The Greens have sought explanations from Minister Against Broadband Stephen Conroy in the Senate. In particular Green senator Scott Ludlam asked Conroy to take back his claim that what the ALP wants is like what is done in Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand; in these cases the filtering is voluntary and restricted. Moreover, Conroy refused to say what "unwanted content" was defined as, and who would make that determination.
Michael Malone of iiNet called Conroy the "worst minister ever". In the meantime ISPs are being asked to trial the filtering. What effect a bad experience would have on this is unclear. So far all the evidence has been ignored.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Noted skeptical author and podcaster CJ Ãkerberg takes a look at one of the most active and visible anti-vaccine cranks in Sweden, Sanna Ehdin, and at the history of vaccination. The entry was originally published in Swedish on the Tankebrott blog, and I asked CJ to translate it for Aard.
In…
I'll be attending upcoming Canadian Library Association National Forum, a kind of sunset conference as CLA reimagines and recreates itself. The idea is to take the pulse of Canadian librarians on the important issues in the library-related landscape. I'll be curating the session on Canada's…
If there's one thing about the anti-vaccine movement I've learned over the last five or so years, it's that it's virtually completely immune to evidence, science, and reason. No matter how much evidence is arrayed against it, it always finds a way to spin, distort, or misrepresent it to combat the…
One of the longstanding problems with many ID advocates is their misuse of the work of scientists. Since they've never had any actual ID research to point to, they have instead frequently put out lists of articles that allegedly support their arguments from the mainstream literature. More often…
....what the ALP wants is like what is done in...Canada....
I was unaware that we had national-scale, mandatory Internet filtering in place here. But I am notoriously oblivious to reality....
There's no mandatory filtering in Canada. I think, from time to time, it's been floated, but it's been rejected as unfeasible and unnecessary.
Considering how easy it is for those who want to get past the filtering to actually do so, it's completely pointless, and is simply a punishment for those without the technical know-how. It certainly isn't going to stop pedophiles and terrorists.
Um, I guess I need to make my ironic mode more obvious ;-).
There's reality and there's Conreality. You need to be sure in which universe you are making a statement.
I think, from time to time, it's been floated, but it's been rejected as unfeasible and unnecessary.
A perfect example of unwanted content can be found here:
the minister's parliamentary website
With no clear definition of what "unwanted content" is, we might be in with a chance of convincing the ACMA to make another addition to their 'blacklist'!