Australian opposition vows to implement Internet filter by default
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
This issue is regularly floated by both "sides" of politics, usually to much criticism (on both technical and moral grounds). It is like the Hydra - chop off one head and it will simply grow two more. This time the policy announcement is especially reprehensible, coming 48 hours before an election which is all but decided in advance and buried in fine-print.
No doubt the new government will announce that it has "a clear mandate" to implement the filter as it was tucked away in their last-minute policy announcements.
EDIT: Also depressing is how long the relevant Wikipedia article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...
What country without US extradition is the most socio-libertarian/anarchist friendly?
Usually the countries without US extradition treaties have much more worrying issues, like abysmal civil / human rights records, IIRC. Also, it doesn't stop the US from leaning on them to extradite you as a special case, anyway.
(It's a good thing a dear friend is an immigration atty.)
NZ can't be worse than AU. I am a citizen of both (and DE) and plan to move to NZ myself.
I think you'd be looking at Vietnam, Andorra, or Croatia, although you could hardly say any were ideal by those measures.
Outside of politics, it really depends on what you look at. There's certainly a strong urge to conform in mainstream anglo America (clipped lawns, identical houses, visible laundry is unsightly, etc) that doesn't really have a parallel here, but on the other hand, Americans are a bit more socially outgoing than Australians.
AU successfully managed to de-militarize its police force? The US needs to use you guys as a case study! However, I suspect that you were only able to do that because of your very low tolerance for firearms violence, as evidenced by the near-complete disarmament of your civilian population via that massive buyback program & subsequent legislation after the Port Arthur massacre. I wouldn't be surprised if US citizens like the idea of a militarized police, ready to respond with overwhelming force to whatever movie-plot terrorists happen to pop up.
More likely some back-room deal has been done with vested interests and the implementation of this policy somehow benefits them (financially or politically).
It is likely a combination of: rightsholder companies who will eventually twist the filters to block internet-based competition, large IT contracting companies who will get lucrative contracts for implementing it, and (tin-foil hat time) the Catholic church.
There are some VERY skeezy links between the federal opposition and the Australian Catholic church which see the church hold significant lobbying power over LNP policies. See: marriage equality, abortion rights, royal commission into child sexual abuse etc.
As a small, uncontroversial example, the current government handed over regulation of charities (including churches) to an independent regulator last year. The Catholic Church in particular hates being under the thumb of a regulator it doesn't have in its own back pocket. Conveniently the LNP plans to scrap the regulator if they win the election. Even mainstream newspapers are reporting that this is at the behest of Cardinal George Pell:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/bad-liberal-policy-will-damag...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013...
"The answer, in part at least, may be the lobbying power of church conservatives, the Catholic Church in particular, and the office of Sydney Cardinal George Pell, more particularly still."
"And the Victorian and Tasmanian-based Churches of Christ Community Care has begun an online petition to save the commission, warning that the Coalition alternative would be ''an advisory body with no teeth''. That, say critics, appears to be the point."
That's pretty awesome that that was even done, though. I cannot imagine something like that happening in the US. I am so sick of seeing religious institutions abuse their tax-free status to play Real Estate Tycoon.
We had some issues in the past with some very high-profile sports people setting up "charitable funds" which undertook a lot of fundraising and tax deductible activities without actually doing any philanthropy. That undermines trust in organisations who actually help people (Salvation Army, World Vision etc).
I'm not defending censorship (one look at the list shows what a STUPID idea it is) but I think implying that it was used to "block Wikileaks" overstates what happened.
Remember: this is a secret list that Australians cannot legally see.
He became the leader of the opposition by one vote (internal votes) after a debate between him and the previous leader over climate change (which he successfully argued to his party wasn't occurring, later changing his mind to satisfy the polls)
It is all about power, money and special interests corrupting democracy. Abbott for all his Catholicism will have signed his soul over to big carbon polluters, the tobacco lobby, Rupert Murdoch and lots more to take the election.
If filtering doesn't happen immediately, fear may be exploited and politicians will have to find something else to procrastinate on rather than tackling real issues (poverty, health care, budget waste).
If you do know the names of the members that comprise a party, then you can just as easily vote for the members specifically by name (and if you're too lazy to do this then how did you manage to haul your carcass to the polling booth?) If you're so ignorant that you don't know the names of the members that comprise a party, maybe you shouldn't be blindly casting a vote for them.
There are several ways you can fight it.
1. Voting. If you live in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria or Tasmania, you can vote for the Pirate Party in the Senate on Saturday. If you live in NSW, Victoria or Western Australia, you can vote for the Wikileaks Party. Live anywhere, and you can vote for the Sex Party or the Greens.
2. Activism. Join one or more of these parties.
3. Software. Write software that circumvents the censorship.
> This issue is regularly floated by both "sides" of politics
People who think there are only two sides are wrong.
I meant to say that as a citizen, this is impossible to stop. I say that as someone who will vote Wikileaks on Saturday. But in realistic terms, unfortunately there are only two viable sides in the legislative house. Polls (and consequently betting markets) don't even anticipate a single seat going to a minor party at this election.
It is possible to win. We blocked SOPA and ACTA. The vote to partially defund the NSA was only lost by a narrow margin. There are Pirates in the European Parliament (and will probably be more next year). There is more awareness of digital rights than there ever has been before, and importantly for the future it's higher amoung younger voters.
This is a fight that can be won.
I remember what it was like to dial into BBS's when I was in high school. The freedoms we had online then were incredible compared to what we have today.
The fight we are fighting is not one to win new territory or new freedoms - its one to protect what we already have. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose. But we have to win all the time just to keep things where they are today. All it takes is one loss and something is irrevocably gone...
Don't feel bad. It just means the family of the deviant hacker criminal won't have to pay the bill for the bullet.
Or in other words: Yeah, china. There's an ideal to aspire to.
Of course it's not. People forget that the NBN cost the Liberal party the last election. People care about "this stuff" now
Polls (and consequently betting markets) don't even anticipate a single seat going to a minor party at this election.
That isn't true. Brandt (Greens) is the favourite in Melbourne[1] and Wilkie is favourite in Denison[2]. There's also a conservative independent who is favourite to win a seat in Victoria but I can't find her name or the reference at the moment.
[1] http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2...
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-04/denison-hold-for-wedne...
If there were 3 or more, then it means that one sides vote is split, and so will not get a majority.
Unless of course you have some wacky proportional representation system.
Though this election is going to be a landslide for the Libs, and split votes aren't going to have much impact.
The Senate doesn't form the government and cannot originate supply bills, but otherwise has coequal legislative powers. It is elected on a proportional basis.
The system works well because a government can normally form quickly and govern stably, but in order to pass legislation it must give consideration to minority parties in the Senate. You get an Executive that can execute but which must nevertheless be prepared to compromise.
I have no problems with the senate. I vote for minority parties (Sex Party last election and this one) because I want protection from the government when required.
The fall of the Democrat vote mirrors the rise of the Greens vote, and the Greens are way more left leaning than the Democrats ever were.
I think their demise had more to do with internal infighting and the Andrew Bartlett drunk in the senate debacle.
But yes, I miss them too - they were basically a sensible party who wouldn't do stupid things.
Zagging left cost them the votes they got from Liberal voters.
And that was that.
Doesn't the fact we had greens and independents win lower-house seats prove that there are other options beside the 2 major parties?
Doesn't the current minority government - along with numerous examples of senates where the balance of power wasn't held by the major parties - prove that these parties can have significant influence?
The libs will probably win the lower house easily (although I suspect the Greens will hold Melbourne and Wilkie will hold in Tasmania). But I think the senate will be interesting.
If there were 100 seats and 50 went to the libs, but labor and the greens split 30-20, the libs are (most likely) going to form government even though the people voting greens would prefer a labor government.
They get their local representative, but ultimately it means nothing, because the government that forms is on the political opposite of the spectrum. As pointed out in a sister comment though, this has only happened twice in our history, so I'm probably making a bigger deal than is appropriate.
Agree that the senate is going to be interesting though.
But it's worth noting that the conservative side of politics in Australia has had this problem for a while, and has a perfectly workable solution.
The Liberal/National coalition has often held power, and yet Liberals & Nationals run against each other in elections.
There are similar examples in other countries too.
Coalitions are interesting because once the minor party has a role in government their views cannot be ignored so easily.
The agreement that no minority government (by both the libs and labor) would be formed this election cycle could only of helped the liberals - not that they needed it.
There is a very strong anti-Greens sentiment in places and Labor could not risk being entirely tarred with that brush.
So yes, we have historically had "3rd" parties quite often, from the Australian Democrats in the 90's through to the Australian Greens now.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138515
In a nutshell -- resorting to technical fixes treats the symptom and not the disease, and leaves behind the majority of the population.
The grassroots opposition to ACTA and SOPA were effective for round one, but we will lose in the long run unless get serious about organizing.
The EFF (eff.org) is a good start, but it needs more members.
Our tech-freedoms lobby could have the same model as the NRA and ACLU, lots of members to give it a clear mandate when lobbying and cash flow from effected industries for fighting legal battles.
Just imagine if we had a group with the weight of the NRA.
1. http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/election_advertising.htm#blackout
"Vote for us to end the deficit. We'll work out how if you vote for us."
(IMHO more likely to send us into the recession we've avoided thus far)
Just sayin'.
If you have no economic policy announced the Saturday before the election then you're going in to the election with NO policy and you're not allowed to talk about what you'll be doing in regard to the economy in that last week.
It is crazy to give the public the costings of your promises 48 hours before the election. The average person isn't never going to have or want to take the time in that period to really look into what is released and the liberal party know that.
What if an event happens 6 days before the election and politicians are asked to comment on it?
Disgusting indeed.
FFS, if you can't even slap together, before the last minute, a theoretical document outlining what you are supposedly going to do -- which you're not even going to be held accountable for if you fail to accomplish it or completely reverse your stance on it -- then what good are you?
Can anyone explain to me how this isn't a really low move?
They've now backed out on it. No mandatory filter. The report was "poorly worded".
While this of course sounds terribly stupid, pointless, costly and technically infeasible, it also sounds fairly innocuous as far as these types of proposals go.
It sounds like users would be able to enable/disable it whenever they like, without adding their name to a central database at the Ministry for Censorship (unlike the UK proposal?). He declared that the point was to enable this kind of filtering for people who aren't technical enough to set it up for themselves, and that ultimately the decision and responsibility lies with parents.
In fact, it sounds a lot better than the system the current government (who is of course already criticising this policy) tried to ram down our throats recently.
(Disclosure: I just heard about this policy on the way home from voting early, and the intent of my vote was to benefit the current governing party more than the opposition proposing this system, after my preferred minor candidates are eliminated...I like Malcolm Turnbull a lot, but I don't like his party's policies any more than I suspect he does, at the moment.)
"The correct position is that the Coalition will encourage mobile phone and internet service providers to make available software which parents can choose to install on their own devices to protect their children from inappropriate material."
=== Sounds more reasonable if accurate.
great.
I believe this is Abbott letting his Catholic views get in the way of policy. Much like his opinions on gay marriage and abortion align with that of other Catholics, he's a puppet. And even if Kevin was a puppet, at least he went about hiding it a bit better.
In six months or so people will realise they made a mistake voting for LNP but it'll be too late. Filtering will not only be used to filter adult content, it'll be used to block whatever content Abbott and church/parent groups of Australia want banned. It'll also block legitimate content as the test run of a filter a little while ago actually showed.
This is just the beginning. A filter is nothing compared to what Abbott will be capable of doing in his position of power. He is hell-bent on proving a point by rescuing the economy by taking dirty lobbyist money in exchange for a few lax laws and blocked sites here and there.
Is it that the politicians themselves who can't stop surfing to those adult sites and want to stop it by censoring it for everybody?
"The Federal Government has confirmed its financial regulator has started requiring Australian Internet service providers to block websites suspected of providing fraudulent financial opportunities, in a move which appears to also open the door for other government agencies to unilaterally block sites they deem questionable in their own portfolios." (http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/15/interpol-filter-scope-cre...)
And direct press release from ASIC: "ASIC has already blocked access to these websites."
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/13-061MR+ASI...
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/09/05/coalitions-...
Sweet Jesus....playing it fast and loose with freedom of expression just hours before an election.
Yeah, that's going to happen.
I wonder if all these spying scandals and the rise of censorship in the West will lead to an noticeable increase in the size of tor/i2p/...
Maybe something using cars? =P
The idea is to come up with a metaphor that is as short and sweet as it is compelling. As much as the idea of "selling" truth disgusts me, we need to "market" the unpleasant realities of a filter as effectively as politicians have sold the lie of it being "for the children" in order to have a fighting chance of preventing it.
Actually Googling my phrase seems to give pretty good results -- descriptive powers FTW! :D
The name for it appears to be "the Backfire Effect", classed as a type of cognitive bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Backfire_eff...
Both sides have said everything they have to say on the issue. I'm of the belief that it's only for point scoring with various conservative groups that the idea even continues to be floated. I think even Tony Abbott (the opposition candidate and almost-certain victor) probably understands how it can't possibly be made to work but is just going along to placate certain segments of the electorate.
Let's hope that you're right and they're not actually ever taking it seriously.
Fucking scumbags.
48 hours before we go to the polls.
And apparently they plan on hacking our devices in order to implement it? They have no clue.
[1] 27:05 at http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/daily/hack_thurs_20...
Politician: "It'll be like an iPhone app, only somehow mandatory, right?" IT Consultant: "Uh... kinda sorta..."
We also have the strictest party discipline in the world, so there's very little room for back-scratching.
Finally, our Constitution bans any bill about appropriations from dealing with any other subject. So you can't tack riders onto other subjects.
That's a really clever appropriations bit in your Constitution. I've often thought that the US needs some sort of Kevin Bacon Law -- all the measures within a bill have to be related to each other with only a few degrees of separation. No more banning internet poker in a port security bill! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE_Port_Act)
95% of Australians will defer to their parties' chosen preferences, rather than stating their preferences explicitly. This is mostly because you have to number hundreds of boxes if you chose to vote "below the line".
Some argue that parties' preferences will not always reflect the intention of the voter - but they get away with it because its too difficult to vote preferentially.
I also hear that in practice, the third parties are basically bribed with minor legislative concessions if they form a coalition with a major party and cast the deciding vote in favor of their legislation.
Still better than the third party not existing & having a say at all, though.
https://github.com/OpenParliamentAu/law-beta
All bills are in Microsoft Word.
1. Convert all bills to perfect Markdown for nice looking diffs.
2. Parse amendments (e.g. "Section 1: Omit paragraph 1, replace X with Y".) for bills currently before parliament and create consolidated versions of the bills to view changes in context.
3. Fork GitLab.org and create a pretty interface for law makers to use.
[1]: http://www.theage.com.au/national/proeuthanasia-tv-ad-ban-a-...
[2]: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/suicide-drug-of-choice-...
It's a pity that such things are the only exposure the tech crowd has to Australia, instead of more compelling things like the massive and ambitious National Broadband Network fiber-to-the-home infrastructure project.
[0]: Includes child porn and "morally offensive" sites, whatever that means.
As far as the data-logging goes, I meant it as done by the native government -- although I agree that's largely a "tomato, tomahto" distinction.
Or, as it will be known on Saturday evening: copper to the "good luck with that".
(Some context: the opposition party -- which apparently is going to win? I don't follow politics too closely -- was suggesting that the NBN project could be done more cheaply if it was fiber-to-the-node instead... thus completely defeating the purpose of the network upgrade.)
A colleague says that there are Murdoch's hands in the till on this one, given that fast internet threatens his TV offerings.
That's basically all it comes down to. Not enough people care about what a fast network can do for the country, and they've been brainwashed to think that the economic management of the last few years has been appalling.
It's really really strange. People all of a sudden seem to give a shit about how much we are spending and think it's a bad thing, when every economic commenter has said it's been managed brilliantly. It looks like a lot of people are trying to be smart and are failing hugely.
It's the same problem the US has IMO: no one wants to support grand, forward-looking projects that are going to take longer than a term in office. That's why poor NASA has its funding yoyo-ed around a 4-year presidential election cycle, and can't ever follow through on the bigger projects anymore.
As someone in the business of circumventing said censorship I am excited to have the solvent westerners as my clients in additional to generally poor third-world folk we are currently serving.
Make sense, this 5 Countries work really close together, as we know it from PRISM.
Whatever you think about Assange, at least he can be relied upon to oppose: internet censorship, technologically retarded broadband infrastructure and sexual consent laws.
And then there's the question of why the hell you would support a party that does this sort of shit. The only thing they will ever do is appear on a ballot and distribute their preferences, and they can't even do that well (I mean assuming you wouldn't want to vote for One Nation... if you do, then go ahead).
Edit: I got mixed up. Replace One Nation with the "Australia First" party (even worse IMO... look them up) and the shooters and fishers party.
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/nsw/gvt.htm#i
Wikileaks Party Prefs for Greens FAEHRMANN, Cate The Greens 57 RYAN, James The Greens 58 BLATCHFORD, Penny The Greens 59 HO, Christina The Greens 60 FINDLEY, Amanda The Greens 61 SPIES-BUTCHER, Ben The Greens 62
Wikileaks prefs for One Nation HANSON, Pauline One Nation 108 MCCULLOCH, Kate One Nation 109 PLUMB, Aaron One Nation 110