ABA to assist develope online content codes of practice
Garry R. Ford
Below is todays press release from Sen Alston.
Cheers
Gaary Ford
Chairman
Coalition Communications Policy Committee
ABA to assist development of online content codes of practice
The Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston,
has issued a direction to the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA)
enabling it to begin consultations with Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) on new codes of practice for online content regulation.
'This is the next step in the Government's plan to develop a national
framework that protects Australian citizens, particularly children, from
offensive or illegal material online, without unduly restricting the
development of the new online economy,' Senator Alston said.
'As I announced in July with my colleague, the Attorney-General Mr Daryl
Williams, the Government has decided that as a general rule
material that is considered illegal offline should be considered illegal
online.
'While regulation of content providers is the responsibility of the
States and Territories, the Commonwealth has an important national role
to play by setting up a framework under which ISPs will have effective
codes of practice for handling complaints backed up by last resort
sanctions.'
Senator Alston said the industry codes of practice would cover matters
such as:
procedures to enable parental supervision of minors;
means of facilitating the development and use of labelling
and filtering technologies; and
a practical and effective complaints mechanism.
Senator Alston said the ABA had also been asked to investigate:
national educational strategies to ensure Australians
accessing services available online utilise these services in
the most effective and productive manner; and
international developments in relation to the regulation of
the content of online services.
'While the Government is committed to a workable regulatory regime for
online content, parents and other guardians will ultimately have very
important roles to play,' Senator Alston said.
'The Government intends to release draft exposure legislation in the
next few months prior to then introducing the necessary legislative
amendments to implement the national framework.'
Contact:
Terry O'Connor, Minister's office 02 6277 7480 or 0419 636 879
Donald Robertson, ABA 02 9334 7980
C106/97
5 September 1997
Peter Kelly
Garry R. Ford wrote:
> Below is todays press release from Sen Alston.
>
> Cheers
>
> Gaary Ford
> Chairman
> Coalition Communications Policy Committee
>
> ABA to assist development of online content codes of practice
>
> The Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston,
> has issued a direction to the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA)
> enabling it to begin consultations with Internet Service Providers
> (ISPs) on new codes of practice for online content regulation.
ISPs should not be responsible for content on their server other than
that posted directly by the ISP as a content provider. Has the gov
recognised this? There is no hint of this in the press statement.
> 'This is the next step in the Government's plan to develop a national
> framework that protects Australian citizens, particularly children,
> from
> offensive or illegal material online, without unduly restricting the
> development of the new online economy,' Senator Alston said.
Is money the only break on online censorship? The internet is a social
as well as economic medium. The senator mentioned nothing of the social
benefits of the online world.
> 'As I announced in July with my colleague, the Attorney-General Mr
> Daryl
> Williams, the Government has decided that as a general rule
> material that is considered illegal offline should be considered
> illegal
> online.
>
> 'While regulation of content providers is the responsibility of the
> States and Territories, the Commonwealth has an important national
> role
> to play by setting up a framework under which ISPs will have effective
>
> codes of practice for handling complaints backed up by last resort
> sanctions.'
ISPs are very much carriers of internet traffic. It sounds as though the
gov is determined to legislate as though ISPs are content providers
instead of carriers. It would be ludicrous to require a telephone
company to be responsible for conversation carried out over telephone
lines.
> Senator Alston said the industry codes of practice would cover matters
>
> such as:
>
> procedures to enable parental supervision of minors;
> means of facilitating the development and use of labelling
> and filtering technologies; and
> a practical and effective complaints mechanism.
Is it intended to make these filtering technologies compulsory? If I was
a parent I would not trust these filters as the programs are just
virtual robots and robots have no common sense. There is also the
questionable behavior of companies like Cybersitter banning political
sites and allegations that extreme right wing Christians are in charge
of the secret cybernot lists. The best filter is a supervising parent.
Not only does a parent have common sense but also the 'blocking
policies' and 'cybernot lists' are known are known to the parents. Any
parent who trusts an unknown cybernot list with sometimes questionable
blocking policy is giving away their power to an outside agency. Even
filtering software from a trustworthy company can not be coded for
common sense. Unintended sites can be blocked. Do not give your children
to the care of robots.
I have a feeling that the "practical and effective complaints mechanism"
will be a snitch bureau that will pander to the loadest puritains. The
gov will carefully legislate to make itself not responsible for an
outcome that will please the God Squad (Lyons Forum) inside the
"Liberal" Party.
> Senator Alston said the ABA had also been asked to investigate:
>
> national educational strategies to ensure Australians
> accessing services available online utilise these services
> in
> the most effective and productive manner; and
> international developments in relation to the regulation of
> the content of online services.
>
> 'While the Government is committed to a workable regulatory regime for
>
> online content, parents and other guardians will ultimately have very
> important roles to play,' Senator Alston said.
Then why the involvement of the ABA?
> 'The Government intends to release draft exposure legislation in the
> next few months prior to then introducing the necessary legislative
> amendments to implement the national framework.'
There seems to be very little to be pleased about in this release. No
hint that the major objections have been addressed and in fact these are
not even mentioned in the press release. Not a good sign.
>
>
> Contact:
> Terry O'Connor, Minister's office 02 6277 7480 or 0419 636 879
> Donald Robertson, ABA 02 9334 7980
>
> C106/97
> 5 September 1997
--
____________________________________________________
"Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature;
sex is a weak second."
- Phil Kerby
____________________________________________________
Peter ? to reply replace xx with au
[ ]
/ \ http://www.wantree.com.au/~pkelly/
____________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
mQCNAzO8KE8AAAEEAJ7IZf0uKUpBCTZJEhpJOTb87+dXmmAXMvTStY32zXY9p6tF
Jh8hqd5iYXc6MClz3pD2nxAKgeiTuFKpAY9zIZ0hGWqEcSW+veupj5/KxcGP1mir
lgiPIfsMu+YEQccIlI5mDFaoyynNDheJCakgxqgnqzf3jk5JM/hyjbRPJoBNAAUR
tCNQZXRlciBLZWxseSA8cGtlbGx5QHdhbnRyZWUuY29tLmF1PokAlQMFEDO8KFD4
co20TyaATQEBwDwD/0wGNfHhDm6OQFNhfcnu3YlNMoqoqMYwDKndlokEWYzmOKd8
DBTflY0zFjavThhJkmmVNtunEJyDawjZ6l9u+c/r5uGnyYrVxd1EhZibZ6rqRryg
mtts8RjXY6RJcb6s48Ty4xYELVKfPdEWrFWziTcUPmrHOyDlRJO7n9PTKifg
=bgUG
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Garry R. Ford
Paul,
I have already addressed many of these concerns to Ministers Alston and
Williams.
Peter Kelly wrote:
>
>
> ISPs should not be responsible for content on their server other than
> that posted directly by the ISP as a content provider. Has the gov
> recognised this? There is no hint of this in the press statement.
>
Quite true. This what I want the final outcome to be. Unfortunately
press releases have to be short and sometimes their authors don't fully
appreciate what abbreviating can imply.
>
> Is money the only break on online censorship? The internet is a social
> as well as economic medium. The senator mentioned nothing of the social
> benefits of the online world.
No, but thanks to Rupert and his merry men, the public only seems
concerned with paedophiles and related porn.
>
>
> ISPs are very much carriers of internet traffic. It sounds as though the
> gov is determined to legislate as though ISPs are content providers
> instead of carriers. It would be ludicrous to require a telephone
> company to be responsible for conversation carried out over telephone
> lines.
I want a Common Carrier type status for them and have so recommended
this. This has been pointed out to both senators as a basic defect in
the current framework principles as too as the inclusion of All state
and territory laws rather than just criminal laws.
>
>
> Is it intended to make these filtering technologies compulsory? If I was
> a parent I would not trust these filters as the programs are just
> virtual robots and robots have no common sense. There is also the
> questionable behavior of companies like Cybersitter banning political
> sites and allegations that extreme right wing Christians are in charge
> of the secret cybernot lists. The best filter is a supervising parent.
> Not only does a parent have common sense but also the 'blocking
> policies' and 'cybernot lists' are known are known to the parents. Any
> parent who trusts an unknown cybernot list with sometimes questionable
> blocking policy is giving away their power to an outside agency. Even
> filtering software from a trustworthy company can not be coded for
> common sense. Unintended sites can be blocked. Do not give your children
> to the care of robots.
> I have a feeling that the "practical and effective complaints mechanism"
> will be a snitch bureau that will pander to the loadest puritains. The
> gov will carefully legislate to make itself not responsible for an
> outcome that will please the God Squad (Lyons Forum) inside the
> "Liberal" Party.
The V-chip will be compulsory on TVs and such and such filters probably
in public places such as libraries and schools. In schools I prefer the
option of no direct connection during school hours, with approved mirror
sites being used instead. At home devices must be made available for the
public to use if they wish. I don't think we can make them compulsory.
>
>
> There seems to be very little to be pleased about in this release. No
> hint that the major objections have been addressed and in fact these are
> not even mentioned in the press release. Not a good sign.
As I've said before, while the Minister for Communications may want one
thing, the Attorney-General sometimes has completely different ideas. I
am trying to make him see in line with what the Communications Policy
Committee has intended for five years.
The overall public opinion is what tends to drive politicians and Rupert
is good at that.
Don't despair, my Committee will do everything in its power to ensure
that the apparent stupidity caused by a lack of understanding doesn't
survive to the legislation stage.
Cheers
Garry
Mark Newton
Garry R. Ford wrote:
> > Is money the only break on online censorship? The internet is
> > a social as well as economic medium. The senator mentioned
> > nothing of the social benefits of the online world.
>
> No, but thanks to Rupert and his merry men, the public only seems
> concerned with paedophiles and related porn.
This is simply not true. The vast majority of "the public" utterly
rejects attempts by the Government to censor the net, even when
those censorship attempts are explained specifically in terms of
"protecting the children" from paedophiles and porn.
If Senator Alston does not recognize this fact, then that can only
reinforce my view that he's an arrogant pinhead who is woefully
out of touch with those he claims to represent.
In early August ABC Radio National conducted an afternoon talk-back
session about the Principles for a Regulatory Framework that have
lead to Alston's memo to the ABA. The callers to that programme
were 100% unanimous in their view that Alston had it completely
wrong, a result repeated in the Friday talkback wrap-up, where
80% of the calls were about the Internet despite three other
"competing" topics.
Two successive days; An announcer deliberately seeding the
conversation with inflammitory examples; And *not one single caller*
supported the Government's current actions.
This is not an isolated incident. Survey after survey, poll after
poll, show that the Australian Public do NOT support content-based
restrictions on the Internet. Yet Alston still feels like he has
support in claiming that those restrictions are necessary to quell
"Community Concern."
Alson is lying to us.
> > ISPs are very much carriers of internet traffic. It sounds as
> > though the gov is determined to legislate as though ISPs are
> > content providers instead of carriers. It would be ludicrous
> > to require a telephone company to be responsible for conversation
> > carried out over telephone lines.
>
> I want a Common Carrier type status for them and have so recommended
> this. This has been pointed out to both senators as a basic defect in
> the current framework principles as too as the inclusion of All state
> and territory laws rather than just criminal laws.
The whole point of "common carrier" status is that a carrier is not
responsible for the content carried over their infrastructure.
When one considers that the entire "Principles for a Regulatory
Framework" document detailed ways in which ISPs could be held
responsible for traffic carried over their services ("would be
refused classification," "participate in the development of an
Australian on-line labelling scheme," the ABA involvement in
complaints procedures, the entire "Role of ABA" section), what,
precisely, is the Government left with if it determines that ISPs
are common carriers?
The fact that omission of common carrier status has been "pointed
out to both senators as a basic defect in the current framework
principles," is meaningless because both Senators have proven
themselves time and time again of being incapable of comprehending
exactly what that means. We've had over four years of trying to
convince the Government that the things they're churning out are
unsuitable, draconian and just plain wrong, but they *KEEP CHURNING
IT OUT!*
> The V-chip will be compulsory on TVs and such
This is truly appalling. The intellectual frailty of our elected
masters is staggering in its breadth and depth! With not one iota
of evidence that TV damages the fragile minds of our young, and
not one iota of evidence that the V-Chip can fix that perceived
problem, it's going to be made compulsory.
> and such filters
> probably in public places such as libraries and schools. In schools
> I prefer the option of no direct connection during school hours,
> with approved mirror sites being used instead.
Which basically closes the coffin lid on the potential of the
Internet as an educational medium. Our current Government's
education policy takes yet another dive...
The moral minority claim that filtering software should be used
because no parent is capable of supervising their children 100% of
the time. When the internet is used in the schoolroom, however,
that just doesn't hold water: it's a teacher's *job* to supervise
children 100% of the time. Severing direct connections, using
censorware, etc are just admissions of laziness which have the
sole effect of diminishing the ability of children to use the 'net
as a research tool.
Why does noone in power understand this?
> At home devices must be made available for the
> public to use if they wish. I don't think we can make them
> compulsory.
The implication being that "we" would if "we" could?
> The overall public opinion is what tends to drive politicians
> and Rupert is good at that.
I repeat -- Rupert is *NOT* reporting the overall public opinion.
Rupert is reporting the opinion of ignorant journalists who have
been guided by tabloid editors to write stories which will grab
attention and cause controversy because attention and controversy
leads directly to newspaper sales and profits for Rupert. Equating
those stories with actual community concern demonstrates a
remarkable lack of political savvy from politicians who have managed
to rise so far, and, once again, my understanding of how such a
thing could happen fails me.
> Don't despair, my Committee will do everything in its power to ensure
> that the apparent stupidity caused by a lack of understanding doesn't
> survive to the legislation stage.
I do not share your faith. Politicians nationwide have remained
resolute, deliberate and determined in their ignorance of the net.
They've had megabytes worth of public submissions to educate them,
and they've still come forth with the kind of crap Alston peddled
in his "Principles for a Regulatory Framework" document.
This is going to be a very frightening year for on-line liberty
in Australia.
- mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem, new...@atdot.dotat.org
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-4-1155-2401 ------------- Fax: +61-8-83034403 -----
Peter Kelly
Garry R. Ford wrote:
> Peter Kelly wrote:
> >
> >
> > ISPs should not be responsible for content on their server other
> than
> > that posted directly by the ISP as a content provider. Has the gov
> > recognised this? There is no hint of this in the press statement.
> >
> Quite true. This what I want the final outcome to be. Unfortunately
> press releases have to be short and sometimes their authors don't
> fully
> appreciate what abbreviating can imply.
>
> >
> > Is money the only break on online censorship? The internet is a
> social
> > as well as economic medium. The senator mentioned nothing of the
> social
> > benefits of the online world.
>
> No, but thanks to Rupert and his merry men, the public only seems
> concerned with paedophiles and related porn.
So true. Propaganda about the evils of a territory always precedes its'
conquest.
> The overall public opinion is what tends to drive politicians and
> Rupert
> is good at that.
The unfortunate heroin trial is testimony to this.
>
>
> Don't despair, my Committee will do everything in its power to ensure
> that the apparent stupidity caused by a lack of understanding doesn't
> survive to the legislation stage.
--
____________________________________________________
"Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature;
sex is a weak second."
- Phil Kerby
____________________________________________________
Peter ? reply to pkellyatwantreedotcomdotau
[ ]
/ \ http://www.wantree.com.au/~pkelly/
____________________________________________________
PGP public Key fingerprint
71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
____________________________________________________
E Bywater
G'day,
Why doesn't they gov't take the simple solution to
the net censorship problem. The gov't establishes
a free net service similar to Net Nanny or the like,
and all net users get an automatic membership with
their ISP service. Then the children can't access
those nasty areas without the password being
given to them by their parent's.
I don't really expect this to be taken seriously as it
is too simple, too logical, and doesn't allow some
pissant beaurocrat to peer over everbody's
shoulder while a politician is peering over his.
Have a good day,
Deadly
Garry R. Ford
Mark Newton wrote:
>
> I repeat -- Rupert is *NOT* reporting the overall public opinion.
> Rupert is reporting the opinion of ignorant journalists who have
> been guided by tabloid editors to write stories which will grab
> attention and cause controversy because attention and controversy
> leads directly to newspaper sales and profits for Rupert. Equating
> those stories with actual community concern demonstrates a
> remarkable lack of political savvy from politicians who have managed
> to rise so far, and, once again, my understanding of how such a
> thing could happen fails me.
>
public opinion. That is all I'm saying here as well. You are only
reinforcving what I said from the outset.
Cheers
Garry
Garry R. Ford
Not as silly as it sounds. Afterall, that is what the V-chip is for
television and pay TV.
Cheers
Garry
Garry R. Ford
Peter Kelly wrote:
>
> Garry R. Ford wrote:
>
> > No, but thanks to Rupert and his merry men, the public only seems
> > concerned with paedophiles and related porn.
>
> So true. Propaganda about the evils of a territory always precedes its'
> conquest.
>
> > The overall public opinion is what tends to drive politicians and
> > Rupert
> > is good at that.
>
> The unfortunate heroin trial is testimony to this.
>
Cheers
Garry