[AusNOG] Australian Censorship program to go ahead - Gillard supports a the great firewall

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

Andrew,

The issue, as I understand it is this the filter will block more than one category of content:

Content that is illegal to view/own/transmit (eg. Child Porn).
Content that is "Refused Classification" which is not illegal to own or view, only to sell (eg.  some kinds of Pornography, may include some things related to euthanasia, abortion etc).
Content that is incites criminal activity (terrorism, how to break into locks, computer systems,may include some things related to euthanasia, abortion etc).

The first one is illegal.  Doesn't matter how or what, you've broken the law.  No ifs or buts.  The police will come and put you in Jail.   And hopefully you'd rot there.   This is the case now and into the future.   If the government knows about it enough to filter then WHY THE **** are they not getting rid of it?? (*)

The second is not an illegal activity to view.
The third is probably not illegal, some of it relates to political debate and so is very concerning about preventing people seeing it.   I'm also personally concerned about it as the security side of things I WANT TO KNOW so I can protect my network and data centres etc (stuff govt has decided is critical infrastructure).

(*) I think a valid point is to suggest that the filter is the government going soft on Child Pornography and abuse.   If all they want to do is filter it and not use the money to find and hunt down the perpetrators then that's just shoving your head into the sand.

MMC


On 08/07/2010, at 12:31 PM, Andrew Oskam wrote:

I think I already know the answer and the response that will be received..but I'll say it anyways.

Let's say that I access a blacklisted website by bypassing the filter by whatever means.

As the filter is supposed to be my safeguard against this content - Does this mean that if the filter, in one way or another, is ineffective in protecting me that I am not capable or being held criminally accountable?

Further to this, If I choose to bypass the filter (which Conroy has indicated will not be considered an illegal activity) am I still free from being held criminally accountable?

I guess what I am trying to say is, Who is meant to be held accountable for viewing such content? How is the filter really meant to be considered a safeguard if they are not intending to police the full extend of its effectiveness.

As a citizen, I would think that if this holy grail of filters is meant to protect me - why is the government not prohibiting me from bypassing it?

And if I am caught viewing such content and pulled to the side my the AFP - Then I would say to them that I assumed that I would be free to view the content because they did not specifically say that I couldn't bypass the system.

To me (I'm going to use an analogy here), It seems as though the government is saying:

"Well good sir, I don't want you to eat this cookie - but if you decide to ignore me and break the padlock I won't say anything :)"

Food for thought?


Andrew Oskam

E  percy at th3interw3bs.net<mailto:percy at th3interw3bs.net>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100708/f612aa40/attachment.html>