live in a country that would implement such a ridiculous policy.