Police to get powers to censor Australians' Web

By Jo Best, ZDNet Australia

21 September 2007 03:59 PM

Tags: web, internet, government, filter, coonan, control, censorship, site

Federal Police could soon have the power to control which sites can and cannot be viewed by Australian Web surfers.

In a Bill introduced to Parliament yesterday, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Crime or Terrorism Related Internet Content) Bill 2007, the Federal Police will be able to alter the "blacklist" of sites that are currently prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The list is currently comprised of pornography and "offensive material". However, under the amendment, the Federal Police would be able to add other sites to the list, including content that the AFP Commissioner: "has reason to believe ... is crime or terrorism related content".

The definition of material that may be liable to censorship includes Internet content that "encourages, incites or induces," "facilitate[s]" or "has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating" a crime.

Once such content has been identified by the AFP, ISPs may be responsible for blocking their users from accessing it.

According to the government, the legislation is designed to target phishing and terrorist sites, among other online criminal activity.

Introducing the Bill, Senator Eric Abetz said: "The new arrangements will allow harmful sites to be more quickly added to software filters. Of course the best outcome is for these sites to be taken down and their hosts prosecuted. But this takes time, particularly as most of these sites are hosted overseas.

"Rapid blacklisting means that the damage these sites can do can be more quickly reduced whilst takedown and prosecution processes are pursued, usually overseas," said Abetz.

Privacy groups have already criticised the legislation as an attack on free speech.

"This government's extremism has reached new heights today," said the chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation, Roger Clarke.

"How can a politician claim the right to hold office if they set out to undermine the critical democratic right of freedom of speech, and blatantly decline to evaluate the impact of measures put before the Parliament?"

Talkback (35)
Print
E-mail
Share
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Reddit
- Slashdot
- StumbleUpon

Talkback 35 comments

Add your opinion

Remember it's for you own good... Anonymous -- 21/09/07

... because I obviously can't make up my mind for myself.

Police overpowering the net...... Anonymous -- 21/09/07

Democracy and "fair go" my ****!

And I thought we lived in a "Free" country Anonymous -- 21/09/07

May soon be time to emigrate.

Perhaps one of the developing places may be better

and we criticise the chinese govt? crusader -- 21/09/07

this is for our own good?

i suppose that it is always easier to critisise others than see what we can do ourselves to defend our own freedoms.

lets stand up to defend true democracy and freedom.

otherwise, let's just string up the red flag, with hammer and sickle or swastika.

Just like Iran shauno -- 21/09/07

Well done you idiots. What they are doing is simply wrong and offensive to all Australians. This is another example of our freedoms and liberty being slowly eroded. We have just joined the likes of Iran China and North Korea.

But.. Anonymous -- 22/09/07

don't worry..this is the same gov't that made a "protection" program that was hacked in 30 min by a teenager. Proxies etc. can still access these sites and it's pretty much impossible to block them all. You could even make them yourself.

Yes, but... Anonymous -- 23/09/07 (in reply to #320086590)

...what worries me more is not the physical blocking of sites, but making it illegal to view them at all. OK, some sites/subjects we can all agree on, but take aljazeera.net for example. If the government says "no, that's a terrorist site" and blocks it, could I be charged for trying to find another point of view? I don't think the bill in question covers that, but it seems to be where we are heading.

SACK HOWARD. Anonymous -- 23/09/07 (in reply to #320086609)

Nazi Germany and book burning here we come.

Rightly so Anonymous -- 23/09/07

Isn't it funny how when we legislate to adjust reasonable censorship laws to remove offensive or inappropriate content from the Internet we get outbursts claiming a loss of Freedom, yet censorship laws have always been a part of media restrictions.
Why should the Internet be any different?

Zombies....... Anonymous -- 24/09/07 (in reply to #320086616)

To "Rightly so"....

No, mate, it ISN'T funny. None of it is. That's the point.

Yes, censorship has always played a part in our media, but that doesn't mean we have all been happy and accepted it.

The internet has been a relief from that imposement - now our government is imposing on us again, under the currently fashionable guise of 'terrorism'.

Another Cold War, anyone?

Jeebus... Anonymous -- 25/09/07 (in reply to #320086616)

Offensive and inappropriate in who's opinion? I thought the concept of free speech was the protection of unpopular speech. This is just more evidence that the majority is rarely right.

My choice Anonymous -- 16/10/08 (in reply to #320086616)

To Rightly so.
It is my choice to decide what i look at.
Why should anyone have the power to decide what i browse?
We should have a choice whether to be a part of this or not.
How do we stop this violation of our rights to chose for ourselves?
This sounds like something those christian lobbyist sheep would concoct.

There Goes Youtube James Purser -- 24/09/07

Given how broadly this legislation has been written, user driven sites such as youtube, facebook and so on are in real danger of getting blocked under this law.

http://jamespurser.com.au/blog/Senator_Coonan_Sets_AFP_On_Secondary_Boycotts_and_Donkey_Votes

Wowserism is alive and well Anonymous -- 24/09/07

Prohibition doesn't work no matter whether it's physical or virtual. That simple. This just results in yet another criminal class being created and an additional "marketplace" for those already trafficking in the black market. "Blocked" content will be retrieved no matter what if there is a market for it. If there wasn't a market for it, there would be no need to block it as no-one would be retrieving it anyway. Yet another example of the government appropriating personal and social responsibility from the individual as we progress to the totalitarian dictatorship the power hungry mini-hitlers have wet dreams about.

What the hell? Anonymous -- 24/09/07

Why would they even NEED to have the power to block internet access? Seriously, what good would it do?

It'll waste money, because nearly everyone will be able to get a proxy working. Also, it's OUR choice whether we want to find out how to make a pipe bomb, look at porn, or do whatever.

Our retard government needs a good bashing. Thank God that Kevin Rudd will most likely win the election. He'll have the sense to boycott this ****.

Labor Wants Mandatory Filtering James Purser -- 24/09/07 (in reply to #320086631)

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Labor party is running a policy line that advocates mandatory ISP filtering.

They cannot claim the high ground on this.

http://jamespurser.com.au

This is wrong BUT! Kane Kirby -- 24/09/07

This is so wrong and i whole heartly agree with everyone else on here who has said we are losting are freedoms. But the fact of the matter is and it has already been said but must say it again is that, for anyone that understands the internet is that it is impossible to censor the internet, "Theres always a way!" as one other user said you can use a proxy from a conutry that does not block the site, or depending on how they have implemented the blocking i am quite sure by the govenments IT track recored that it will be even easier than using a proxy :D. lol.

feels like living in China Anonymous -- 24/09/07

blocking is not the way to go.... *sigh*

Democracy *wonders*

Can someone remind me again why we pay politicians Anonymous -- 24/09/07

these d***khead suits sit in Canberra getting paid more in a year than most "average" wage earners earn in 2-3 years and they waste yet more $$ on pathetic controlling attempts like this - oh yeah I forgot its the free world here isnt it. I have just come back from spending a year in Iraq and I dont actualyl see much difference from thier society and ours!! Howard you are a knob!

Communism? Anonymous -- 24/09/07

Sounds kind of like what North Korea is doing to its people, this is load of rubbish

Police state behaviour Anonymous -- 24/09/07

What's difference between a democratic and autocratic country?

Australia is taking all freedoms from its people.

We are going backwards in the name of controlling terrorism. This is another name of state sponsored terrorism to chain its people and make them blind. Make us all ZOMBIES

Bad Polly's should give us a choice Anonymous -- 24/09/07

The current government are ignorant and arrogant dictators.
In a democratic society we should at least have a choice on whether or not we have filtered content, and to what extent it is filtered. Same as the Family filtering software, parents have choice whether or not they want it installed.
How would the government like it if they were only allowed to be exposed to 1 TV channel and 1 newspaper media? They would feel like they are flying blind, which is bascially how most Australians feel with the pathetic "news" coverage we are able to see today. Without the internet, people don't even know half of what is dictating their lives. They think it's the government, when it is actually something much bigger, sinister and richer than a pathetic bunch of media scrags trying to make people think they are running a democratic society.

Within reason... Andrew Roma -- 24/09/07

I am a huge advocate of free speech, but also see the need for govt to protect its (less tech savvy) citizens. If my internet-using aunt is prevented from hitting a russian mafia phishing site that is dressed up to look like her local bank - that is a good thing.

Blocking her desire to see what the other half of the world thinks is not a good thing.

If we fight for "free speech" to the detriment of our own citizens it is still not a good outcome.

There needs to be a balance found and fortunately or unfortunately it will be determined by politicians and judges.

Our constitution does not explicitly provide for free speech and it its implied interpretations shift a little with each new bill or high court ruling. I doubt that either side of politics is better or worse in this regard.

May truth and liberty win out.

fascist censorship ! Keith Styles -- 25/09/07

Senator d*ckhead Coonan & this power crazy ignorant Howard Government have absolutely NO idea what they are dealing with by trying to ban or block anything on the Internet, in a supposedly free Democracy.

As has been stated,...Go take a look at Tor. It is an anonymizer so no one will know who you are or where you are coming from and you can access any site your heart desires,..good or bad porn or terrorist.

Tor provides: anonymous proxy servers, software to hide IP addresses for surfing anonymously.

For Firefox users, go here: http://tor.eff.org/docs/tor-switchproxy.html.en

For IE users, go here: http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor-stable/doc/tor-doc-win32.html

I don't have much time for the terrorists of this world, but I do not want my democratic rights trampled on, or my freedom to read, view or watch any thing I may need to research.

Wake up Senator & PM. You have overstepped you authority this time.

What ever happened to parliamentary debate?

My Previous post... Keith Styles -- 25/09/07

I forgot to mention. Tor for Linux/BSD/Unix/Mac OS X is also available from the Firefox URL I posted previously.

In case you missed it, it's here:

http://tor.eff.org/docs/tor-switchproxy.html.en

For Internet Explorer it's here:

http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor-stable/doc/tor-doc-win32.html

and NO, I don't work for Tor and get nothing from them, I just detest our Federal Government's fascist behavour when it stomps on our democratic right to read, watch or view what ever we might need as an adult. We are not all children and do not need a nanny politician telling us what to do!

Our Federal system & Government is elected for the people by the people. It also has a review procedure which must not be trampled just because the incumbent has total control of both houses of Parliament.

Mr Howard & Senator Coonan....STOP ABUSING OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT!

Where is the logic in this ? Anonymous -- 25/09/07

Any control over the internet in any form is near impossible. Once any govt puts up any control over what content can be viewed / accessed, the internet underworld does go to work to under mine and provide access to the content that the govt does not what you to see.

The Aust Govt put forward a plan that ALL ISP's in Australia, control what content is provided to their customers -This has failed as it a know fact that a large number of ISP's would go out of business.

Then comes a long the "NET FILTER". Once again more money spend on a piece of software, that is a cyber nanny "baby sitter" for the Australian children.

It does not matter what side of the political divide you are on, the internet and it's content is a hot topic. With the election soon to be on our door step both side's will be telling YOU they have the answer. Both will make a lot of shameless promises that they will fix the internet content issues up.

Free speech, criminals and you... John Van Der Loo -- 25/09/07

We all co-exist on the internet, criminals, you, me, us and free speech.

This article says it's about the targeting of "phishing and terrorist sites, among other online criminal activity."

An interesting point in question is, where do you define terrorism and where do you define a different point of view on the world.

Sure, targeting phishing websites, and prosecuting the criminals behind those sites is a great thing, and will benefit many users. Please, do go ahead and block as many phishing sites as you can find.

There are many valid points raised in previous comments about free speech and what this implementation would mean for free speech in Australia, and perhaps on a global scale.

As mentioned in the post "Zombies......":

"Yes, censorship has always played a part in our media, but that doesn't mean we have all been happy and accepted it.

The internet has been a relief from that imposement..."

This hits the nail right on the head. As a global medium, the Internet shouldn't be a censored one. This is what made the Internet what it is today, for anyone who wants, to be able to share their opinion and their views with the world, and now the Australian government is trying to deny us the opinions and views of others. Sure terrorism is an extreme on this end, but its a point of view held by a group of people nonetheless.

I for one will not be voting for a goverment that intends to impose Internet censorship.

If I wanted to obtain censored, bullsh*t information, I'd watch Fox News...

Big Brother Controls Rex Alfie Lee -- 25/09/07

Hypocrisy has come to the fore. Mr K-K-K-Howard, in his wisdom has taken the freedom away at last. This is the last bastion of freedom & up till now has been uncontrolled. I have no problem with the cops checking stuff out & then burying some jerk that's downloading child porn, which is his right to assist his own placement into gaol where he belongs but the truth behind the Internet was the freedom to surf whatever you wanted to surf.

I guess the powers that be want things to be in their hands so that they can continue to enforce the fear of others, whether they be Moslem (we-don't-care-who-we-kill), Jewish (we-only-kill-those-who-don't-believe-in-Israel), Christians (we-only-kill-witches-and-attackers) & Pagans (we-kill-with-sex) & Buddhists (worst-of-all-we-kill-with-love) & I don't know the others.

The funny thing about all of this is that we never had freedom of speech in the first place. You think we do but we never did so why are we so up in arms now.

1984 is evolving Anonymous -- 26/09/07

Power hungry governments... monitoring and behavior control. Its 1984 evolving - the world is becoming sickning.

Sucked in Pedos Anonymous -- 27/09/07

The only reason anyone would have a problem with this is because they fear losing access to all the kiddie porn they've become used too. Sucked in to all u pedos!!!! Bout time this came in. The only way to stop them is to deprive them access.

Censorship Anonymous -- 28/09/07

Its great to see the vast majority of people here oppose this censorship. My view is that the web was created as a vehicle for open discussion without interference. I may not like terrorists but maybe I want to listen to what they have to say. I don't believe kiddy porn is an issue - people accessing this content have been tracked down regularly and its not something Ive ever come across.
If you want to protect from criminals then focus on taking out sites that use false identities (such as phishing) I believe that all views should be allowed on the net (even disgusting ones) so long as they are not disguised. Maybe concentrate on educating people as well?

And who will police the police? Anonymous -- 01/10/07

I'm not a fan of censorship but I'm willing to consider allowing the appropriate authorities to enforce some control of content, as long as that content is determined in the legislation.

I'm sure there is a small amount of content (and I'm thinking a small amount of extreme pr0n) that might be worth excluding, but it should be done as a discussion between the court and a representative of the site. More importantly, parents should be responsible for deciding whether or not to limit their child's access to unsavoury content.

Giving the police the rights to do this is completely wrong, and really is the definition of a police state. Should the police decide traffic laws, or business law? They should enforce the law as defined by legislation and the courts, NOT be allowed to make the law as they go along.

HOW DO i BECOME A COP OF FLETC DIRK LEONARD HAREWOOD -- 17/10/07 (in reply to #320087020)

LAWENFORCEMENT SENIOR OFFICER OR STAFF

THIS BY HOMELANDSECURITY AND US BOARDER
PROTECTION AND SMCCORPRATION IS TELL ME TO GET CONNECTED WITH EVERY ONE AND
SEND ME MONEY MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS 52WARDSTREET SALEM MA 01970

A dangerous precedent Anonymous -- 05/10/07

The government is setting a dangerous precedent by implementing such measures as censorship in any form, in my opinion, leaves the population less informed and, as a result, less educated (i.e. stupider).

Note that filters of this kind never work and will more often than not let insidious material through, while blocking material that is integral to expanding our knowledge. For example, the inability to access certain "terrorist" views will make it impossible for us to understand another's point-of-view, even if it's wrong. Without such understanding how are we to defeat terrorism and make the world a better place.

Such measures will ultimately make policing terrorism and illegal pornography harder as it forces it further underground while at the same time destroying our freedoms to access legitimate material.

Additionally, what constitutes "offensive material" is subjective although with the growth of conservative christianity in Australian politics (whatever happened to separation of church and state; I'm agnostic by the way) we are beginning to see what subjectivity really means.

cz Anonymous -- 15/10/07

xcc