Slashdot Log In
Australia - Censorship Overload
Posted by
Hemos
on Wed Nov 03, 1999 06:20 AM
from the rage-against-the-machine dept.
from the rage-against-the-machine dept.
VooVoo writes "The Australian Broadcasting Authority has taken Australia to new heights of ignorance following hot on the soon to be implemented draconian Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill. It has proposed to introduce an access restriction system where Net users will have to supply personal details if they wish to access R-rated material online. (R-rated is softcore and way tamer than X-rated and XXX-rated).
The scheme was announced on October 27 and Australian's have until November 7 to object.
The ABA wants people seeking R-rated or "likely to be classified R by the Classification Board" material to provide their name, address, birth date, email address, and credit card.
Check out what the ABA has to say about it.
"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Australia - Censorship Overload
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 249 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Credit cards aren't the way to verify anything (Score:3)
I'm puzzled, and worried, by what appears to be very vague wording, even for an intitial draft.
An electronic application requires either credit card details, or a digital signature. A requirement for these is an excluding measure, which removes web access from those citizens who don't have credit cards - it leads to an information-impoverished underclass, built from an already economically disadvantaged section of society.
Fortunately the paper-based application doesn't appear to require credit cards, as other proof of age is accepted. However, we then read that such applications may be invalidated if "credit transaction is not approved by relevant credit provider".
Does this mean that credit cards are still required ?
Does it mean that registration also requires a fee to be paid ? (and if not, who does fund this huge scheme ?)
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:3)
In regards to the ease of Things Going To Hell Rights-Wise in the US:
There is actually a second way that things could go to hell. Specifically, the Constitution provides for a Constitutional Convention (or "Con-Con") to be held once the "governments" of 3/4ths of the states call for a Con-Con.
The rather scary things on this are:
1) It is unknown and there is considerable debate over whether a "Con-Con" is limited to discussion of one amendment or if the entire Constitution becomes fair game. (No procedures exist for determining which is the case--this is relevant because many states have called for Con-Cons on specific issues such as anti-abortion amendments or tax reform amendments to the Constitution.)
2) There is legal debate over whether a call for a Con-Con can be rescinded once the "government" has called for one, and most legal theory tends to lean towards the idea that Con-Con calls CANNOT be rescinded.
3) There is some question as to what constitutes approval by a government of a Con-Con--specifically, whether it is restricted to state legislatures. (Some legal theorists have stated that technically a meeting of the state governments--where representatives from each state are sent by approval of the legislature and the governor--could legally call a Con-Con due to the vague way it is defined in the Constitution.) According to whom you speak with, we are either not terribly close or dangerously close to a Con-Con being able to be held in the US. Assuming a worst-case scenario, we are approximately two states away from the legal requirements for a Con-Con being held.
In a REALLY worst-case scenario, it is entirely possible that a Con-Con could be held and a fundamentalist theocracy (or something similarly un-republican), monarchy, parliament, or dictatorship could well result (especially since the only requirements would be for the authors to show it to the states for ratification). Many feel in a Con-Con the entire Constitution is fair game.
Of course, I'd proffer that it doesn't take amendments or Con-Cons to destroy the effectiveness of a Constitution. Pure apathy, or even worse, apathy combined with a charismatic leader who is more than able and willing to whip people into a froth against the "Enemy of the Week" can wreck a constitution just as well as a Con-Con can. (Look at how most of our rights have been whittled away to "protect the children against the evils of sex and violence", or how many of our rights have been effectively destroyed between the Cold War and the "war against drugs". I'm not even going to go into how the country has gone literally so far to the right that Nixon would be considered a liberal in the modern US political spectrum...let's just say there are some rather frightening parallels to the government of Germany just before Hitler got elected Chancellor. And incidentially, Hitler was elected...)
Some Background - for those who haven't heard this (Score:4)
#define RANT_MODE
The Online Censorship Bill was the result of a grubby little compromise between the government and a independent Senator from Tasmania who happened to hold the balance of power in the Senate at the time. The guy is a fanatical Catholic and is constantly trying to ban porn, restrict access to abortions and contraception, and generally demonstrate what a wowser he can be. The government was trying to get a tax bill through the Senate, and they needed this guy's vote. Hence, from absolutely nowhere, this ridiculous Bill was rushed through.
#endif
The local Internet industry didn't know whether to protest, laugh, or cry. Most seem to be taking a fourth option - relocating both themselves and their servers to the States, happily beyond this stupid law.Electronic Frontiers Australia [efa.org.au] is working as hard as they can to publicise the impact of the new law, but the mainstream media isn't interested.
In any case, I intend to treat the law with the contempt it deserves and set up a secure proxy connection to a US-based server. It's my guess that, before too long, the bill with either be quietly discarded through ignorance, or cause an uproar when people can't get to their favourite porn sites. Either way, watching the next few months would be fun if it wasn't so tragic.
Re:Credit cards aren't the way to verify anything (Score:3)
What happens when an aussie tries to access my site (which contains the w*rd 'fuck') which isn't in Australia?
How many minutes would it take for 'cypherpunk/cypherpunk' type logins made it around the country? There's no provision (that I can see) for prosecuting fakers. And if they did include some sort of prohibition, it'd be unenforcable unless you were willing to throw the book at anyone whose PIN got out accidentally (say through keylogging on a public terminal).
It's unworkable, and will eventually be scrapped or replaced by another unworkable system.
The Internet routes around censorship (Score:3)
As far as I am aware, it should be possible for people to work their way around these systems quite easily - whether people will choose to take the "risk" (however slight it may be) of doing this remains to be seen. From what I have read (http://www.aba.gov.au/what/online/overview.htm) of the scheme, it sounds like there at least isn't a countrywide firewall in place, it's more of a scheme whereby ISP's are held responsible for the viewing habits of their customers (No common carrier status there then) and that in practise this will mean they need to introduce some kind of filtering system.
There have been several suggestions I have read about in earlier discussions on this topic to try and make the system unworkable - deluging the classification board with material, people in other countries mirroring prohibited content etc. What it is really going to take to stop this bill though is some form of mass protest - and that unfortunately sounds like it is unlikely to happen. It seems as though people in Australia just aren't spreading the word properly, or there aren't enough people who care about the subject to put up much of a fight.
One problem that I have encountered in discussions about censorship is countering the argument that anyone who opposes such a scheme is in some way condoning pornography. In this particular case it seems important to counter such an argument with arguments about the failure of filtering software to be accountable, about how almost all filtering software in the marketplace has had problems with the blocking of legitimate information sites. Warn people that the next step in such filtering is the filtering of viewopints that are unpopular. Explain to people that filtering should be something that is used as a tool to help parents keep bounds on what their children are up to and not as a method of controlling the whole population.
I guess a lot of people are hoping that this bill will go away, or be proved unworkable. I would just like to finally say that mass resistance *does* work sometimes. Look at the fight against the Poll Tax that happened in the UK, where mass civil disobedience (non-payment of the tax by over 30% of the population) led to the government backing down and withdrawing the tax.
Above all else, if you are Australian, don't just sit back and let this happen - because if it is implemented successfully in Australia, it won't take long before the idea gets exported - and I don't want a similar system in my country!
Fucking yanks and their guns . . . (Score:4)
Please, will someone explain to me why this kind of thing is so hard for Americans to accept? Is there something in your psyche that makes you blind to the possibility that things do not have to be done exactly as you did them? That there might be other ways of life that are just as valid, and possibly more so, than your own? Why in gods name do you have to try and force your morals, your ideals, your way of life onto the rest of the world?
Please, leave us to make our own way, without having to slavishly bow down before _your_ gods and heroes. We are not part of your country, nor do we want to be - we want to make our own decisions, and do things the way that we see fit. I'd prefer to live with my own mistakes than yours.
himi
(and no, I don't support any of these censorship bills, and I don't support the idea that governments know better than individuals what is right or wrong. But all too often these days I find myself absolutely _HATING_ America and how they interact with the rest of the world. It's not much fun, believe me)
Re:Fight censorship with technology (Score:3)
We are the most vocal Anti-Censorship Group in Australia and have been getting more press/radio coverage than all the other goups combined.
If you're and Aussie, you WILL be affected by this law, join our mailing list and help us speak out.