Why Are Australia's Would-Be 'Net Censors So Opposed To Transparency?
from the let's-try-the-best-of-disinfectants,-shall-we? dept
A lot of people have been submitting the news that Wikileaks has obtained and published the secret black-list of websites to be banned under Australia's proposed Internet censoring exercise. The list of more than 2300 websites is about half child pornography and half "online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist."As Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, explains, by making these lists secret and threatening to fine disclosure of the list at $11,000 per day, the democracy of Australia is "invariably corrupted." There is no due process to to add sites to the list, or to remove them, and as previous leaked lists show, even censorship systems set up to block legitimately illegal sites end up being abused. As web censorship scholar Derek Bambauer has written, an Internet censorship regime should be judged on openness, transparency, narrowness and accountability, but by keeping the list secret and threatening those who would allow democratic deliberation about its contents, Australia's web censors undermine the political process of a democracy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, censorship, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interview request
I’m Shon Walker from ABC Newsradio, the continuous, national news station. I’m the presenter between 1 and 4pm weekday afternoons.
I’m interested in the government’s internet blacklist... and would like to interview Julian Assange... or someone else from your organisation... to clarify what’s happening with the list.
If Julian can ring me as soon as possible, we could work out the potential for a story and interview...
I look forward to speaking with you,
Shon Walker
ABC NewsRadio
Ph: 02 8333.5094
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I know that child pornography is illegal in my jurisdiction and all pornography is blocked by the firewall at my job site. This does not make me upset in the least, as I understand the reasons for it. Why hide it? Censorship is not mutually exclusive with transparency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they want to block sites (and they are pushing for mandatory filtering, which means everyone in the country using the internet would be forced to accept the filtering), then we should have every right to know what is on the list. If people cant get to the sites, surely there is no harm in knowing they exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Filters
What are the consequences of doing so?
I suppose it depends upon where you reside.
Some places would put you to death, others a slap on the wrist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If this statement is true, then the person behind this secret blacklist obviously have an agenda they are pushing on the people. I find the fact that there is a fine for disclosing the list very disturbing... Not only is the public not allowed access to the list, anyone who leaks the list runs the risk of getting fined a not-insignificant amount of money... The whole purpose of the fine is obviously to hide the fact that the operator of the list has a bias....
How exactly would the fine work at $11,000 a day?? Once disclosed, the person who leaked the list can't exactly take back the leak. Wouldn't that mean the person will be charged a fine each day until bankruptcy?? I doubt this is true, but that is my interpretation based on the information above...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
qld dentist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: interview request
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: qld dentist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: interview request
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: interview request
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: interview request
Why? You afraid of being replaced?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Huh? That's the only purpose of ANY blacklist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why no transparency?
Two Words ...
Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in thread ]