The pressure is still on Conroy over his plan to censor Australia’s Internet. The public and the opposition are still calling for the plan to be abandoned and the Government to come clean. My own contribution, which takes a Western theme today, is an op-ed in the Australian. Despite all the noise, though, I think Conroy will use the test results to announce that filtering is feasible and going ahead. We’ll see in the coming weeks and months.
Read my piece here.
The Chinese Government’s sudden announcement that all PCs sold in China after July 1st would have to include its “Green Dam Youth Escort” software came as a surprise to many. With the rationale of protecting the impressionable minds of the kiddies – of course – the software would filter all web access in real time, blocking suspect images, blacklisted web pages, and anything with forbidden keywords. The software is frightening in the extreme – it takes all the worst aspects of voluntary home filtering software such as overblocking, underblocking, security flaws and performance degradation, and combines it with the political paranoia of the CCP. The result is government spyware that not only blocks web pages, but actually terminates the processes of running apps into which the user types banned keywords. And that’s version 1.0!
Chinese internet users seem pretty resigned to the Golden Shield, but this might be a step too far. Let’s see what happens. I am not optimistic of a backdown.
I wrote up a summary of the initiate which appeared in Crikey today (shouldn’t be behind the pay wall too long).
On a personal note, I’ve managed to settle down in Shanghai a bit (more here, so updates and media/writing work should be more regular now.
I was a guest blogger on New Matilda’sPollieGraph blog, discussing the revelations by the Minister on SBS’s Insight show.
Read and comment on the post here.
I have a piece in New Matilda having another go at the Conroy Curtain. The awesome thing about it is the picture.
Read it here.
“Safer Internet Day” has come and gone, and the Government’s trial of mandatory filtering has finally been announced, with six small ISPs participating. The trial, with poor results practically inevitable, will do little to dampen discussion about this policy. The stated rationale for the new filtering regime, to protect children, has ensured the debate remains emotive and controversial.
Many of the filter opponents have focused on the many technical flaws in the plan, or its worrying implications for free speech. This has led to the perception that opponents of the plan put internet freedom or technological costs ahead of the welfare of children, as if opponents are all ideologues and childless nerds. Ill-informed filtering proponents have branded organisations like Electronic Frontiers Australia “extreme cyber-libertarians” and implied they oppose filtering because it seeks to impose a restrictive sexual morality on the country. The real question is not “should we do something about child abuse material” or “is protecting children worth the trouble?” but “will filtering actually protect children?” Since we are, in fact, all on the same side when it comes to protecting kids, let’s examine the proposal from a child-welfare perspective. (more…)
One test that the Government’s “clean feed” Internet censorship policy fails comprehensively is as the cyber-safety test. Does this deliver anything for kids? Over at Online Opinion, I argue no.
See the piece here.
