Australia Trials Web Filters

[engine]

Australia Trials Web Filters [news.bbc.co.uk]

Australia intends to introduce filters which will ban access to websites containing criminal content.

The banned sites will be selected by an independent classification body guided by complaints from the public, said Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

A seven month trial in conjunction with internet service providers found the technology behind the filter to be 100% effective.

However, there has been opposition from some internet users.

[bill]

This is from the people who told us they'd fine us for linking [webmasterworld.com]? They had a hidden list as well...

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

Australia intends to introduce filters which will ban access to websites containing criminal content.

Am I alone in failing to see a problem with this?

[phranque]

ban access to websites containing criminal content.

Am I alone in failing to see a problem with this?

the bible, for example...

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

Bible website?

[callivert]

Am I alone in failing to see a problem with this?

The problem is, they had a Super Top Secret list of websites that were banned. One of the rules is, you're not allowed to link to anything on the list; but you're not allowed to see the list. So there's no way of knowing what you're not supposed to link to.
Wikileaks got a hold of it and published the list. The government denied that the wikileaks list was accurate in any way, but then they added wikileaks to the list of banned sites. So I guess it was accurate after all. Then whirlpool, a prominent Australian web forum, linked to the list on wikileaks, then other sites linked to whirlpool; so the goverment started issuing threats of punitive fines ($10,000) for anyone linking to the list, etc.
It all descended into farce from that point on.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

I still see no probem with banning access to websites with criminal content or better banning websites with criminal content.

[callivert]

As the wikileaks/whirlpool incident showed, once you start censoring online material, you get scope creep. The fact that it happened so rapidly was actually kinda funny, but even so, it was a salutory lesson.
They won't tell us what sites are being blocked, or even what the criteria are for blocking. This means placing an awful lot of trust in anonymous government officials to do the right thing. As it turned out, while most of the sites on the list were hosting really bad, criminal, offensive material, there were some dubious inclusions, such as an anti-abortion site for example.
Scope creep.
And this was just in the first iteration, on a trial run. What's the list going to look like in 10 years? Will we even know what the list looks like? The potential for abuse is enormous.

Keep in mind also, this system does not result in arrests, nor even the closing down of a single site. It simply results in "filtering" what internet users have access to, sort of like a parent's net filter except at a national level.

[SwitchFX]

The Australian senate won't allow this to pass.