EFA's new filter campaign lead to target offline community
- 08 January, 2010 17:12
- Comments 8
An Internet lobby group is hoping to get netizens to convince non-frequent net users to speak out against the Federal Government's ISP-level content filter
Netizens will be urged to make their opposition to the Federal Government’s controversial Internet content filtering scheme heard in the offline community, under a new campaign planned by an Internet lobby group.
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) law lecturer, Peter Black, has been hired by the Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) to coordinate a campaign against the content filtering scheme.
Black told Computerworld the EFA plans to have a widespread online and offline campaign aimed a broadening the scope of the issue – “beyond the digerati” – and encouraging Internet savvy people to spread the word.
“At the moment, the people who understand what’s a stake are concerned by the government’s proposal and people who don’t understand it aren’t because it sounds reasonable enough [to them],” he said.
“It’s only when you give people all the information that they’re able to realize some of the problems with it.”
The EFA will aim to create a campaign hub for the various protest activities taking place, and generate mainstream media attention with high-profile Australians speaking out against the issue. However, the new EFA campaign leader acknowledged the lack of cohesion in existing protest plans and did not provide any other specific measures that are to be taken.
“One thing I think we’re all aware of is that there are a lot of very interested and passionate people when it comes to this sort of issue, and there’s a lot of different groups that have sprung up…” he said. “What we want to be able to do is to provide some sort of hub for the activity, so that it’s centralized and the various different people, from various different states on various different platforms are all talking to one another.”
Black, who is on leave from QUT, will be working for the EFA for at least three months, is aiming to get the online campaigns up and running by the end of the month.
Meanwhile, a Facebook-driven protest that originally planned to organise a protest for January 30 has delayed the event until March 6 "because many permits were impossible to get during the holiday season, and a few states lack the volunteers to hold a protest during January" according to its Facebook page.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
-
Sell-off angers Dick Smith
-
H-1B workers are better paid, more educated, study finds
-
Microsoft at a loss over Event Viewer scam
-
Samsung Galaxy Y Android phone (preview)
-
Seattle police say 'wardrivers' are hitting small businesses
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Microsoft Office
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
Comments
Chris
Bring it on. This is EXACTLY what the anti-filter movement needs - a coordinated, cohesive offline campaign. All the website blackening and Anonymous-like tactics in the world won't stop this.
Yawn
Yeah, right, bring it on. Whatever your personal preferences regarding hard-core porn and detailed information about committing crimes, Refused Classification material is illegal to distribute in Australia by any means, so what's the big deal that it will also be blocked online?
We all know that the EFA and the cashed-up video porn lobby are shattered that the technical trials revealed no performance hit, rendering their sham opposition on technical grounds totally unfounded.
The show's over, go back your lives, citizens. And thank you, Senator Conroy for standing firm on Kevin Rudd's election promise to Australian voters as opposed to lobbyists.
thEGA
No performance hit. You idiot. You need to do more research before talking about things you know nothing about. A 20% performance hit is the minimum you can expect. This is a 20% hit to EVERYONE on the country. Why the hell should we put up with that?
Chris
20% is a bit much to say as a minimum, the government will more likely err on the side of massive underblocking than commit electoral suicide. But even if the rubbish trial results were accurate in the first place, I still wouldn't support it.
Firstly, why do we even have an RC category? There should just be the R rating for any and everything legal that isn't suitable for minors, and anything that breaks the law is illegal. Simple.
But the whole idea of mandatory filtering is wrong. It diverts money away from the groups who actually catch the offenders and spends it on a program that is at best ineffective (bypassing most filters is trivial, the ones that aren't are the ones that slow everything by 20-50%), and at worst harmful in that it gives parents/guardians a placebo effect without actually removing the problem.
Want to help? Bring back the NetAlert program for home-based filters (which if configured correctly are a lot tougher to crack than any ISP solution) and increase AFP/OCSET funding to actually track and catch the bastards making the illegal stuff instead of just putting a hole-ridden tarp over it.
Yawn again
I've been called worse than an idiot in my 30 years in IT, @theGA, but thanks for your contribution.
@Chris is right - it is a no-brainer to implement the best-performing ISP filter from the trial rather than the worst (unless you were an idiot, perhaps?).
But I would also argue that a multi-pronged approach to preventing RC material getting through is better than giving parents and grandparents a copy of Net Nanny and saying the job is done. Surely if Chris's "holey tarp" stops illegal (i.e. RC) content for many users, that is a good thing, I would have thought. It is not sufficient on its own, and no-one is arguing that it is. Parents and guardians also have a responsibility to detect attempts to circumvent filtering by their children (or their friends) and perhaps withdraw privileges, which will require providing them with a means of doing so. But once again, that is not an argument for not having a filter in place.
And none of these arguments will be of any interest to those who wish (in vain) that there was no such thing as RC, of course.
frank
Yawn, you're wrong. there is alot material that is RC that is not illegal and this is a huge problem with the fitler. oh and btw im just talking about not just talking about regular pron. RC has a wider scope than just child pron and this is but one of the major issues. for example are you aware that all major online poker sites are actually RC because as little as one do gooder complained to ACMA? I accept that not everyone believes in online poker but thats entirely missing the point.... I'll have you know that despite what some will have you believe it is NOT illegal for australian poker players to play online poker at sites hosted overseas despite what Conroy thinks. So now that ive spelled it out for you you can see the problem here im sure.....its a slippery slope and all of a sudden the government IS trying to regulate non illegal content in devious ways......See conroy claims that he is 'saving the children' but then says "oh we use the ACMA RC list so its not MY fault that this filter will block that not illegal site...but dont think for a minute that im going to actually change my stance and only filter child pron because we will use the ACMA list and when your on the ACMA list you aint getting off the list (=unless its a totally obvious case line a dentist"
David Brooks
Stick to the subject. Stop the personal abuse - you simply play into Conroys hands.
The "filtering" (nice word for Censorship) is a violation of our rights to see what the hell we like when we like. All the "laws" they (government) have made sets them up as the arbiters of all morality. They have neither the knowlege, nor the morals for such a task. Our press pussyfoot around everything and will not stand up to the government. (If you read a newspaper you wil note that more than 50% is government sourced.)
This is simply one more nail in the coffin of personal liberty which has so few supporters. The internet is a great source of information at light speed. The politicians (Power Seekers) hate it when others use it.
Like most law - censorship makes profit for someone at the peoples expense.
David Brooks
I would join but you have some strange "password" requirements. Please remember that I have to remember the darn thing 'cos I don't like cookies. And your rules make it simpler to crack.
Post new comment