Ask Irene Graham a noted anti-Internet-censorship activist in Australia about what she finds funny about her country's government and she says it treats its "adults as if they are children." Indeed, the Australian government tries to decide what books Australians should read, which types of magazines should the country publish, what type of films should its people see, and above all, what Australians can see and say on the Internet.
Ever since 1999 diverse political parties that have formed the government have made attempts to censor the Internet. But increasingly, say experts, Australia is attempting to prevent public criticism of government policies.
Of course censorship, particularly of the Internet, exists to some extent in all modern countries, including the U.S.A., the U.K., Germany, France, and even Singapore. And in countries with authoritarian governments like China, Iran, Turkey and the like, the Internet is almost shackled like a pet dog.
Yet, says Geordie Guy, director, Electronic Frontiers Australia -- the country's Internet rights group -- suddenly politics within Australia is going through a notable change, where the government is getting increasingly paranoid about the medium.
"The present attitude within the politics in Australia is that the Internet is responsible for a lot of bad things in Australia; and in a way, the Internet is a big problem," he said.
"The Australian government [regardless of which political party is at its helm] is increasingly getting terrified of the Internet. All efforts of the monitoring or censoring the Internet are very much driven by the fear of inability to control the Internet. We understand that to be the case with regard to a lot of other laws as well but all seem to point to the fact that the government is very frightened of the Internet. This is strange because you only see that in undemocratic countries."
Consider the latest move of the present Labor Party-led government.
Last week, ignoring the mounting opposition by voters over its latest Internet censorship polices, the country's federal government proposed to mandate that all ISPs record browsing history and store it. Its justification: everyone's online actions need to be retained "just in case" it's needed in a criminal investigation. According to the Attorney General's Department, the proposal is under consideration.
ISPs are not now required to retain their subscriber's private Web browsing history unless they are given an interception warrant by law enforcement, usually approved by a judge.
This is a matter of grave concern, say critics, since it would make the Internet slower and more expensive for Australians, and would allow the federal government to access personal Internet data without having to seek permission from the courts.
Although Australia is not the first country to consider compulsory data retention -- in 2006 the European Union adopted a policy requiring some states to retain data for between six and 24 months -- critics and ISPs are rattled.
Along with dealing a severe blow to protection of free speech, Australia's tightening grip on the Internet could seriously damage international reputation, they say. For that matter, according to Graham, the Internet censorship regime in Australia may even be getting tyrannical; cutting across political leanings as well.
In 1999, for instance, came the first clampdown on this medium when the Commonwealth (Liberal/National Coalition -- Howard) government introduced Internet censorship legislation (operative from 1 January 2000) which makes information/material, that is lawful for adults offline, subject to government censorship/deletion online when hosted in Australia.
According to Graham, no other Western democracy had then, or has now, Internet censorship legislation which deems material unsuitable for children "prohibited content" online. Governments in other Western democracies have focused on the more effective approach of educating and empowering parents and children in safe use of the Internet, she says
The Commonwealth government in 1999 also decided to block adults' access to overseas-hosted content unsuitable for children on a secret blacklist compiled by a government agency. However, as a result of widespread public criticism and opposition, as well as advice by industry members that ISP-level blocking was not "technically and commercially feasible," the proposed legislation was amended during its rushed passage through Parliament to require ISPs to provide an "approved" filtering/blocking product to customers who wished to use same.
But rather than ending the debate, that Internet censorship legislation turned into a full-fledged controversy. It forced the Commonwealth government to rework that filtering policy several times until the November 2007 federal election, when the Commonwealth government changed to the Labor government, which cancelled the former government's filter program from 31 December 2008.
The Labor government sadly was no better, since, says Graham, it continues the trend of treating adults as if they are children.
Worse, says Darren Churchill, president, Australian Democrats -- a political opposition that espouses a social liberal ideology -- government has no clue about technology.
"Like the Internet filter, the Internet interception won't work -- for the same reasons. The real criminals will use virtual private networks (VPNs) and encryption to avoid being caught," said Churchill in his blog.
Moreover, according to Guy, the Labor government is also trying to bring in a backdoor measure to controlling the Internet. "The government is very focused on what it is being listened to. By controlling the Internet we feel that the government believes that it will be much easier to fight negative propaganda," he said.
Leave a comment