The controlling public opinion comment wasn't meant to be taken as hyperbole and I probably should've worded it better. Although I don't expect an outright attempt to control public opinion (ala China) there will be a control of information that comes into Australia should this go into full swing. They even state themselves that it could have up to an 8% false positive rate. That's huge! I can also guarntee that there will be some representatives who get stuff blocked because they don't agree with it (right-wing christian party blocking pro-abortion sites springs to mind) and it will probably never get removed.
Despite the well justified anger online in a lot of quarters about the Rudd Governments efforts to introduce a mandatory internet filtering scheme isn't china and fundi christians usually dont know enough about computers to be the tech guys who could possibly distort the list. Certainly the idea the government will be from PM Rudd/Minister Conroy sending directives for specific websites or topic areas to be censored is ludicrious.
That said, Australia already has laws against discussing suicide techniques, or promoting euthanasia online, (passed in 2004 with both major parties shameful support, the media ignored it, I only found out because I was working in the chamber as they discussed it), so that area of material is sure to be included in the scope of the filtering.
Western Governments have no need to censor the views of people online. If they are saying it online, they are likely either A) entirely ignored and so no threat or B) too close to being a journalist/somebody to risk censoring. Theres no advantage for the govt trying to censor topics or people online. This is just about appeasing the fundies over pictures and slash fiction. And a half hearted attempt at that.
Not that I'm defending the idiotic move (its bad politics and bad policy), but lets not fall into hysteria here. The net's goldern era of unregulated free flow was always going to come to an end (radio had a similar pirate phase & tens of thousands of amateur talk shows the predecessors to bloggers), the question then is how do you design a good system that falls under some basic legal system (The net is a perfect place for International Law to assert its dominance over states law. It should be the UN not Australia making these laws), without too much damage to the system or its potentials.
Nothing goes unregulated forever, Rudd & Conroy's attempt is just a particularly ham fisted way of doing so, as every single western government in the world is thinking about/ due to in the next 5 years. Better for the online community (Whilst making a strident stand for free speech as integral to our system of government and way of life) to propose an acceptable system for both completely stopping access to material such as child porn, whilst still allowing adults their late night entertainment, and dope smokers to compare recipies for brownies. I'd much much more prefer to see no internet censorship at all, but its not going to happen and politically speaking want to the opposition to the bill focused on constructive efforts to preserve speech, not this all or nothing + hyperbole about police states that seems to invade the Australian internet communities efforts thus far in opposition to the bill.
Perhaps worst is the fact that after 11 years of a genuinely luddite government, we have one in place which knows and acknowledges the value of the internet and computers and yet caved instantly to distort and disrupt it. Weak as piss Rudd.
No comments:
Post a Comment