Insight onto ISP filters
SBS' debate on plans to make ISP filtering compulsory next week will surely be one to watch.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under Programming
Methinks this is a story that will be of interest. Next week’s Insight programme will tackle the contentious issue of: “Should the government have control over what we view online”
Only today Senator Conroy told the Communications and Media Law Association the government was watching the copyright case between iiNet and movie studios / Seven Network.
“This legal battle and the broader debate it forms part of, looms large in the digital economy,” he said. “It symbolises the important challenge we face today. It embodies the challenge of how to lay down the rules for tomorrow. The Government is obviously watching developments with interest.”
And the federal government is also pushing ahead with its plans to make ISP filtering compulsory.
Critics have slammed the proposal as ‘China-style censorship.’ Others argue ISP’s have to take greater responsibility for the products they host.
Insight will bring together Government, industry, parents and kids and civil libertarians to thrash out the consequences of blocking the net.
Insight airs 7:30pm Tuesday on SBS.
Share
- Tagged with Insight
20 Responses
I hope the audience give Mr Conroy him some intelligently worded questions to make him uncomfortable and to explain to to those lacking in subject knowledge the issues with the way this is being handled by the government.
The Q&A show was interesting but sometimes the questions chosen from the audience (and silly videos) weren’t the best and got emotive rather than just using the facts to win the argument (and the viewing public over).
While I am certainly against child exploitation material, this is really only the thin end of the matter. The wording the Government keeps using is “unwanted materials” – the real fear is that this will evolve into encompassing sites like Rapidshare / Depositfiles because that is where movies can be downloaded from, not to mention the tottent sites because pressure will be brought to bear in relation to copyright and other nebulous issues, not to mention euthanasia & abortion issues. I also find the Governments augument that is you dont support them in their plan then obviously you are a paedophile and want this material. This is a poorly conceived plan and I hope for the sake of the freedoms we have in this country it does not succeed.
* “people will ‘not’ notice”, I meant 🙂 …
The government should be implementing its election policy of faster internet speeds in Australia, not hoping people will notice its failure to do so by focusing on another issue it thinks can distract people…
Before I recorded the program, I went to the Q&A website to find quite a few angry e-mails on the Q&A website regarding the filtering.
From what I have read, Conroy didn’t even give straight answers; he just kept repeating the same old lines, that this filter is primary aimed at blocking child pornography, when it is actually more than that.
Is there any time in history when censorship has ever achieved its intended goals? As far as I know, every time it either gets worked around or knocked down, and the resultant behaviour is even worse than before.
Read my lips. I am not going to live in a country where the government dicates what people can and cannot view on the Internet. If this happens, I am moving to another country, and this isn’t the only time I mentioned this.
I don’t think it is possible for the government to ban P2P file-sharing or BitTorrent, because filters cannot determine what torrents would contain illegal material such as CP, child abuse images, etc. However, filters are capable of blocking P2P and BitTorrent traffic completely. And if the government has its way, they could block BitTorrent in the entire country, which would be a bad move.
I am glad that SBS is more focused on the issue than any other channel.
ABC covered it on Q&A last night too.
25 years late, 1984 has finally arrived. Thin edge of the wedge. Start with “porn” then…..
I am definitely watching this. If Rudd lets this pass, then I’ll fully believe he’s a “Manchurian Candidate”.
i don’t want to live in this country if we are going to be so oppressed by the government, i can’t believe they are still doing this, i thought they dropped the issue months ago because everyone hated the idea. even those who represent childrens groups and the like say this will do nothing to stop kiddie porn as they use p2p and other methods for that. all it will do is restrict the already law abiding citizens and do nothing to stop the criminals. the only people who get caught up in these sorts of things are the ones who were never doing anything wrong.
The only significant thing differentiating this policy from China’s is that they personally threaten bypassers with prison. If you look at what ‘prohibited’ content actually is, you will see that illegal material is very much in the minority in terms of what they propose to ban. Even stuff aired on FTA tv could potentially be banned from the internet. To compare it to something similar to what other western democracies are currently doing is either a) lying, or b) not knowing very much at all about the policy.
I hope they grill Conroy good. The arrogance of this man far surpasses that of FTA executives.
People will always find ways around blocks to get what they want. I agree to filter out child porn and other undesirable activity but can’t see it realistically happening.
Best way to prevent skyrocketing illegal downloads for TV shows is to keep on properly fast tracking and keeping shows on the air – something our networks find difficult to do.
Just to clear something up so that misconceptions don’t abound any further:
> Critics have slammed the proposal as ‘China-style censorship.’ Others argue ISP’s have to take greater responsibility for the products they host.
It should be noted that these are not two opposing views. ISPs *already* are responsible for the ‘products’ (content) they host. It is already illegal to host illegal content in Australia. Arguing that an ISP is responsible for stopping illegal content as it passes through their infrastructure is like arguing that Telstra is responsible for stopping threatening phonecalls or for guaranteeing that callers to ‘adult’ phone services are of a legal age.
Conway’s blacklist is certainly ‘China-style censorship’. There is a blacklist (that I’m not allowed to see) of addresses (that I’m not allowed to visit). Even if you believe the government’s contention that the list is not intended to be political in nature, it most certainly is. It is controlled by government which is, by it’s very nature, political. Which group with they pander to? Hetty Jonson and her cohorts at Family First who thinks Bill Henson’s photographs are child porn? Someone, somewhere, is drawing an arbitrary censorship line.
This doesn’t happen on television: the censorship rules are clearly defined, publicly available, and are moderated by experts at each television station. A secret blacklist is terrible and anyone with enough desire can bypass it with ease.
BitTorrent websites – like torrent sites? Perhaps. Although i think if people are going to pirate they would have heard of the word ‘proxy’. Peer to peer file sharing? Not unless they completely ban p2p which is possible, although they can’t filter it. There are many legitimate uses for p2p which would be blocked if they banned the practice.
a also really hope benno that stephen conroy truly answers the questions put forward and not the usual politician answer which dont even answer the question finger crossed.
If the filter slows down Internet traffic to will also impact legal download sites from the networks and the likes of iTunes. But I want to know will the filter actually be able to do anything to stop BT sites?
He’d better not pull a last-minute, and he’d better answer the questions instead of waffling on some rehearsed garbage which has nothing to do with the actual question.
Watch for some fireworks tonight on the ABC’s “Q and A” when Steven Conroy appears along side Greg Hunt and Andrew Bolt…should make for good viewing!
Finally this issue is getting some mainstream coverage. I notice the commercial networks won’t touch this issue with a 10 foot pole, probably because they want the internet to fail. Even on the times they do, they get the most clueless people who have no idea of what is actually being proposed. That, or they know full well and are blatantly lying. (I’m talking about you, Sunrise). Have a look at the sunrise videos on the issue on YouTube and you’ll see what I mean.