[LINK] Green light for internet filter plans

[rene]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:29:44 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:

> Be careful - you'll be accused of being anti-copyright. :)

 :-) Unlike apparently one or more people on this list, the views/policy 
positions I choose to advocate/state about government policy are not 
predicated on whether the government/ministers/or someone else may accuse 
me of being 'something'. 

(not that I can even see how what I said could lead to accusation of being 
"anti-copyright").

Also, sometimes imo the best medicine for false accusations is to publish 
properly cited/referenced research papers in relation to the subject topic. 
Hence early last year, after I became sick to death of Conroy etc claiming 
anyone opposed to their blocking plan is a supporter of 'cp' material, and 
a few supporters of Labor's 'plan' claiming things like a US$3 billion 
industry, I researched, wrote, and published this:

Statistics Laundering: false and fantastic figures
http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html
	"This research paper contains information about various alarming and 
sensational, but out-of-date, false and/or misleading 'statistics' 
concerning the prevalence of 'child p**nography' material on Internet Web 
sites, etc., which appeared in Australian media reports/articles, 
government agency reports, etc., in 2008 and 2009. "

To date, no-one has accused me of being a supporter of child sexual abuse 
material (and any such claim would be completely false) but feedback since 
the publication of that paper indicates that it did give numerous people 
sufficient factual information to be more confident in opposing Labor's 
plan - because it will have negligible if any impact in preventing access 
to 'cp' material - because as AU police have long been stating - the 
overwhelming majority of it is distributed via P2P, private chat rooms, 
Usenet, etc, etc, not via easily findable public web sites - and web sites 
will be the only thing impacted by the govt's blocking plan.

Irene

>
>
> Adrian
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009, rene wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:00:11 GMT, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>>
>>> It appears that if the film industry (AFACT) win their current
>>> iiNet ISP court case, then ISPs will be forced to implement
>>> filters. Maybe Senator Conroy has inside info that AFACT may
>>> indeed win, and hence, is 'getting in early' regarding widescale
>>> Aussie ISP filtering?
>>>
>>
>> There has long been speculation from some quarters that the govt's
>> mandatory blocking plan is being backed/influenced/whatever by
>> AFACT etc and that it's really about blocking copyright
>> infringement downloads.
>>
>> Imo, that's a distraction from the real issues, and it's highly
>> unlikely that copyright infringement has anything whatsoever to do
>> with the govt's mandatory censorship/blocking 'plan'. Even *if* it
>> does, there is *zero* in existing BSA net censorship legislation
>> which would enable the government to require ISPs to block alleged
>> copyright infringement material, and there is no means of changing
>> that with legislative amendments, passed by the Senate, which would
>> also have to give some government agency or government approved
>> 'independent body' power to somehow determine that any particular
>> file/material breaches copyright in the circumstances for which it
>> is published and/or downloaded by any particular person.
>>
>> All indications to date are the government's intentions are plainly
>> censorship of material/information that is controversial for
>> reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright.
>>
>> Irene
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Link mailing list
>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link