U.S. Leaders Should Heed Their Own Advice On Internet Filters
from the glass-houses dept
It has been kind of entertaining (some would say frightening) watching the Australian government's futile efforts to clean the Internet of its naughty bits. As part of their filtering plans, the government conducted trials with a handful of ISPs, many of whom have been very vocal in their beliefs that the filters won't technically work. These ongoing trials had no quantifiable metric to determine whether the trials were a success or failure, so obviously, Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy proudly announced that the trials proved the filters to be 100% effective. Political leaders in favor of the filters haven't exactly been open to feedback on the dangers of filters, and the country learned nothing early on, when a teenage kid hacked their original filter system in all of half an hour.
Recently, U.S. politicians have been ramping up their criticism of Australia's filtering efforts, with the State Department last month issuing a rather vague statement indicating "we have raised our concerns on this matter." This week, the U.S. Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich was willing to get a little more specific in a low-quality poetry sort of way, insisting that the Internet "needs to be free" in much the same way "the polar caps have to be free" (whatever that means). Bleich went out of his way to state that there are other methods to deal with extremism and child pornography, like addressing them at the source:
"We have been able to accomplish the goals that Australia has described, which is to capture and prosecute child pornographers and others who use the Internet for terrible purposes, without having to use Internet filters. We have other means and we are willing to share our efforts with them in order to allow them to at least look at a range of choices, as opposed to moving in one particular direction. It's an ongoing conversation."
While Bleich insists it's a conversation, all indications are Australia's government isn't listening. They've already spent a fortune on the idea, and have ignored critics every single step of the way. As is usually the case when talk of imposing filters fires up, the specter of child pornography and other societal menaces are used as the scary red herring. Given how susceptible U.S. citizens are to sales pitches involving "protecting the children," it seems like only a matter of time (and lobbyist effort) before the United States requires ISPs to impose copyright filters at the behest of the entertainment industry and Bono. We've already had a few close calls, like with the ACTA or with U.S. lawmakers trying to bury filtering plans into the broadband stimulus effort -- so it sounds like Uncle Sam should heed his own advice.
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, internet filters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That could conceivably extend to the criticism of the incumbents or, in fact, anything a lobbyist with enough cash doesn't like, such as The Pirate Bay. All with no public oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The planned release of a blockbuster motion picture should be acknowledged as an event that attracts the focused efforts of copyright thieves, who will seek to obtain and distribute pre-release versions and/or to undermine legitimate release by unauthorized distribution through other channels. Enforcement agencies (notably within DOJ and DHS) should plan a similarly focused preventive and responsive strategy. An interagency task force should work with industry to coordinate and make advance plans to try to interdict these most damaging forms of copyright theft, and to react swiftly with enforcement actions where necessary."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See, your problem is you have been here too long, talking drivel. Such is your inability to adopt a singular and consistent viewpoint abut anything that there is now no need to negate your posts with logic since there is a large history of your own statements that can be drawn upon to contradict anything you say either now or in the future. You, sir, have reached an unsustainable level of contradiction that will cause yourself to compress into a black hole of BS from which logic and reason cannot escape. Congratulations TAM Wormtonge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone who points out TAM's stupidity is actually Mike. In disguise. Secretively. As part of a massive conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filtering and Third Party Liability
Beyond the liability issue there is that of the police state. Are we going to end up being a nation were people are mandated by law to spy on their neighbors and turn them in for "infringing" on some obscure special interest group?
How Third Party Liability Can Stifle An Industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Filtering and Third Party Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Filtering and Third Party Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Filtering and Third Party Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic...
(What? ...you wanted it to make sense?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]