More on the ACMA censorship of political content

The Register has a good piece here. They note that this means that even linking to content rather than having it is sufficient to attract the $11,000/day fine, and ask how many hops are sufficient to be OK. If I link to a site that links to a site that links to the offending (in this case anti-abortion) site, am I liable? This gets more fucking ridiculous by the day.

I hope he was pushed

So Mick Keelty is going early and the panegyrics are starting up. I believe Keelty's spineless subjugation to the political interference of the previous government, and his opportunism in gaining "special powers" for the AFP, have been among the greatest disasters to Rule of Law in Australia, and have gone a long way to re-establishing the "special branch" mentality of the old style of policing in Australia [see also here, here and here]. The Haneef affair is only the tip of it. How much else will we hear about over coming years as the gags are removed?

I hope that he was pushed by the present government, but I doubt it. Labor is traditionally in favour of large government bodies, and they would see what he did as building a better instrument of government policy. I too see it this way. Our difference lies in thinking that it is a good or a bad thing. Although I am not a "small government" advocate, when it comes to unnecessary police powers I am as libertarian as it gets.

Political censorship of internet linkage begins in Australia

The host ISP of Electronic Frontiers Australia has been served a take-down notice for linking to an R-rated "blackbanned" site, itself not in Australia, in a page that was a political comment on the merits (or demerits, rather) of mandatory internet filtering in Australia. I put the entire text of their notice below. This is exactly what we were told would never happen by the minister. It is exactly what everybody who ever thought for ten minutes on the subject knew would happen.

EFA gets link removal notice

Posted by Colin Jacobs | Censorship, Mandatory ISP Filtering | Tuesday 5 May 2009 3:14 pm

EFA’s web hosting provider was today the recipient of a Link Deletion notice from ACMA for an article on our web site ironically entitled “Net censorship already having a chilling effect“. The original article included a link to a page at abortiontv.com that includes graphic images and was previously added to ACMA’s blacklist for being “R-18+”-level material. (For more information on the ACMA net censorship system, see here and here.)

There are many reasons why this should alarm Australian net users. Most significantly, the link was part of a political discussion about the merits of the existing and future Internet censorship policies. The link was offered as a demonstration of the sorts of controversial content that could and would be included in any such proposal. No “offensive” material was included on our site itself. Nevertheless, we were forced to remove the link on pain of severe penalties.

To be clear, EFA published only a link to a page that is hosted overseas and is on ACMA’s prohibited list. Viewing the potentially R-rated page itself is not in any way illegal, and no system is yet in place to enforce the blocking of such web pages. One may well wonder why a link to a legally viewable page should draw the threat of legal sanction while the content itself remains visible. Because the link was on a web page hosted in Australia, the hosting provider - not EFA ourselves, who have more control over the content - falls under Australian legal jurisdiction and could be so served. What this accomplishes is uncertain.

This system, which costs Australian taxpayers millions each year, is clearly unworkable. Because the content is hosted overseas, it remains untouched by ACMA’s directives. Any links or commentary on prohibited content can be protected by the simple expedient of posting it on a web site hosted overseas. No letters from the Australian media regulator, issued months after complaints are filed, will reduce the availability of such material. If a link to a prohibited page is not allowed, what about a link to a link? At what number of hops does a hyperlink become acceptable?

This is a textbook case that demonstrates that there is no sharp dividing line between “political” speech and other content. At the edges of public policy are issues which will inflame passions and lead to images, video and words that are offensive to many people. Trying to stamp these out, especially on the Internet, not only diminishes our democracy but is pointless and paternalistic to boot.

On the Internet, a discussion about some information is often barely distinguishable from the information itself. The current ACMA censorship regime accomplishes little apart from achieving a Howard-era political objective, and makes it clear how far behind the curve political thinking is when it comes to the technical realities of the Internet. We now seem set to move to a new stage where the perceived shortcomings of the current system are to be remedied by legislation making the blocking of overseas content mandatory. It goes without saying that such a block will be easily circumvented by those with the motivation, and material of genuine political interest will find a way to proliferate despite the ban. It is average Australians who will be left wondering what they should and should not be viewing, and not know what controversial material has been deemed unacceptable by the censors.

With fines of up to $11,000 per day threatened against our hosting provider, we have little choice but to comply with ACMA’s directive. However, we are investigating an appeal of the order on the grounds that it stifles a legitimate political discussion on the merits of the Government’s internet censorship policies.

Full text of the LDN here.

Don't trust filterware

They can cause a major problem of national security.

Incidentally this is who we are emulating.

Keating's Mistake to be rectified

Back when privatisation was all the rage, even for left-wingers like Paul Keating, Telstra was sold partially to investors (and boy, didn't they get a bargain!). At the same time, other telecommunications companies were permitted to compete. But there was a real flaw in this bit of economic rationalism: Telstra still owned the exchanges, the PSTN and the other infrastructural components needed, and they behaved, well, like a really big corporation that was staffed by public servants. They spent the last 13 years obstructing other companies' access to the networks, necessitating and expensive duplication of infrastructure.

What Keating should have done was to privatise the marketing and customer service parts of Telstra, and set up a government administered public company to oversee and maintain the networks, and to improve them as the customer companies needed, with the companies funding the costs. But it is still the bottleneck that ISPs and telcos face, that Telstra controls the exchanges, and you have to wait on their pleasure to get connections made (while, of course, their customers get connected immediately, but at a high cost).

This is no way to run a chook raffle, let alone our telecommunications infrastructure. Now KRudd has decided to build a new infrastructure as a government (and, we hope, recoup the costs from license fees by the telcos). It should have been done in 1996. It will cost us a lot more than it would have back then, because the Optus optic fibre rollout would have been a shared cost and not a duplication.

I bet Conroy had little to do with this sensible, albeit late on the part of Labor, decision.

Filtering with an electric kettle

“Trying to filter the Internet is as effective as boiling the ocean with an electric kettle.” From here.

Zombies eat Sydney again

Another power outage leaves folks stuck in elevators again. The Premier obviously hasn't read his Pratchett, because he said, “I was told the other day that the chances of this happening again were one in a million. So I am seriously unhappy.” All us Pratchett fans know that a million-to-one chance happens nine times out of ten.