Eyes of the world on Australia's internet filter plan

Renai LeMay
21 April 2010, 10:32 PM


Embarrassed Australian pollies say they are fielding queries from around the world about Kevin Rudd's internet filtering plan.


Several speakers at the Communications Day Summit in Sydney this week raised the issue that Australian communications policy initiatives such as the the National Broadband Network (NBN) and the internet filter have attracted international attention — but not always in a good way.

Sounding somewhat embarrassed about the filter, Greens Senator and communications spokesperson Scott Ludlam said he had been bogged down taking calls form overseas journalists, asking about the filter — “Who is behind it? What is it?”, adding he recently fielded a barrage of questions from a journalist in California.

The news comes as the United States’ Ambassador to Australia last week said there were “other means” available to achieve the goals of the Federal Government’s internet filtering project, adding to the impression that the US disapproved of the project.

US Ambassador Jeff Bleich (pictured) responded to a question on the ABC’s Q&A program, saying the US had told the Australian Government that it had been able to accomplish the goals of the filter — which Bleich described as capturing and prosecuting child pornographers and others who use the internet for “terrible purporse” — without using internet filters.

At the CommsDay event, Gilbert + Tobin partner Richard Pascoe also spoke of the spotlight on Australia, this time in relation to the NBN, asking: “What do other countries really think?”

Pascoe brought up Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s talk at the summit yesterday, when the politician noted Australia was being watched closely by other westernised countries. Pascoe acknowledged that we are being watched — but why and what they were thinking is another matter.

For example, the lawyer’s work has brought him into close contact with the Middle East — where Pascoe said that each country was currently furiously working on developing their broadband infrastructure.

The largest of the ME countries is the United Arab Emirates, for example, which Pascoe said had many similar traits to Australia — the UAE has also de-reglated its communications sector, its government is involved and there are competitors in the industry.

The Australian government’s NBN plan have attracted Middle Eastern attention, according to Pascoe, but the countries are also watching the progression of search giant Google’s fibre rollout plans in the United States — which have the potential to upend ISPs’ business models there.

Pascoe said that the NBN — which has required significant government intervention in the nation’s telecommunications sector — is not seen as an attractive option to the ME and other countries. Instead it is seen as the last resort, although he was vague about why this might be the case. Pascoe rhetorically asked: “Are they watching?”, answering his own question with the answer: “Yes, but with raised eyebrows.”

Delimiter


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

DFTBA (New user):

"US Ambassador Jeff Bleich (pictured)"

He is one crazy looking mofo

21 April 2010, 11:36 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Zig (New user):

This just shows how out of touch with the world Conroy & Rudd are.
They are proving themselves almost as ignorant as the Howard Government was.

It is hardly surprising it has caused embarrassement.

22 April 2010, 12:14 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting Zig:
almost as ignorant as the Howard Government was

When did the Howard government put forward a censorship proposal out of line with all major western nations. While taking the time to show contempt for this Rudd/Conroy attack upon basic liberties you could devote a few moment to actually getting your facts right.


22 April 2010, 1:46 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

todd_h86 (User):

I dont think Zig was making a direct comparison, so get over yourself raindog. I don't know, but maybe you should take the time to actually read a comment before making an arse of yourself.

22 April 2010, 4:35 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting todd_h86:
I dont think

No you didn't! You made a stupid ill considered and clearly incorrect comment and just like your mate zig did.


Quoting todd_h86:
maybe you should take the time to actually read a comment

Maybe you should let zig fight his own battles and keep your own brand of ill informed assessment to yourself. Next time you wish to complain about Rudd/Conroy you should consider your own role in letting them loose. That would be a whole lot more productive than any of your false comparisons. So you can consider yourself told all should feel free to toddle back to the dank spot from which you emerged.


22 April 2010, 5:20 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

AlRaj (New user):

You're wrong raindog.

"Prior to the November 2007 Federal election, the then Coalition Government Minister and Department named DCITA had responsibility for telecommunications regulation, including the Commonwealth Internet censorship regime, which the Coalition Government introduced into Parliament in 1999. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 was enacted on 30 June 1999 despite overwhelming opposition to the proposed laws, including by respondants to the Senate Committee inquiry into the Bill. It was passed on the votes of the Coalition (Liberal/National) Government with the support of an independent, Senator Brian Harradine. Opposition parties (Labor, Democrats, Greens) voted against the Bill.

This draconian censorship law, which requires ISPs and content hosts to remove content unsuitable for children from their servers on order of the government Internet regulator, commenced on 1 January 2000. (As at January 2008, no other so-called Western democracy had introduced similar Internet censorship legislation.)"

I remember the blatant pandering to Brian Harradine's position at the time and was one of the 1st things that got up my nose about Howard.

22 April 2010, 8:49 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting AlRaj:
You're wrong raindog.

I'm never wrong, you are simply too thick to recognise the differences in the legislation. Removal of illegal material from web-servers is something quite different than unmonitored an unaccountable censorship. If you cannot not understand the difference your a danger to yourself and a burden to others.


22 April 2010, 8:55 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

AlRaj (New user):

No, I am certain that censorship is censorship. There's nothing different about it.

The removal of material that is considered unsuitable for children does not mean that the same material is illegal for other more mature individuals to consume, e.g. euthanasia.

Sorry for the double post, my original reply got stuck somewhere. I blame Dodo.

22 April 2010, 9:14 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

AlRaj (New user):

No, censorship is censorship. You are wrong. (imagine that, someone wrong on the internet!)

The requirement to remove material from servers that is considered (by whom) unsuitable for children does not of itself make the material illegal or immoral, e.g. euthanasia.

22 April 2010, 9:17 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting AlRaj:
No, censorship is censorship. You are wrong

I'm never wrong, your simply slow.


Quoting AlRaj:
is considered (by whom) unsuitable

By elected governments or their representatives, in a fully accountable and documented manner. Not by some secret banned list? You understand the subtleties yet? (probably not, too busy ranting most likely)


Quoting AlRaj:
unsuitable for children does not of itself make the material illegal

Do you know what a filter is? Do you understand the differences between opt-in and mandatory? The Rudd/Conroy filter disadvantages all users, the alternative only affected the consumers of suspect porn.

None of this has anything to do with protecting children, the Rudd/Conroy effort is an attempt to manipulate without account. Again if you cannot see the difference you have missed the point entirely.


22 April 2010, 9:27 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Michael J (User):

Quoting Raindog:
I'm never wrong


that's a very strong thing to say!
next you're going to be saying "I AM GOD!!!!"

23 April 2010, 10:00 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting Michael J:
that's a very strong thing to say!

Hey, how can I keep you from the truth!


Quoting Michael J:
next you're going to be saying "I AM GOD!!!!"

Then shouldn't you be oveting your eyes?


23 April 2010, 10:05 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Michael J (User):

Quoting Raindog:
Then shouldn't you be oveting your eyes?


ummm... you didn't spell that correctly, and considering what we're currently talking about.....

23 April 2010, 10:59 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting Michael J:
and considering what we're currently talking about.....

Only you could know, whatever it is your talking about. :)


24 April 2010, 9:06 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

AlRaj (New user):

OK raindog, I understand your point now. You are OK with censorship, but how it's applied is your issue.

You said "When did the Howard government put forward a censorship proposal out of line with all major western nations" and I replied "back in 1999".

End of story: you are wrong.

22 April 2010, 9:50 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting AlRaj:
you are wrong.

Never been wrong and not about to start, you inability to grasp basic concepts is no concern of mine.


22 April 2010, 10:27 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Perityokisonlly (New user):

Thanks for sharing it. it’s valuable information all of us
Muscle Max XL

http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/muscle-max-xl-review-amp-free-trial-2205092.html


23 April 2010, 6:23 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Ron6 (New user):

Don't see the fuzz about an internet filter... China has one, why not Australia?

23 April 2010, 8:12 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

The Big Baboo (User):

Haaaaaaaa K.Rude and S.Conboy cant' even filter the garbage coming out of their mouths so how in God's green earth are they going to filter the internet :)

26 April 2010, 2:05 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user