<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>the State of Flux &#187; internet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thestateofflux.com/tag/internet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thestateofflux.com</link>
	<description>consultant to an ever-changing world</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 15:34:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<atom:link rel="next" href="http://thestateofflux.com/tag/internet/feed/?page=2" />

		<item>
		<title>The Great Wall of Australia</title>
		<link>http://thestateofflux.com/the-great-wall-of-australia/</link>
		<comments>http://thestateofflux.com/the-great-wall-of-australia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:14:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>the State of Flux</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thestateofflux.com/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lot has been said over the last few months about the &#8220;Great Wall of Australia&#8221; &#8211; the current government&#8217;s attempt at internet censorship.
Currently being trialled by six of the country&#8217;s smaller internet service providers, the whole process has been nothing but a case of one piece of bad publicity after another.
Earlier this week, the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot has been said over the last few months about the &#8220;Great Wall of Australia&#8221; &#8211; the current government&#8217;s attempt at internet censorship.</p>
<p>Currently being trialled by six of the country&#8217;s smaller internet service providers, the whole process has been nothing but a case of one piece of bad publicity after another.</p>
<p>Earlier this week, the hosting provider of the <a href="http://www.whirlpool.net.au">Whirlpool</a> forum, <a href="http://www.bulletproof.net.au">BulletProof Networks</a>, was threatened with an A$11,000 per day fine because <b>just one</b> of Whirlpool&#8217;s thousands of members posted a link to a website which is among those which would be banned should the filter be permanently implemented.  </p>
<p>The great irony here is that the filter is being &#8220;sold&#8221; to Australia as a necessary evil to block sites that promote the sexual abuse of children.  The link posted on Whirlpool was to an anti-abortion site that had been added to the blacklist because of <b>just one</b> complaint by <b>just one</b> person about <b>just one</b> page.  See <a href="http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25181408-15306,00.html">here</a> and <a href="http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1161107">here</a> for more.</p>
<p>It gets better.  As a result of the above, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/295977/australia_internet_filter_ruled_by_single_bureaucrat?pp=1">Computerworld</a> has discovered that it only takes <b>just one</b> person to add a site to the blacklist.  </p>
<blockquote><p>The decision is made by a single ACMA staffer, even someone part of a graduate process, who assumes the classification board would not like [a Web site].</p>
<p>The two types of content that ACMA can hide from the eyes of Australians are prohibited content, which has been previously classified; and potentially prohibited content which is banned on a hunch that the classification board won&#8217;t like it.</p></blockquote>
<p>No committee review or consultation with a panel or &#8220;experts&#8221; &#8211; <b>just one</b> person who can decide based on his or her person feelings.</p>
<p>The current version of the blacklist has now been published on Wikileaks <i>(you can find that one by using your search engine of choice)</i>, and that site has also been added to the blacklist, along with the official business website of a Dentist, and several other legitimate sites.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve taken a look at the list, and based on the URLs alone, can safely say that no normal person should be looking at those sites anyway, but that&#8217;s not the point.</p>
<p>Censoring the internet is essentially a step backwards for Australia, a country that takes pride in its tradition of democratically electing governments.  Not only that, but determining the blacklist on the decision of just one person reminds me of a certain other type of government that Australia frowns on.</p>
<p><strong>19 March 2009 Update:</strong>  Senator Conroy has released a <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/014">statement</a> both condemning the publication of the blacklist contents, and denying that the published list is the actual blacklist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thestateofflux.com/the-great-wall-of-australia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
