
Australian Government goes to war with Google over net censorship - nreece
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-goes-to-war-with-google-over-net-censorship-20100330-r9bp.html
======
pmccool
"Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in terms of
how content ends up on the blacklist, but last night he again refused to make
the blacklist itself public, saying it would provide people instant access to
the banned material."

This was the most interesting quote in the whole article for me. There is a
parallel with the taboo on swearing, it being impossible to perpetuate the
taboo on swearing without breaking it.

The difference is that the taboo on swearing has always been there. People
just work around it. My feeling is that this law will end up the same way - no
more useful than any other irritating quirk.

I'm skeptical that it will impede political speech, or free trade or whatever
in any significant way. This doesn't mean I'm in favour of the law, though -
it strikes me as a complete waste of time.

~~~
nopassrecover
The government has been using existing powers to try and block political
opposition and the current ban list does ban sites on issues like euthanasia
and gay rights. On top of that I am told that the technology, depending on how
it is implemented, may compromise SSL. These seems significant impediments to
freedom of speech and potentially trade.

~~~
pmccool
My logic there is that impeding political speech makes the law vulnerable to
legal challenge. My opinion is that such a challenge would succeed, hence my
view that, one way or another, it will stay out of areas like trade and
political speech.

~~~
nopassrecover
Only if those provisions are explicitly protected by the text of the
constitution. Since the Engineer's case
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineers_Case>) the High Court has favoured a
literal interpretation of the constitution. Having said that, cases in the
early 1990s established an implied but limited right to freedom of political
communication so hopefully you're right.

~~~
pmccool
Yeah, I think someone will do the obvious thing with this law: find some
obviously-political thing on the blacklist and ask the courts to apply the
test from Lange/Coleman v Power (which build on the early-90s cases you
mention).

So yeah, here's hoping their argument gets up.

------
nopassrecover
I'm not sure how more unaware Conroy can get. He is or has been at particular
stages "unaware" that the internet is different from traditional media like
books, "unaware" that the proposed ban list includes topics like euthanasia or
gay rights, "unaware" that the proposed filter would devastatingly slow
internet, "unaware" that the proposed filter is trivially bypassed by
criminals, "unaware" that he spoke with the US state department who appear
critical of the plan, "unaware" that Google has maintained a pretty strong
stance on user privacy and "unaware" that the Australian people do not want
this.

