Untitled

Hello

 

On the 15th of December 2009, Australian Communication Minister Stephen Conroy announced that it is the intention of the Australian government to implement a mandatory nationwide internet filter. This measure, under the guise of "improvement of safety of the internet for families", entails the implementation of a website blacklist created and maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Had it not been met with opposition from the senate, the enactment of this legislation and deployment of the required technologies, budgeted over $17m (or 44m ?) would already have been attained. All of this would have taken place without voter consent.

 

The desired result of this measure is that websites carrying what governing bodies deem "Refused Classifiable" content, are rendered inaccessible to Australian citizens. Furthermore, contrary to government  claims, no transparency is provided regarding which websites are detailed on this blacklist.

 

Quote Stephen Conroy:

The Government is also introducing new transparency measures to ensure the public can have absolute confidence in the process for material being placed on the Refused Classification (RC) Content list.

 

ACMA actions in March 2009 have served to reinforce the complete lack of transparency surrounding these measures. After a whistle blower leaked the blacklist, "leak-deletion notices" and threats of recurring $11,000 daily fines were issued by ACMA to websites publishing the contents of the list.

 

Disturbing patterns begin to emerge upon inspection of the blacklist.  Listed addresses include YouTube videos, Wikipedia entries, websites providing information about euthanasia, ordinary gay and heterosexual pornographic websites, the websites of various religious institutions, a tour operator, a school canteen and even the website of a Queensland dentist.

 

The main argument for this filter's existence is to protect children from sexual predators. However, the only protection this filter will offer is a dangerous illusion which may lull parents into a false sense of security. Most exploitation involving children is, contrary to what the governing body believes, not done on pornographic sites. It occurs through public chatrooms, online gaming communities and social networking sites. Curiously, these sites have not caught the attention of the ACMA's malicious dragnet.

 

Another argument for the implementation of the filter is that it would inhibit the distribution of what the government defines as inappropriate material, child pornography (CP) being one example. The proposed filter will not in any way hinder the production or distribution of CP. If the filter is not easily circumventable, it will merely force the distribution of such material deeper into the so called "internet underground". This will have little effect aside from increasing the workload of local and international law enforcement agencies.

 

In addition to CP, the filter's intent is to protect children from viewing less "savoury" pornography. In 2006, $116m was spent by the Australian Government on a home-kit CD, with free Internet pornography blocking software. It was a fiasco, as demonstrated by a 16 year old male who managed to "hack" this filter within an hour, rendering the software completely obsolete.

 

This filter will not only be unable to live up to it's expectations, but will further reduce internet speeds by up to 70% nationwide. Given that Australians already pay exorbitant prices for archaic internet connectivity, this slowdown in itself is a cause for concern. Funding directed toward this project of censorship would be better spent were it used to educate young children in the principles of internet safety and responsible usage.

 

Organisations in Australia and worldwide oppose this filter. "Save the Children" recently stated that "the filter will neither work to shield children from explicit material, nor stop child pornography from being distributed on the internet. We believe it's really better to teach children so that they have the ability to recognise and steer clear of inappropriate online content for themselves."  They are not alone in this belief.

 

For the reasons outlined above, we, Project Freeweb have been inspired by the actions of several grassroot movements such as Anonymous to raise awareness regarding the Australian internet censorship law. We deem that such draconian legislation has no place in a free and democratic society. Our aim is to have these legislation plans and forthcoming filter abolished.

 

At present, the public is insufficiently aware of the nefarious consequences that such an internet filter will have upon their lives. If passed, this legislation will set a disturbing precedent at an international level. Other nations will more easily adopt similar measures. Such actions are inconspicuously dangerous to the internet as a whole, being contrary to the concepts of free speech and freedom of thought. Furthermore, internet censorship can dangerously limit criticism of the nation-state on an international level. The effects of such censorship on basic civil liberties can be seen in the republic of China, in North Korea and in Iran where such means have been implemented.

 

To voice our opposition to this form of censorship, we will stage protests nationwide on February 20th. We encourage the public to join us in this celebration and defense of freedom.

 

The internet has revolutionized the way we communicate and exchange information, joining in its significance the ranks of such inventions as the written word and printing press. We can not let this media slip into the grasp of a power elite. We must not let the internet become the censored and controlled media seen since in days of the 1930's and 40's. If a seemingly innocent thing such as mandatory filtering can be implemented, how far will the Government go in their quest to monitor and control what you are viewing and accessing?

 

This is not about what you have or do not have to hide. It is about what they should or should not have the priviledge to know. You, not your government, should have the right to decide what you deem appropriate for your or your family to be exposed to. Do not give up that right.

 

Yours in protest,

Project Freeweb