Stephen Conroy thinks the internet isn't "special"

Internet consultants were shocked today with communications minister Stephen Conroy's thought that the web just isn't "special" and has to be censored like movies, books and papers.

In an interview Senator Conroy ignored the flood of criticism aimed at at his policy as misleading info spread via "an organised group within the on-line world".

Asked what share of all of the nasty material on the web his filters would block, Senator Conroy dodged the query, responding that his filters had been "a hundred per cent accurate - no underblocking, no overblocking and no impact on speeds". In other words he didn't answer the question.

But Mark Newton, from ISP internode, stated: "Censorship is not going to capture a single pedophile, won't trigger one single image to dis-appear from the web, is not going to safeguard a single child."

Senator Conroy additionally brushed apart issues from leading teachers and technology corporations that the plan to block a blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australians was an try to shoe-horn an offline classification model into a vastly different online world.

"Why is the web special?," he asked, saying the web was "just a communication and distribution platform".

"This argument that the internet is some mystical creation that no laws should apply to, that may be a recipe for anarchy and the wild west. I consider in a civil society and in a civil society folks behave the same method in the bodily world as they behave within the virtual world."

Newton stated this was a "gross oversimplification", pointing out that Australia Submit and Telstra's phone community had been also distribution platforms however weren't censored.

"Why should the internet, a distribution platform for all manner of intangibles, be censored as if it was a film theatre? It is unnecessary, the mannequin doesn't fit," he said.

The Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam was additionally fast to ridicule Senator Conroy, saying books and movies were distinctly totally different as a result of they're "discreet, bodily packages of content", whereas the internet is dynamic and has "a trillion internet pages already listed and an unknown amount extra added day-after-day".

"To characterise sustained opposition by individuals and teams as various as EFA, Google, SAGE, Yahoo, Save the Children, Reporters without Borders, Justice Kirby, Choice Magazine, leading online lecturers and business associations and the United States Department of State as 'an organised group in the online world' is a remarkably naive misreading of how unpopular this proposal is," Senator Ludlam said.

College of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt mentioned the difference between submitting a e-book for classification and having an organisation classifying and blocking websites with out anyone's knowledge was that, in the guide case, "it's well-known that the e-book was censored and there is usually a debate concerning the correctness of the choice".

Landfeldt stated it was true that the filter system would block all websites it was told to block but the trillions of pages on the web means the federal government will not make the web a protected place for youngsters and can only be capable to cease entry to "a small minority" of net pages.

Senator Conroy has neglected to handle widespread concerns that the "refused classification" score additionally applies to sexual health discussions, euthanasia material such as the Peaceable Capsule Handbook, historic war footage and instructions in minor crimes comparable to graffiti.

Senator Conroy admitted that his filters wouldn't do anything to stop the unfold of child pornography on peer-to-peer file sharing networks, and that they are going to "slow down the internet" if applied to high-quantity websites reminiscent of YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia.

Colin Jacobs, spokesman for the online users' foyer group Digital Frontiers Australia, mentioned this remark ignored proof that the overwhelming majority of kid pornography was traded in others ways comparable to by peer-to-peer. It also ignored the truth that anyone who needed to bypass the filters may achieve this fairly easily.

Senator Conroy has been on the assault against Google after the search big issued a withering critique of his policy. Senator Ludlam stated Senator Conroy's assaults on Google have been "a deliberate misdirection of the controversy", whereas Jacobs said they "smack of a personal vendetta".

Senator Conroy additionally rejected issues that the government was creating a brand new necessary censorship mechanism that would be vulnerable to abuse by future governments.

"For forty four million dollars, we're shopping for ourselves an initiative which will have no measurable affect in any respect," Senator Ludlam said. "In change, we establish the structure for future governments to abuse the free and undefined 'RC' class so as to add a creeping range of fabric to the list. Once this architecture is established, the concept that its scope will not be expanded by future governments is a gamble we don't believe we should take."

aussie internet filter growing list of complaints

THE US has weighed into the row about the Rudd Government's strategy to censor the internet, saying it has raised issues about it with Australian officials. The Obama administration needs to promote an open internet to boost global financial growth and security and is mounting a diplomatic assault on threats to the open net across the world.

The US State Division, America's foreign office, has publicly aired concern concerning the internet filtering plan championed by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Responding to questions concerning the filter from commentary web site The Punch, US State Division spokesperson Noel Clay said: "The US and Australia are close partners on issues related to cyber issues usually, including national security and economic issues.

"We don't talk about the details of specific diplomatic exchanges, but can say that in the context of that ongoing association, we have now raised our concerns on this issue with Australian officials."

The Rudd Government has confronted rising criticism about internet filtering in current weeks after it released submissions by organizations including Google, Yahoo plus Microsoft on the approach to improve its policy. Lots of the submissions had been extremely vital of the filtering plan. Considerations included that the scope of content material to be censored was too broad, that the filter can be ineffective or sluggish internet speeds, and that the list of banned materials may very well be leaked to the public. Under the plan, Australian web service providers like Telstra, Optus and iiNet could be pressured to dam access to a secret listing of webpages containing refused classification material.

The Obama administration has questioned the Rudd Government’s plan to introduce an internet filter on the grounds that it operates contrary to acknowledged US foreign policy of using an open internet to broaden financial development and global security. The US State Division has advised The Punch its officers have raised worries in regards to the filter with Australian counterparts, as America mounts brand new} diplomatic assault on internet censorship by governments worldwide. Requested about the US stance on the filter plan US State Department spokesman Noel Clay stated: “The US and Australia are close companions on concerns associated to cyber issues generally, including national security and financial issues.

“We do not talk about the small print of particular diplomatic exchanges, but can say that in the context of that ongoing relationship, we have raised our issues on this matter with Australian officials.”

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has long confronted opposition to the plan by internet freedom lobby groups, however the circle of critics has now dramatically widened. Google - at the moment involved in excessive-profile standoff with the Chinese government over censorship - and other main tech companies made their objections public last week and the intervention of the US government will improve the pressure on the minister.

In a speech in January US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton placed internet freedom on the heart of American foreign policy as part of what she referred to as “twenty first century statecraft”. The US, she stated, could be seeking to resist efforts by governments around the world to curb the free flow of data on the internet and inspired US media organisations to “take a proactive position in challenging overseas governments’ demands for censorship”.

Clay’s statement added: “The US Government’s position on web freedom points is well-known, expressed most recently in Secretary Clinton’s January 21st address.  We are dedicated to advancing the free circulation of knowledge, which we view as vital to economic prosperity and preserving open societies globally.”

On this debate some of Conroy’s biggest allies have been his critics, permitting the minister to place himself in the political mainstream from where he can level to the filter being primarily designed to dam obscene content material, together with little one pornography.

But the criticism of the scheme’s design has been mounting, with the US Authorities and companies like Google now numbering amongst those that have publicly declared they have considerations about it. Clearly, no person goes to accuse either of being in favour of the distribution of illegal content. The considerations centre around whether it would work in the first place, but in addition a few authorities building a system is designed to control the distribution of information. Some critics argue the filter will apply to information on euthanasia and safer drug use. But there are also concerns that it is going to stop media organisations reporting sure sorts of stories akin to on crime.

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey a few of these wider concerns in a speech earlier this month when he stated: “What we have in the government’s Internet filtering proposals is a scheme that is more probably to be unworkable in practice. However more perniciously it's a scheme that may create the infrastructure for presidency censorship on a broader scale.” The Coalition’s place is that it stays to be satisfied that a filter will most likely be effective. Now I don’t doubt Conroy when he says it is aimed solely at repugnant content. Nevertheless there have been important considerations raised by specialists concerning the convenience with which it could be bypassed and the accuracy of the filtering. And as soon as the scheme is in place it at all times leaves open the possibility that it could possibly be used to censor some political views.

There’s additionally the problem, which Hockey alluded to, that it might be easily circumvented. As soon as the filter goes dwell we can expect instructions for getting round it to be simply accessed by a Google search. (In reality, you may get some fairly good results by looking “The means to bypass the Australian ISP filter” already.)

Google’s issues on the filter are primarily that it's more probably to be ineffective and received't protect youngsters Google knows a bit about filtering content, given its experience in China and its voluntary filtering of content material in other countries, corresponding to in Germany the place it filters out Nazi propaganda. In the present day on The Punch, one of the tech giant’s executives Iarla Flynn summarises the corporate’s objections, labelling the ISP filtering plan “a threat to the open web” which “robs Australians of the opportunity to make some important decisions of their lives”.

Flynn additionally factors out that other governments, perhaps of a extra sinister bent, could point to the Australian scheme to legitimise their very own plans to manage data movement in and out of their country.

The list of complaints with the filter is growing, as is the status of the agencies which have considerations about it.

MP ATTACKS SOUTHPORT STUDENT HOSTEL PLANS

A $100 million student hostel planned for Southport has been labelled 'disgusting' and blocking the development would not hurt Korea's growing love affair with the Gold Coast, according to Gaven MP Alex Douglas.

An angry Dr. Douglas yesterday poured scorn over a suggestion last week by project consultant Alan Mayer of GMP Management that failure to approve the hostel would put at risk billions of offshore dollars flooding into the Coast property market.

The controversial 600-room project, being undertaken by Korean group QAC, is earmarked for a 3.2ha site near the Southport Centro shopping centre.

But it already has evoked strong opposition from locals, who have objected to its density and its impact on the community.

Dr. Douglas yesterday went a step further, describing the proposed hostel as a future "slum".

He said that similar hostels have dotted the landscape in Korea's capital Seoul for decades.

They were built for migrating rural workers, but many now were being bulldozed.

"Koreans hate them," said Dr. Douglas.  "They are fire hazards and dangerous.

"This has to be the most disgusting building proposed (on the Gold Coast) in the last 25 years."

Dr. Douglas said the plan to house up to 300 students in each building was too high in density, suggesting between 80 and 100 would be more acceptable.

He also described s 'totally inflammatory' Mr. Mayer's comments that Koreans would avoid the Coast market if the QAC hostel was denied planning approval.

Korean developer City Plan Partners lent weight to his argument yesterday by affirming its long-term commitment to the Coast.

Meanwhile Dr. Douglas questioned the economics of the Southport hostel deal which would see QAC pay a nominal $1 a year rental fee to the state for the next 39 years.

He said the Korean company would be earning about $300,000 per week from the 1200-bed facility.

Dr. Douglas said that there were 'too many questions surrounding the development application and the approval process'.