The Australian government's highly controversial plans to institute ISP-based censorship of the Internet (see previous InfoPowa reports) is to proceed despite errors already experienced and complaints from a wide range of concerned individuals and bodies, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Tuesday.
Government-commissioned trials found that filtering out a blacklist of banned sites constructed by government agencies was accurate and would not slow down the internet.
However, Internet freedom group Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Greens political party communications spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam, said the trial results were not surprising and the policy was still fundamentally flawed.
Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, said this week that he would introduce legislation just before next year's elections to force ISPs to block a blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australian internet users.
The blacklist, featuring material such as child sex abuse, sexual violence and instructions on crime, would be compiled using a public complaints mechanism, Government censors and URLs provided by international agencies.
Senator Conroy also released results from a pilot trial of ISP-level internet filters, conducted by Enex Testlab, which he said found that blocking banned material "can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed".
"Most Australians acknowledge that there is some internet material which is not acceptable in any civilised society," he said. "It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material."
About 15 western countries had encouraged or enforced internet filtering, and there was no reason why Australians should not have similar protection, he claimed without specifying to which countries he referred.
The Sydney Morning Herald commented that it is not clear how - or if - the filters will distinguish between illegal RC material and that which is perfectly legal to view.
Some months ago the government faced a storm of controversy when a copy of its "blacklist" of undesirable websites was leaked on Wikileaks, revealing the scope of filtering that could extend significantly beyond child porn.
About half of the sites on the list were not related to child porn and included a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.
"Given the pilot project's modest goals, it was designed from the beginning to pass," said EFA spokesman Colin Jacobs. "Although it may address some technical issues, what it leaves out is far more important - exactly what will be blocked, who will decide, and why is it being attempted in the first place?"
Green Party spokesman Senator Ludlam said: "Nobody said that filtering from a static list of URLs was going to slow things down too much unless the list gets huge, so I don't think they've already proven anything that we don't already know."
The pilot trial report also noted that motivated people could circumvent any internet filters with ease, which Senator Ludlam said called the effectiveness of the proposal into question.
Ludlam said proving a technical case was not the same as proving the wisdom of going down the internet censorship track in the first place, which he said had always been two separate discussions.
"While the Government says that they will be relying on an evidence-based policy, we still haven't seen evidence that this is going to play any meaningful role in preventing children from accessing harmful material online," Senator Ludlam said.
EFA spokesman Colin Jacobs said: "Successful technology isn't necessarily successful policy. We're still yet to hear a sensible explanation of what this policy is for, who it will help and why it is worth spending so much taxpayer money on."
Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association, said he would be meeting with his members to discuss the report before formulating a response.
Communications Minister Conroy revealed that the next step would be for the government to commence a public consultation process starting with the release of a discussion paper on additional measures to improve the accountability and transparency of processes that lead to sites being placed on the blacklist.
Some of the options raised include appeal mechanisms, notification to website owners of RC content and the review by an independent expert
All News Categories
- General Gambling News (6872)
- Gambling Law & Society News (3450)
- Casino Games (3076)
- Casino Software (2920)
- Land Based Casino News (460)
- Promotions & Bonuses (303)
- Casino Banking (200)
- Casino Tournaments (111)
- General Poker News (53)
- General Sportsbook News (40)
- General Bingo News (37)
- LCB News (36)
- LCB Approved Casinos (21)
- Casino Warnings (18)
- Bingo Software (11)
- Bingo Games (9)
- Predatory Terms (6)
- Online Poker Tournaments (5)
Most Viewed ArticlesSee all
Live activity feed
"Terms for no deposit bonuses: Unless otherwise stated, the max cash out for all no-deposit bonuses don't surpass 1 times the sum value of the bonus redeemed. All free chips valued at or below $100 will have a cashout limitation of no longer than, nor less than, $100.The minimum wagering requirements -deposit bonuses are 30 times the bonus worth for: Scratch Cards and Slots, Keno, Bonus Bingo. The minimum wagering requirements for all no-deposit bonuses are 60 times the bonus worth for: All other enabled games (excluding the limited games as recorded previously). Some Countries are not allowed to withdraw from or play free chips list here https://www.silveredgecasino.com/countries.html "READ
lcb activities in the last 24 hours
- new members
- members online
- guests online
- new posts
- free games played