I wonder if the government realizes how much damage they're doing to the country's reputation by ensuring that when the rest of the world thinks of the words "Australia" and "Internet," the next word that follows in most people's minds is "censorship." They're practically marketing themselves as a backwater, in the same way Kansas does every time they try to outlaw evolution.
<a href="http://www.wikileaks.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wikileaks.com/</a><p>I guess I've been taking linking for granted.<p>Could any HNers residing in Australia please add their thoughts to this? I could only imagine what would happen if the US did something similar...
FTA: <i>Currently, it is not illegal for internet users in Australia to click on the sites found on the web blacklist. The people targeted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) are webmasters linking out to the sites that the government have flagged up as inappropriate.<p>This could all change, however, if a mandatory internet filtering censorship scheme is implemented – something that is being debated at the moment.</i><p>In case any Australian is reading this, you can bypass Internet censorship with Tor: <a href="http://www.torproject.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.torproject.org/</a>
It is possible that the anarchic nature of the present-day web is an aberration, a symptom of a new technology catching the authorities momentarily unaware.<p>The rapid innovation, widespread criminal activity, anonymity, and other hallmark features of the modern web will likely be tempered as regulation increases. However, humanity will still be better off for its existence than it would be without. It may be suboptimal, but it will not be the end of the world.
I have a few problems with this. Their attempt to block wikileaks is so that no one can see the URLs they blocked. This is a bit of nonsense - no one can argue for the websites - so in effect they can block everything they want.<p>If they have a judge that decides which URLs are blocked maybe it would be right.<p>> The news comes after web forum Whirlpool was threatened with the fine for posting a hyperlink to a blacklisted anti-abortion website.<p>Hmmm... Why? Can they at least give a reason why a site was banned (except promoting a dissenting view)?
So, if you can't see the list of banned sites because the only place to see it publicly is banned, how do you know which links you're not allowed to post? I guess you wait for the $11,000+ fine in the mail which will hopefully tell you what link you then have to remove.<p>It's a monty-pythonish thought, but I keep imagining the letter you receive having the offending link blacked out by the censor's pen, and all the while new fines turning up every day and you frantically removing each link until you get the right one.
This just stinks of a moronic money making scheme. Many countries have a black-list of websites that ISPs don't host links to, most of which are child porn websites or sites used by known terrorists. So why is Australia planning on fining <i>users</i> for clicking on these links and not simply blocking the link?<p>This isn't about censorship, or protecting the greater good. It's about lining pockets and sheer greed.