Alston - Big Brother? Or a Brave New World

Censorship...
Say the word Censorship in mixed company and within thirty seconds you can usually create a pretty realistic simulation of a war zone; so when Senator Alston's Internet regulation proposals hit the streets, or rather, went online, there was bound to be a reaction.
I discussed the issue with a work mate who actually marched against censorship in the seventies and to my surprise, he was all for it.
"You can never have too much censorship."
I staggered to my chair. He felt that it was about time the internet was pulled into line. I certainly don't have a problem with people not having access to things that are illegal in this country. You can't tell me that I have a "right" to look at child pornography. You can't tell me I have a "right" to buy weapons or learn to build bombs to slaughter my neighbours just because I can't deal with relationships in a normal mature manner.
Being a great fan of "Frontline" I am very skeptical about what the media et al think I have a "right" to know. Thus, I was reticent in lending my support to the Alston bashers - much as it hurts me to support any politician!

A summary of the Bill

After reading the Bill these are the main points as I understand them: (local refers to ISPs, hosts or whatever located in Australia, ABA= Australian Broadcasting Authority) In brief: The Bill proposes that material posted on the internet be subject to the same rules and regulations in place for broadcasting in this country. This will, by nature restrict the access ot material deemed unsuitable for children or illegal. Included in this category are online games and anything that could be classified as a film under the definition used by the ABA. Material being targetted is that which has : NOT been Classified by the ABA (it can be classified if required) Refused Classification Classified R or X What happens if material of this kind is found on a local Local ISPs? ISPs will be investigated and if the ABA are satisfied that the material is unsuitable, then the ISP will be served with an interim notice to remove the material A final notice will be served to remove the material What happens next is either the material will be removed, or the police take over. What happens if the material is NOT from a local source? Local hosts will be held accountable, as per local ISPs Local ISPs will be required to filter the source of the material. Federal police will be notified... How does the ABA find out about this stuff? Anybody who finds something "offensive" or illegal or dubious may make a complaint in writing. The ABA investigate the complaint to see if it is valid under the terms of the Bill Appeals: You can appeal against a finding of the ABA Reclassifications can only be done after a period of 2 years, unless exceptional circumstances are involved. I think these are the main points of the Bill.

Regulation
In attempting to regulate this young but dynamic industry, Senator Alston is really venturing into unknown territory and has hit the turmoil associated with all such ventures into the unexplored void. There has never been such a vast network of information available in the history of the world, so it is not surprising that legislators are somewhat on the back foot on this issue, given that they still seem to have trouble legislating for issues that have been with us for hundreds of years, but that's another story.
I was interested to see the violent reactions that the Bill has provoked. (Though I do wonder how many of the dissenters have actually sat down and waded through the 22 or so pages of it!)
The legislation seems largely aimed at regulating and forming some kind of standard for material and services available to Australian users in much the same way that other media are currently regulated. At least the legislators finally recognise the electronic media as a valid transmitter of information and not just a gimmick as seems to have been the case in the past.
In theory, this should ensure a high quality of service from ISPs and a measure of protection for minors in terms of access to material deemed undesirable. Few people would suggest that they would like their child to see some of the material currently circulating on the net. The problem is, parents and carers can regulate (to a reasonable extent) and guide minors in terms of the TV they watch and the printed material they have access to. (The protesters are silent on the issue of television censorship.)The net is much harder to monitor due to the anonyminity of the user.
Making ISPs accountable for what is on their machines probably a good idea in terms of policing the legislation; each ISP will become a watchdog for fear of the consequences! Hopefully, if you don't break the law you have nothing to fear.
However, what of sites originating in countries whose laws are not the same as ours? Here we must go global, still a difficult concept for most people, who never leave the omnipotence of the universe contained in their own head. This opens up a whole new set of problems where country based laws are no longer effective due to the very nature of the internet. Appearing on the ABC's 7.30 report on the 3rd of May, Senator Alston seemed unable to describe just how the censorship or filtering of non-Australian sites would work, suggesting that like the majority of people in charge of this kind of issue, his understanding of how the internet works is somewhat limited.
Although Senator Alston no doubt means well, the problem with the Bill is its methodology and it is this that has the screamers furiously protesting. It seems that the blocking of sites remains key word based, which we all know has a high margin of error.
A case in point: my current employer's server refused access to an article about the effects of acid-rain on forests. Presumably the word "acid" might have certain illegal drug connotations! (Or was there a bare bummed hippy tied to a tree somewhere in there?)
I have always felt that one of the great things about this country was the protection of its citizens in a sensible way, without all of the silliness and aggression that is evident in some other countries where so-called civil-rights are abused, reinterpreted or ignored. Whatever happens on this issue, I doubt very much that it will result in the end of civilisation as we know it.
All those who oppose the Bill can take heart in the fact that a certain independent Senator is unlikely to support it... because it doesn't go far enough!!