[LINK] Conroy vs Google

[Frank O'Connor]

True to form, Conroy basically tries to bully anyone who disagrees 
with him .... but he's yet to try on the US government.

Sad really - the only ones who were on Conroy's side were the filter 
purveyors (who stood to make a buck out of the deal and who have, of 
late, conceded that the filters probably will affect network 
performance) and a couple of groups of fundamentalist Christians 
(who's main argument now seems to be, "Yes, it will probably not work 
- but we must be seen to do something.")

Of course the idea that internet users should be responsible for 
their own internet use (and that of their children), that user based 
filter packages will block better than ISP (or even further up the 
pipe based) packages, and that the idea of a 'public morality' went 
out with the Pelopponesian Wars doesn't hit him between the eyes.

To Conroy internet filtering has become a 'cause' ... despite the 
best advice anyone has been able to give him.

                                                   Regards,
----
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-goes-to-war-with-google-over-net-censorship-20100330-r9bp.html 
Government goes to war with Google over net censorship
ASHER MOSES
March 30, 2010 - 1:15PM

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has launched a stinging 
attack on Google and its credibility in response to the search 
giant's campaign against the government's internet filtering policy.

In an interview on ABC Radio last night, Senator Conroy also said he 
was unaware of complaints the Obama administration said it had raised 
with the government over the policy.

The government intends to introduce legislation within weeks forcing 
all ISPs to block a blacklist of "refused classification" websites 
for all Australians.

Senator Conroy has said the blacklist will largely include deplorable 
content such as child pornography, bestiality material and 
instructions on crime, but a large and growing group of academics, 
technology companies and lobby groups say the scope of the filters is 
too broad and will not make a meaningful impact on internet safety 
for children.

Google, which has recently been involved in a censorship spat with 
China, has been one of the filtering policy's harshest critics. It 
has identified a range of politically sensitive and innocuous 
material, such as sexual health discussions and discussions on 
euthanasia, which could be blocked by the filters.

Last week, it said it had held discussions with users and parents 
around Australia and "the strong view from parents was that the 
government's proposal goes too far and would take away their freedom 
of choice around what information they and their children can access".

Google also said implementing mandatory filtering across Australia's 
millions of internet users could "negatively impact user access 
speeds", while filtering material from high-volume sites such as 
Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter "appears not to be 
technologically possible as it would have such a serious impact on 
internet access".

"We have a number of other concerns, including that filtering may 
give a false sense of security to parents, it could damage 
Australia's international reputation and it can be easily 
circumvented," Google wrote.

On ABC Radio last night, the majority of callers were opposed to the 
filters and right before the end of the segment, Senator Conroy 
attacked Google over its privacy credentials.

"Recently the founders of Google have got themselves into a little 
bit of trouble because notwithstanding their alleged 'do no evil' 
policy, they recently created something called Buzz, and there was a 
reaction, and people said well look aren't you publishing private 
information?," Senator Conroy said.

"[Google CEO Eric] Schmidt said the following: 'If you have something 
that you don't want anyone to know maybe you shouldn't be doing it in 
the first place'. This is the founder of Google. He also said 
recently to Wall Street analysts, 'we love cash', so when people say, 
shouldn't we just leave it up to the Googles of this world to 
determine what the filtering policy should be...."

Google said today it was surprised to hear Senator Conroy trying to 
"make this an issue about Google".

"This is a debate about freedom of access to information for all 
Australians, an issue of national importance. Let's focus on that," 
Google said.

Google's Buzz product added social networking features to Gmail but 
it caused a privacy uproar in February, with users complaining their 
contacts were being made public without their knowledge and that they 
had little control over who could follow their updates. Google 
quickly tweaked the service to allay these concerns.

Google said the Schmidt quote referred to by Senator Conroy had been 
taken out of context. Furthermore, Senator Conroy incorrectly labeled 
Schmidt one of the founders of the company, when in fact he joined 
the company as its CEO in 2001.

Opposition communications spokesman Tony Smith said it was Senator 
Conroy's "default position" to attack anyone that questions his 
policies.

"Google should be able to express their opinion without being 
attacked by the Minister and having their motives questioned," he 
said.

Senator Conroy also said he was not aware of the US State Department 
contacting his office or that of the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, 
over the internet filters. This contradicts a statement made by a US 
State Department spokesman yesterday.

"Our main message of course is that we remain committed to advancing 
the free flow of information which we view as vital to economic 
prosperity and preserving open societies globally," a U.S. State 
Department spokesman Michael Tran told The Associated Press.

Tran declined to say when or at what level the U.S. State Department 
raised its concerns with Australia and declined to detail those 
concerns.

"We don't discuss the details of specific diplomatic exchanges, but I 
can say that in the context of that ongoing relationship, we have 
raised our concerns on this matter with Australian officials," he 
added.

Senator Conroy argues the he is only attempting to apply the same 
restrictions placed on the distribution of books, magazines, DVDs and 
other content to the internet.

But critics say this approach fails to consider that the internet is 
a vastly different, dynamic medium. They say Senator Conroy's 
proposal is a heavy-handed measure that is easily bypassed by 
criminals and could restrict access to legal information.

Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in 
terms of how content ends up on the blacklist, but last night he 
again refused to make the blacklist itself public, saying it would 
provide people instant access to the banned material.

Whether the internet filtering policy is implemented depends largely 
on whether the Opposition supports or blocks the legislation. It has 
said it is waiting to see the government's legislation before stating 
a final position on the matter.

"The Federal Coalition supports sensible and workable measures to 
protect children from inappropriate online content," said Smith.

"However we are yet to be convinced that Labor's mandatory filtering 
plans will actually be effective or achieve the best results."