Government Enforced Internet Filtering

[trievalot]

in Australia.......
thats right folks, even non communist governments are mandating what their citizens can see


http://apcmag.com/Content.aspx?id=5106
http://nocleanfeed.com/

[InSanCen]

Being connected to the 'net in some way, shape or form, there will always be a way around it, if you can be bothered to find it.

Still, government mandated filtering? Always a bad thing. For me, the best thing about the net has always been the lack of rules (/b/ and the like), and self-policing, where it's needed (quite a few forums).

[ch_123]

Who ever knew that a country founded by Irish convicts could turn into a hotbed of Western conservatism...

[iMav]

Who ever knew that a country founded by Irish convicts could turn into a hotbed of Western conservatism...

Actually, traditional "western conservatism" is all about freedom from government involvement in your life (small government, maximum freedom, etc).  Liberalism tends to favor large government, regulation, cradle-to-grave entitlements (nationalized health care, subsidized education, unemployment compensation, welfare, etc).

Left-leaning governments would be more inclined to control internet activities...  In the US, look who is pushing for Net Neutrality legislation, the beginning of federal government regulation over internet usage.  Having the govt mandate to ISPs, telco's, etc how their networks must be managed, priced, monitored, etc does not a free and open internet make.

[In Stereo!]

Here in Slovenia, a law that makes unregistered online gambling illegal, is being debated. Which implies, that every provider of such service, should register with our governament and pay some taxes from their income and if not so, the internet service provider would be fined if it would not block such online gambling services. I'm really interested to see if our parlament is really that stupid to pass such an absurd thing.

[itlnstln]

Actually, traditional "western conservatism" is all about freedom from government involvement in your life (small government, maximum freedom, etc). Liberalism tends to favor large government, regulation, cradle-to-grave entitlements (nationalized health care, subsidized education, unemployment compensation, welfare, etc).
 
Left-leaning governments would be more inclined to control internet activities... In the US, look who is pushing for Net Neutrality legislation, the beginning of federal government regulation over internet usage. Having the govt mandate to ISPs, telco's, etc how their networks must be managed, priced, monitored, etc does not a free and open internet make.

You're correct on all accounts here, but I think as the battle goes on, this will become less clear.  One of the arguments for regulated tubes is piracy.  Conservatives (and Liberals, for that matter) will be divided on whether to regulate and (potentially) hurt ISPs or support Net Neutality and, in their minds, hurt IP holders such as record and movie companies.  I think that due the different and opposing forces at play, it's hard to say that one group, Conservatives or Liberals, is any more or against regulation of the Internet than the other.  I am pretty Liberal, but I am all for Net Neutrality.  I think the piracy argument is bunk for a variety of reasons that are out-of-scope for this post, but the music and movie/TV industry needs an overhaul in general.  They have been doing better, but they still have a long way to go.

[ironcoder]

Yeah and you're only saying that because Pandora works where you live.

I say to hell with them all. Anarchy is the way to go.

[alpslover]

I'm really interested to see if our parlament is really that stupid to pass such an absurd thing.

there are no limits to the stupidity of any government on earth.

[microsoft windows]

What you said is true as long as the people of that country care little about what's going on in their government. Voter apathy is the weak point of democracy.

[itlnstln]

Speaking of all this, Austrailia's Federal Court just came down with a genius ruling.  Well done, Austrailia.

[D-EJ915]

You're correct on all accounts here, but I think as the battle goes on, this will become less clear.  One of the arguments for regulated tubes is piracy.  Conservatives (and Liberals, for that matter) will be divided on whether to regulate and (potentially) hurt ISPs or support Net Neutality and, in their minds, hurt IP holders such as record and movie companies.  I think that due the different and opposing forces at play, it's hard to say that one group, Conservatives or Liberals, is any more or against regulation of the Internet than the other.  I am pretty Liberal, but I am all for Net Neutrality.  I think the piracy argument is bunk for a variety of reasons that are out-of-scope for this post, but the music and movie/TV industry needs an overhaul in general.  They have been doing better, but they still have a long way to go.

one of the things people (and mainly the government) fail to understand is how the internet works and what it is.

1) private networks connect with each other via peering and make up the "internet"
2) there is nothing public about it

so as much as I hate it, any network that peers with someone else has the ability to control what happens on their network because THEY OWN IT.  If it affects your network you will depeer them and peer with someone else.

for some reason everyone seems to think the internet is some great thing which is free and wonderful which is 100% not the case

[itlnstln]

The good ole Information Superhighway!

[In Stereo!]

These diagrams are to be blamed for that misconception:







They're everywhere!

[Rajagra]

for some reason everyone seems to think the internet is some great thing which is free and wonderful which is 100% not the case

The Internet is possibly the most important thing mankind has ever created. We've yet to see its true impact. It may not be owned by the public, but it is too important to have blanket restrictions imposed by individual governments and their laws, let alone the selfish interests of private companies.

As far as I'm concerned, any censorship of Internet content is no different to censoring what an individual can say directly to a person he meets up with in person. You don't outlaw talking just because criminals discuss their plans to commit crime. By the same argument, you shouldn't outlaw particular types of Internet traffic just because they *might* be used for illegal activity.

In other words I support the "mere conduit" concept, but applied to the Internet as a whole, not just individual ISPs. Or put yet another way, don't shoot the messenger.

[Mental Hobbit]

If you'd like to know how to turn a "save the children" censorship approach into a huge, hilariously embarrassing ****up, learn from the Germans. :biggrin1:

[Rajagra]

Where's the problem? Instead of blocking undesirable content they want it deleted instead. That is a more draconian approach.

If the bad content is deleted, it won't matter if there's a silly law making it compulsory to block it. Because it won't be there to block!

Oh what  tangled web we weave, when we first set out to, erm, legislate.

[Mental Hobbit]

It's totally different.

If any content is illegal by the laws of the country where the server sits (!), it can be deleted anyway - by order of the local authorities, not by German Federal Police. That's a very reassuring thought for anyone who knows German authorities.

For the initial filtering approach, German ISPs would have had to install a technical censorship infrastructure like Iran or China. German Federal Police alone could have issued secret orders to ISPs to block any site they object. It had to be totally secret cause it was all about illegal child porn of course, and they couldn't cater link lists to pedos, as everybody certainly understands, that was no doubt the only reason, what else could they have had in mind after all...