[LINK] Conroy going ahead

Adrian Chadd adrian at creative.net.au
Sun May 30 11:28:07 AEST 2010

Why is it that people persist to say the filter is due to Conroy?

Is there some kind of Conroy-is-the-only-one-driving-it agenda that
I've just missed in all of this?


On Sun, May 30, 2010, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> [not sure if this is really news or when he said it, but worth 
> getting in the Link archives]
> Filter goes ahead regardless
> http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html
> May 30, 2010
> Poll: Should the government filter the internet?
> Poll form
>     * Please select an answer. Yes
>     * No
>     * 
> <http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html#viewResult>View 
> results Yes
>     4%
>     No
>     96%
>     Total votes: 4910.
>     Would you like to vote?
>     You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature.
>     Would you like to vote?
>     You will need Javascript enabled to use our Voting Feature.
>     Poll closes in 7 days.
>     Vote now: 
> <http://www.theage.com.au/polls/technology/technology-news/facebook-privacy-uproar/20100524-w56b.html>Facebook 
> privacy uproar
>     Disclaimer:
>     These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of 
> visitors who have chosen to participate.
>     MINISTER for Communications Stephen Conroy has vowed to push on 
> with his controversial internet filtering scheme, despite a barrage 
> of criticism.
>     Senator Conroy told The Sun-Herald that internet advocacy groups 
> such as GetUp! were ''deliberately misleading'' the Australian public 
> about the scheme, which will refuse classification to illegal and 
> socially unacceptable web pages. The legislation, which was expected 
> to be passed before Parliament rises in June, has been delayed until 
> the second half of the year while the government fine-tunes it.
>     The government's $128.8 million Cyber Safety policy includes 
> forcing internet service providers to block access to a secret 
> blacklist of website pages identified as ''refused classification'' 
> by the Australian police.
>     Web pages will be nominated for blacklisting by Australian 
> internet users who come across illegal or ''unacceptable'' websites.
>     ''This is a policy that will be going ahead,'' Senator Conroy 
> said. ''We are still consulting on the final details of the scheme. 
> But this policy has been approved by 85 per cent of Australian 
> internet service providers, who have said they would welcome the 
> filter, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iinet.''
>     Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that 72 per 
> cent of Australian households have home internet access and more than 
> 2 million children regularly use computers.
>     The scheme has attracted broad opposition from communications 
> experts, search-engine companies Google and Yahoo!, the federal 
> opposition and members of the nation's intellectual elite.
>     Critics claim the policy will not result in any meaningful dent 
> in the availability of harmful internet content, will create 
> significant freedom-of-speech issues and will be prone to abuse by politicians.
>     ''The scope of filtered content is so broad that it could block 
> content that would inform political and social debate,'' Google 
> spokeswoman Lucinda Barlow said.
>     Former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull has also condemned the 
> proposed filtering scheme as a ''white elephant''. ''This system will 
> not be effective,'' Mr Turnbull said. ''This policy will run the risk 
> of false impressions [of security], when there should be parental 
> responsibility.''
>     Executive director of GetUp! Brett Solomon said the Prime 
> Minister should step in to ditch the scheme. ''The government would 
> be better off developing policies to ensure the privacy of 
> Australians is better safeguarded rather than pursuing the filter. 
> This should be a promise that Kevin Rudd should break.''
>     GetUp! national director Simon Sheikh said a online petition by 
> the activists had received support from 120,000 people and raised 
> $100,000 to stop the legislation. An additional opinion poll by 
> research firm Galaxy showed 86 per cent felt that parents, not the 
> government, should have the primary responsibility for protecting 
> information on the internet.
>     ''Consistently the Australian people are saying that they don't 
> want it,'' Mr Sheikh said.
>     But Bernadette McMenamin of the child protection group Child Wise 
> said it was 100 per cent behind filtering illegal material. ''Sites 
> are going to be blocked that should be blocked, and it's absolutely 
> essential every parent is taught about the dangers of the internet.''
>     The Australian Privacy Foundation, however, said the cost of the 
> filter would be better directed to more internet education.
>     Yet Senator Conroy said ''blocking material is not considered to 
> be censorship''.
>     ''This filter is really not changing much, except that the 
> blacklist of website pages will be mandatory.''
>     The fourth Cyber Security Awareness Week starts next week to help 
> raise awareness of internet privacy issues.
>     Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
>     jwhit at janwhitaker.com
>     blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
>     business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
>     Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint 
> or sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
>     ~Madeline L'Engle, writer
>     _ __________________ _
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

- Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support -
- $24/pm+GST entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in WA -

More information about the Link mailing list