Senator Lundy and Censorship Lite
Pirate Party Australia rejects the Censorship Lite™ proposal currently espoused by
Senator Lundy as a viable or appropriate alternative to the current proposal.
"Senator Lundy's proposal for a 'mandatory option' for the internet filter is a bit of a hollow
response to concerns of the wider community. It is basically opt-out, wrapped in double
speak. Opt-out may seem marginally more palatable than the current proposals, however
in some respects it is actually worse - it is totally unacceptable because it breaches the
fundamental right to privacy." said Rodney Serkowski, Party Secretary.
He continued "It clearly is meant as a discouragement to those persons seeking an open
internet, by making them effectively request permission from a stranger to have the option
to view content that may not be to everyone's taste, but is not in any way illegal for an
adult in Australia to view. People opting out will run the risk of increased surveillance as
the government continues its attempts to enforce conservative social norms and suppress
fundamental freedoms."
"This is an interesting development considering the amount of community pressure placed
on the government over the issue. With support for the ALP waning in the polls, Lundy's
action is an attempt to mitigate the impact of one of the ALP's most unpopular policies."
"There is still nothing to prevent a future government from simply terminating the 'opt-out'
option, and returning us to the blindness of a government imposed and controlled internet
censorship infrastructure. There is still nothing to protect from an expansion of what is
censored by the scheme."
David Crafti, Party President said that "the issue is that all these filtering plans establish a
framework that can be abused in the future. When you look at how either opt-in or opt-out
mechanisms would work, they are effectively the same as the mandatory option, exceptthat there is extra processing involved to determine who makes each request and whether
they are opted in. It actually requires more invasion of privacy, as requests for censored
material then have to be linked directly to the requestor."
This really is not the time for compromise -- Internet users will unduly bear the costs for the
proposed censorship infrastructure, both through misallocated government spending
which would be better spent adequately funding and improving law enforcement capability,
and through higher service charges for costs incurred through the implementation of the
regime by ISPs.
Printer-friendly versionFollow Us
Twitter Updates
Mailing List
Have something to say? Want to participate? Subscribe to our public discussion list.
Other discussion email lists can be found here.
opt-in opt-out
Unfortunately David is correct that these filtering "schemes" don't work in practice and are subject to the abuse and whims of politicians both now and in the future. We have already seen removals of domains done overnight at the request of politicians, who seemingly are not subject to abide by the laws and processes the rest of the Australian public is subject to.
The world has watched while the cry of "weapons of mass destruction" creates panic to justify the invasion of a country and the deaths of many. Now we have been hearing the cry of "online predators" as the excuse for government interference and mandatory internet filtering. Politicians are not the most appropriate to create and control the thoughts of the tax payers who pay their salaries...the tax payers themselves are.
Network performance will obviously be effected despite assurances of "minimal impact", the filtering will by its nature cause a measurable impact. The filter list itself...who really has ultimate control over what gets filtered? What happens at election time when one political party finds all its sites "accidentally" filtered? Or when a foreign government asks for certain sites/IPs to be filtered as part of a trade agreement? If there is a country wide filter in place then wouldn't it also make it much easier for a group, such as Anonymous, to attack the country with traffic intended to trigger the filter and essentially isolate Australia from the internet completely?
Opt-in and opt-out lists in the past have failed for other things such as telemarketers and spam. While some entities might abide by the list many more will pay lots of money for such lists as they represent actual current contact points. Why waste time sending out emails to out-of-date random emails when you can use an opt-out list and be certain to get into somebodies inbox?
Also the existence of the proposed filters gives a false sense of security to the general public. Most people will not fully comprehend the filter and what it really means. They will feel their computers are now safe with such a filter in place...no more viruses, no more spyware, no more spam...under such conditions most people will now be happy to think that is a popup appears saying they need to install a security patch that its fine...there is a filter in place so this popup can't be harmful.
Last but not least, opt-out filtering is essentially a tool to get the public to sign their names onto government watch-lists and movement-alert lists. If you decide to opt out there is no guarantee this won't be noted and everytime you enter an airport prepare for strip searches.
Today's government is tomorrow's opposition. There is no possible way any level of filtering and control even if done correctly right now won't be changed or abused when the leading political party changes. Freedom of choice will be worn away and freedom of speech held against you. I for one trust in my own judgment to know how to protect my family, myself, my computers. It's far too important to be placed in the hands of politicians who I will never meet, who will never struggle with several jobs to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. I want the freedom to decide for myself, you should too.