[plug] Internet oppression - watch your backs!

[Gary Allpike]

Rob,

You missed my point entirely.

The whole idea of using the term "objectionable" is what sucks about this
legislation.  You say you are not a religious zealot, or a fruitcake - I
suggest that Harradine is a person of this persuasion and he and people
like him are the ones that decide what is "objectionable". For example, I
think One Nation is a bit of a joke - but what if Harradine decided their
manifesto was "objectionable" - this is suppression of a persons ability
to express their opinions.  I know free speech is NOT guaranteed in this
country, this whole legislation smacks of further removing us from this
ideal.

Responsibility for protecting children from porn and bomb making recipies
lies with the parents of these children. NOT with the government!

I as an ISP do NOT want to babysit your children.

regards

Gary 

On Tue, 4 May 1999, Rob Hall wrote:

> Yada yada.
> 
> Heard it all before with the likes of the gun lobby.  They make it sound
> like if the govt takes your guns away then we'll have no protection when the
> govt turns crazy and comes to lock us all up.
> 
> Like I said, we have lots of laws already covering objectionable material
> with other media and know one cares...  Why should this be any different.
> 
> You say that they might find Linux objectionable... can I stop laughing
> now...  I think common-sense tells us that this is not the spirit of the
> legislation nor what will happen.  The fact is there is dangerous material
> out there that some people in our community need to be safeguarded against -
> not just kids.  Where do you think that the letterbox bombers here in Perth
> got their bomb recipe from and nearly blew themselves to bits.
> 
> Free speech is one thing, but publishing dangerous material without any
> warning is another.
> 
> I'm not a religious nut (far from it) and have no moral axe to grind, but I
> think it's about time something is done.  It seems crazy to have one set of
> rules for one information industry and a different set for another.
> 
> It is fashionable for techies and internet users to slam govt legislation,
> but if we think about it for a while, there is good grounds.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Rob Hall
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-plug at linux.org.au [mailto:owner-plug at linux.org.au]On Behalf
> > Of Gary Allpike
> > Sent: 04 May 1999 16:44
> > To: plug at linux.org.au
> > Subject: RE: [plug] Internet oppression - watch your backs!
> >
> >
> > Are you stark raving MAD ???
> >
> > The bill that is being proposed is NOT about porn its about
> > "objectionable content" - they define what is objectionable!
> >
> > This law, if passed will make Australian internet the most restricted in
> > the world.
> >
> > porn is objectionable today, maybe linux becomes objectionable tomorrow ??
> >
> > This law will make things illegal on the internet that are legal to buy at
> > your local newsagent!
> >
> > This law MUST be stopped - at all costs
> >
> > When will parents wake up and realise that the internet is NOT a baby
> > sitter.
> >
> > By all appearances this proposed law is purely the government pandering to
> > Harradine to get him to approve their GST and the Telstra sale.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Tue, 4 May 1999, Rob Hall wrote:
> >
> > > so what???   We've had tight controls on other media for years!
> >   About time
> > > the internet caught up with the same standards.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob Hall
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-plug at linux.org.au
> > [mailto:owner-plug at linux.org.au]On Behalf
> > > > Of Bret Busby
> > > > Sent: 04 May 1999 02:52
> > > > To: 'PLUG'
> > > > Subject: [plug] Internet oppression - watch your backs!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The article below is taken from the Australian Online, at
> > > > http://technology.news.com.au/news/ .
> > > >
> > > > It would appear that anyone who dares to criticise (including
> > criticising
> > > > Telecom's mates, like Microsoft, and criticising government
> > policies) will
> > > > be punished, if the members of feral parliament, and, the australian
> > > > broadcasting authority hve their way. Maybe the book, "1984", was
> > > > wrong, as
> > > > far as the year goes, but the predictions seem correct.
> > > >
> > > > No doubt, as tellycom is one of the first signatories, and,
> > possibly the
> > > > most complained about feral government body, and, given the political
> > > > censorship imposed on Internet access in "China, Malaysia and
> > Singapore",
> > > > which are cited as role models anyone who dares to criticise,
> > using the
> > > > Internet, in Australia, will no doubt have the federal police, or
> > > > some other
> > > > organisation, taking retaliatory action against them.
> > > >
> > > > It is clear that the United Nations International Covenant on
> > Civil and
> > > > Political Rights, which guarantees freedom of political
> > > > expression, will be
> > > > further disregarded in australia.
> > > >
> > > > Bret Busby
> > > > email:     bret at clearsol.iinet.net.au
> > > > fax/phone: +61 8 9399 3820
> > > > _____________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Alston blames ISPs for censorship move
> > > > By DAN TEBBUTT and JAMES RILEY
> > > > 4may99
> > > >
> > > > IT Minister Richard Alston signalled yesterday that Internet
> > censorship
> > > > legislation was being imposed partly because the industry had
> > > > failed to take
> > > > action for three years..
> > > >
> > > > Senator Brian Harradine – the balance-of-power Independent
> > targeted by the
> > > > Government's proposal – is still not satisfied, describing the
> > > > draft law as
> > > > "watered down".
> > > >
> > > > "This is a weak Bill – you ought to be happy," he told an
> > > > industry group in
> > > > hearings before the Senate IT Committee.
> > > >
> > > > Groups campaigning against the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online
> > > > Services) Bill are worried that Senator Harradine will push for even
> > > > stronger controls.
> > > >
> > > > Senator Alston said that despite working closely with the
> > > > Internet Industry
> > > > Association (IIA) for three years, the Government was not
> > satisfied with
> > > > progress on an industry code of conduct.
> > > >
> > > > "The problem is that they thought it [the code] would be in
> > place a long
> > > > time ago," he said.
> > > >
> > > > Only a minority of ISPs – notably OzEmail and Telstra – have
> > signed the
> > > > draft code.
> > > >
> > > > "We don't want a situation where a couple of market leaders
> > are doing the
> > > > right thing and a lot of others are able to thumb their noses and keep
> > > > bringing in offensive material," Senator Alston told The Australian.
> > > >
> > > > IIA executive director Peter Coroneos defended the industry's
> > > > performance in
> > > > developing the code.
> > > >
> > > > "No other industry association in the world has attempted
> > such a detailed
> > > > statement with respect to the Internet," Mr Coroneos said.
> > > >
> > > > "We would have wanted it to happen faster, but we've been
> > calling for a
> > > > supporting legislative framework for 18 months."
> > > >
> > > > ISPs were reluctant to sign the code until legislation guaranteed
> > > > indemnity
> > > > for removing illegal content, Mr Coroneos said.
> > > >
> > > > The proposed Bill went far beyond what was previously
> > > > contemplated, he said.
> > > >
> > > > "The Government has made our job harder, but we're still
> > > > committed to what's
> > > > reasonable and workable.
> > > >
> > > > "This is a market issue, and there needs to be a chance for a market
> > > > response."
> > > >
> > > > Senator Alston insisted the Bill would not necessarily make filtering
> > > > mandatory.
> > > >
> > > > "At the end of the day, if it's not technically feasible or
> > commercially
> > > > viable, then it won't be reasonable to require it," he said.
> > > >
> > > > But IIA chairman Patrick Fair called for more ironclad
> > > > guarantees, pointing
> > > > out that these provisions were not written into the law.
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile, the Australian Broadcasting Authority has seized on
> > > > the proposed
> > > > legislation as a chance to extend its powers.
> > > >
> > > > In evidence to the Senate committee, ABA officials invoked
> > China, Malaysia
> > > > and Singapore as role models for online content control.
> > > >
> > > > Although opponents of the Bill said Malaysia was backing away from Net
> > > > censorship, ABA deputy chairman Gareth Grainger told
> > senators: "Whatever
> > > > noises Malaysia is making about this issue, they don't intend to allow
> > > > problematic content on the Internet in their country."
> > > >
> > > > The ABA has lodged a claim for $1.9 million in funding and five
> > > > extra staff
> > > > to administer Internet content complaints.
> > > >
> > > > "It's really going to be necessary for us to receive resources to
> > > > undertake
> > > > this very significant addition to our regulatory function,"
> > Mr Grainger
> > > > said.
> > > >
> > > > The ABA anticipates ISPs will bear the cost of educating users about
> > > > filtering and use the latest technologies for the task.
> > > >
> > > > Mr Grainger said the IIA code of conduct would have to be
> > changed to work
> > > > with the proposed legislation.
> > > >
> > > > He was confident an online content regime could be
> > operational by January,
> > > > since the Bill gave the ABA more power over ISPs than
> > traditional media
> > > > industries.
> > > >
> > > > "This legislation is somewhat tougher than the legislation
> > that applies to
> > > > broadcasting."
> > > >
> > >
> >
>