Conroy and EFA back US on internet freedom

 

Unusual bedfellows support Hillary Clinton on Google-China.

Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy and Electronic Frontiers Australia have separately welcomed US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech on internet freedom.

Senator Conroy was supportive of the internet's role in promoting freedom to express political views but agreed with Clinton's observation that "societies recognise that freedom of expression has its limits".

"Australians have always recognised that there is some content which is not acceptable in any civilised society," he said.

Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Colin Jacobs said the speech was "pretty uplifting". He praised the US for making internet freedom a central plank of its foreign policy and said it was "heartening that the Australian Government was on board".

"[Though] why [the Government is] pursuing filtering at the same time is, quite frankly, mystifying to us," Jacobs said.

Conroy said that the Australian Government's filtering policy covered only content that was already illegal to sell, distribute or otherwise make available in Australia.

Content classification decisions were also made "at arm's length from the Government", he said.

"Refused Classification-rated material includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use. It does not include political content or discussion," Conroy said.

"Critics of the policy continue to mislead the Australian public by suggesting that any content other than RC-rated content will be blocked."

Dark corners of the net

Clinton's speech was critical of countries that "erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world's networks" for the purposes of non-violent political speech.

And she put China on notice that the West would watch China's response to Google's threat last week to end censoring of domestic search results.

"We look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement," she said. "And we also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent."

But she said that "societies recognise that free expression has its limits". These included use of the internet for terrorism and "hate speech".

"Make no mistake - some are and will continue to use global information networks for darker purposes," Clinton said.

"Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit these global networks.

"When it comes to censorship, we believe that having an international effort to establish some rules over internet connectivity and trying to protect the basic freedoms I discussed is in the long-term interest of business, and frankly, I would argue, governments."

Update 4.01pm: EFA has released a formal statement on Conroy's comments, describing them as "highly ironic" and "a cynical twisting of Clinton's words by a Minister on the defensive".


Conroy and EFA back US on internet freedom
"Very well said, gaz+1, we should always make every allowance for those who appear to be showing a number of signs of some interesting personality variations. Unless they are just representing a ..."
By anonymous
 
 
 
Comments: 24
Thysce
Jan 22, 2010 4:04 PM
"societies recognise that freedom of expression has its limits"

That's not up to "Con"roy to decide to speak on behalf of the majority.
Mark D
Jan 22, 2010 4:49 PM
Do

"Critics of the policy continue to mislead the Australian public by suggesting that any content other than RC-rated content will be blocked."

said the politician

Conroy said that the Australian Government's filtering policy covered only content that was already illegal to sell, distribute or otherwise make available in Australia.

However 100% legal to own and view.

Content classification decisions were also made "at arm's length from the Government", he said.

Implemented by the Government and enforced by Government Servants.

"Refused Classification-rated material includes child sex abuse content"..

& other apparently morally grey topics used to socially engineer society.


“Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” (American Judge and associate justice of the US Supreme Court)

This is a tool of censorship, not matter how its justified.

http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/12/21/further-thoughts-on-the-filter/

Loop
sputnik
Jan 22, 2010 5:42 PM
Conroy has got to be the biggest liar / twister of words out there, take this excerpt from Clinton's speech,
"But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes."

And Stephen Conroy's internet filter doesn't do that?

Stephen, this filter idea is a dead duck!
Maxxi
Jan 22, 2010 9:51 PM
Hey Sputnik.... Nope, the proposed ISP filter does not "...systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes."

If you have any clear and documented cases where it does just that, then bring 'em on...

However, please exclude cases where:

"it might have", or
"it will...", or
"according to xxxxxxx it may do in the future...", or
cases where folks have *interpreted* it happening..., or
cases where a couple of pix on a single page on an "abortion" site have been blocked..., or
similar vague and interpreted or speculated instances...

You probably want to have a think about the concept of "systematically"...

ATM I am assuming that you are not one of the unhinged loolas who compare Australia to China in this regard, or who assumes that the classification board will now suddenly lose the plot completely (who could be that dumb to believe that, right??) and start classifying genuine political debate as RC...

I mean, can you believe it that there are dopes out there compare the proposed filter to China's censorship and human rights practices.

If the proposed filter is a violation of rights, and it is foreseen to filter RC content, then some folks are suggesting thereby that the distribution and display of RC content is a right in Australia...

I believe the law is pretty clear on the distribution and display of RC content in Australia?

Maxxi
Jan 22, 2010 10:00 PM
Ahhh Thysce... Actually, as a federally elected Senator of Australia and a Minister, he can speak on behalf of the Australian people....

And as the ALP received a majority vote in the 2007 election, he is also within his rights to speak for the "majority"...

On top of all that, there is no solid proff whatsoever that the majority of Australians disagree with what he said...

Scads of assertions and assumptions, claims and wishful thinking, noise and pretty small protests, but no verifiable proof that the majority disagree with him at all...
Dazzer
Jan 22, 2010 10:36 PM
@Maxxi

Censorship is a slippery slope, one that never ceases to end. The only way it will end is blanket censorship ala China, otherwise it ceases to be effective at all. Sounds like a justifiable comparison. But regardless...

At first it was about child porn, and that appeased most people. Then it was voluntary, and that appeased most people.

Now its not just child porn, and its not voluntary. That is a big shift, and some people are not happy about being lied to.

You want an example? Lets take Euthanasia sites for example. While these sites simply contain information about euthanasia, they have been put in the blacklist. Euthanasia is an important issue that is still up for debate in the political arena all around the world. If this isn't the suppression of political dissent I don't know what is.

And guess what... this billion dollar system will be easily circumvented by a proxy service that'll take me 1 minute to go to. So what will happen next? Block the proxy services? (Btw, China already does this. See where we're going?) I can still pay good money for an offshore VPN easily. For example, iPredator by Pirate Bay guys have just launched.

And in order to combat this, it'll suddenly become illegal to provide, advertise, link to, provide instructions on using proxy services.

And people seem to have forgotten what happened when WikiLeaks leaked the UBERSECRET blacklist. They got blocked too. Why? Shouldn't their magnificent system block all the sites on the list anyway? So if by the very act of linking to RC material is enough to put you on the list, then what about media that links to wikileaks? Suddenly, MEDIA censorship is in play.

And finally... as if I need to remind people of how the HEAD of auDA expedited the first shutdown of www.stephen-conroy.com.au and attempted a 2nd shutdown.

Just ask yourself... who is this filter designed to protect. This has never been about protecting the Australian public. Even in its original conception it has done NOTHING to protect children from exploitation. All it does is sweep previously public problems under the proverbial carpet through deception and distraction.

If there's anything good to come about this... think about the thousands and thousands of jobs created due to the thousands and thousands of new/updated sites that need to be tracked, reviewed (by a process, one would hope) and classified. (And handled offshore by Indian tech centers. Just kidding)
gaz+1
Jan 22, 2010 10:39 PM
Poor poor Maxxi, time to go & take your medication & have a little nana nap. Hopefully when you wake up those nasty delusions of yours will have gone away and you can join us in the real world again.
Ken M
Jan 22, 2010 10:49 PM
Hi Maxxi,

The Classification Board will not be in charge of determining what is and what isn't prohibited.

Minister Conroy has said that the Australian Communications and Media Authority will determine whether the content would /likely/ be prohibited by the Classification Board. They can ask the CB to classify the content, but they don't need to.

Also, unlike the current open classification laws, there is no built-in accountability: the blacklist is secret. There is also no avenue for appeal--the ACMA's decision is secret, final and binding.

Concerns about how web pages are to be classified are valid.
Mic
Jan 22, 2010 11:05 PM
Brilliant example of the Rudd Government's mastery of media relations, right there.

Our most important ally comes out in completely unambiguous opposition to the plans of our own government, who still manage to stand up and heartily agree with them, yet still maintaining that completely contrary stance and using soundbites of Ms Clinton's speech to even support their fundamentally opposed position.

It's pure art.
j_soundham
Jan 22, 2010 11:08 PM
Maxxi, in the midst of your desperate ellipsis-peppered attempts to once again frantically defend the Labor party's misguided censorship policy at all costs, you seem to have stumbled upon several erroneous conclusions.

Let's go through these:

Maxxi wrote:
Hey Sputnik.... Nope, the proposed ISP filter does not "...systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes."


Wrong. Look up the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically Article 19. I'll provide you with a URL, as your habit of placing three full stops at the end of each sentence appears to be interfering with your ability to research and appraise such information: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19

Additionally, the privacy concerns raised by Conroy's despicable censorship plan centre around the fact that the censorboxes will operate by having the ISP intercept user requests, which is illegal under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. I refer to this document: http://www.aph.gov.au/HANSARD/senate/dailys/ds160609.pdf

So there you go, systematic violation of rights and privacy for those who use the internet. I would attempt to tailor this further to your list of requested exclusions, but as you have included in that list examples where "it will" happen, there is obviously no point, as this is tantamount to saying "show me photographs of a blue sky, except where the sky is blue".

Maxxi wrote:
ATM I am assuming that you are not one of the unhinged loolas who compare Australia to China in this regard, or who assumes that the classification board will now suddenly lose the plot completely (who could be that dumb to believe that, right??) and start classifying genuine political debate as RC...


This is statement is wrong on several levels. First of all, do the "loolas" you refer to include Reporters Without Borders and the former High Court judge The Hon Michael Kirby? By the way -- great tactic in using that great time-honoured tradition of resorting to name-calling rather than a well-resourced argument backed up by factual evidence! You're sure to win supporters for the cause with that technique.

Secondly, the Classification Board will only be classifying URLs in rare instances; mostly it will be faceless bureaucrats at the ACMA making the decisions, which of course we in the public won't be allowed to know about, let alone what the URLs are, let alone which URLs have or haven't been added to the blacklist. Until they're blacklisted. Which is just one of the things that makes me wonder why you're here cheerleading the scheme tirelessly, week after week -- the Party really must admire how dedicated you are.

Thirdly, the blacklist already contains a URL of a JPG image which displays nothing but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in French. I'd link to it right here but unfortunately I'd be risking fines of $11,000 per day plus takedown notices for the host site. Bummer, hey, because you know what that is? Political censorship. If you don't believe me, go to Wikileaks and look at the leaked ACMA blacklist, and search for a JPG file named 1141585317032.JPG.

Maxxi wrote:
I mean, can you believe it that there are dopes out there compare the proposed filter to China's censorship and human rights practices.


Can you believe that censorship supporters such as yourself have to resort to namecalling because you don't have a single intellectually honest argument to back up your position that isn't merely a misleading talking point invented by special interest groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby?

Also, I do find it ironic that here you are, using the freedom to post whatever you like on the internet to call for an end to that very freedom. It's like wearing a T-shirt that says "People shouldn't wear T-shirts".

Maxxi wrote:
If the proposed filter is a violation of rights, and it is foreseen to filter RC content, then some folks are suggesting thereby that the distribution and display of RC content is a right in Australia...


Well, if you'd like to start throwing away some other articles on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, how about Article 4? "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." Would you like to be my personal slave, Maxxi? If so, then get me a glass of water. Now.

Maxxi wrote:

On top of all that, there is no solid proff whatsoever that the majority of Australians disagree with what he said...


I'm assuming by "proff" you mean "proof", in which case I can direct you to the following media polls, all of which show that the strong majority of Australians do not want Internet censorship.

http://www.netspace.net.au/filtering/results.php
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/web-censorship-plan-heads-towards-a-dead-end/2009/02/26/1235237810486.html?page=fullpage
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/form.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUURAqx522Y

So much for no solid proof whatsoever.

I eagerly await your response, Maxxi, and maybe this time instead of name-calling and a total lack of supporting evidence, you can bring some intellectual honesty and evidence of research to the debate.
Dangolbery
Jan 22, 2010 11:42 PM
Haha, Conroy thinks he's untouchable! If you back them now they won't come after you later, right Conroy?

This sounds quite like the sort of press release dictators give to 'throw people of the scent'... "We are disgusted by the genocide taking place in [said country]" says the dictator secretly performing genocide.
Sams
Jan 23, 2010 9:06 AM
"Critics of the policy continue to mislead the Australian public by suggesting that any content other than RC-rated content will be blocked."

Equivalent statement: will promise only to censor what we decide should be censored.
peterh_oz
Jan 23, 2010 2:24 PM
Maxxi said:
And as the ALP received a majority vote in the 2007 election, he is also within his rights to speak for the "majority"...

1. The current proposal is NOT consistent with the policy taken to the election.

2. Not EVERY policy is agreed to by every voter. Voter vote for a candidate/party due to SOME policies - either policies they agree with OR policies by the opposition that they disagree with. But not EVERY policy. Howard won the previous election, so does that mean we agreed with WorkChoices? And if so then why did Labor remove it, seemingly against the will of the people?
Maxxi
Jan 23, 2010 10:19 PM
Hey guys, I once again feel loved and cared for.... Thanks for the responses, warms my heart to see you all taking time out to think through whether statements and comments made correlate with the facts and have some value of precedence, and are responded to in context...

Some folks really struggle with this concept of context.

Hi peterh_oz: You are mixing up the filter issue with Conroy's position as minister.Remember the context of the point in question, as you have gone off on a tangent. He can speak for Australians as minister, that is part of his job and comes with the territory. That does not automatically mean he has majority support, it means he is a federal minister. He has all rights to speak the governments position on issues, whether you or I like it.

Remember, you have to take statements in context, otherwise you are risking misrepresentation...
Maxxi
Jan 23, 2010 10:22 PM
Hey Sams... How you come to relate the first sentence witht he second sentence is beyond the realms of English mate...

If the policy and proposed legislation is for RC, and is implemented as such, what does that have to do with:

"what we decide should be censored."

??

Nice try though.
Maxxi
Jan 23, 2010 10:41 PM
Hallo j-soundham...

Thanks for correcting that typo, sadly this forum does not have an edit function that I could locate...

Unfortunately online polls do not qualify as proof. It has been proven often that they are easily manipulated. I had a cracker of a laugh a while ago as a Whirlpool poster told the forum to wait while he "adjusted" one of the polss. lol.

Fabulous result, suddenly around 1000 votes against the filter were registed in 10 mins....

hmmmmmmmm....?

In addition, online polls are always slanted by the readership and activismn levels, with no individual verification.

15 active voters can make it look like 1500 pretty fast... >;))

Please bring us some verifiable polls that document an actual polling of a cross section of the population by a major polling organisation.

Thanks...

Now to the articles of the Human Right Convention, I propose you zip on down to Article 19, and read that article *in it's entirety*...

The govs proposed legislation and ISP filter contravenes zero human rights convention. Zero.

If the gov decides to filter out content that has been defined as RC by the classification board, and thus us illegal to display in Australia, then they are fully within their rights and accord with all ratified international rights conventions to do so.

What is so hard about that.

I enjoyed that glass of water, thanks for the suggestion.

I have not name-called anyone who opposes the filter as such, never once... That is their full right to do so and I have always defended that right to do so.

But if someone starts making ridiculous and blatanly mislewading statements devoid of fact, seeking to sidetrack the real facts of the discussion, then I am fully within my rights to challenge them.

If anyone really wants to compare the proposed Australian filter with the Chinese internet censorship practices, then I am abjectly sorry but they qualify as charged Mr Soundham...

People die and rot in jails in China, get beaten and tortured in China, the country has been proxied off state by state, etc etc. Someone would have to be off their rocker to compare Australian conditions with those.

And who is calling for an end to freedoms to post? Where oh where oh where do you get your info??

This forum is not RC the last time I looked??

Get a grip mate. lol

I will follow-up on the other questions later, but in the meantime read the actual words this time OK, and present my words and statements as they were written, not with some misinterpretation...

Facts and Australian precedence vs speculation, assertions and assumptions would be great...

Thanks again...
Maxxi
Jan 23, 2010 11:01 PM
Hi Ken M: The proposed legislation and process foresees ACMA being able to define a "potentially RC" decision, and then forwarding these to the CB for formal classification.

"These include having all complaints relating to overseas-hosted content that are initially assessed by ACMA as potentially RC referred to the Classification Board for formal classification to check that the ACMA assessment is correct."

This proposed process covers all RC defintions for the blacklist... All.
Maxxi
Jan 23, 2010 11:07 PM
Hey gaz+1, delusions result from people believing misrepresentations, unsubtantiated claims, presumptions, assumptions and unsupported assertions.

The statements I challenged were predominantly in those categories, and I have challenged for foundation, precedence in context and factual substantiation.

If they cannot be presented without resorting once again to the same manner of postulation, then they could be providing food for delusion themselves.

I see though that your eloquence has reached new heights. Well done & gratz mate.
Maxxi
Jan 23, 2010 11:11 PM
Greetz Dazzer... Australia has been on this "slippery slope" of censorship for over 90 years and we still have one of, if not the most free and open society on the planet...

Not a bad place to slip into...

Hard to reconcile one with the other mate?

As for the $billion system...? hmmmmm...

Just gets better all the time.

Have a great weekend.
Dangolbery
Jan 23, 2010 11:37 PM
Maxxi you've hit the nail on the head. Everyone is misinterpreting everything! I don't know why they even argue with you, you're really smart and you prove this by using heaps of big words. Go Maxxi!

But yeah, everyone should just relax and let the minister do what he needs to. We elected him now let him do his job, he is only going to do what's best for us after all. I don't know it yet but being able to play scary video games (Left 4 Dead 2, normal version) has turned me into a psychopath. Luckily Conroy knows this and will make it possible so i can't download and play these, unsuitable for sale in Australia, games anymore. I thank him in advance for knowing what's best for me, cause i sure don't.
Maxxi
Jan 23, 2010 11:40 PM
Guys, time for my 5 weeks leave. You will have a decent break from my ramblings...

Enjoy.
Dazzer
Jan 24, 2010 12:58 AM
Greetz Maxxi,

so you do admit we are on this slippery slope. Thus, by that , you agree that it is possible for the country to potentially slip even further if this goes ahead. In fact, it is people like us who are trying to prevent this country from slipping even further, and acting for progressive change. I wholeheartedly support the right for a R18 rating for games, for example.

Like I said before... this is about control of information, not protection. The internet is the last form of media that has not suffered from the clutches of censorship as yet. And this is but the tip of the ice berg.

And No I don't believe this is good place to slip into.

Re: $billion system. Yes I understand that its initial cost is estimated at a couple of million. Just abit of hyperbole in the heat of the debate. Forgive me. However, I have no doubt that the costs of maintaining such a system will escalate these costs to a significant amount both in monetary terms and manpower. Lets not even start on the potential impact on businesses.

Also, you have conveniently not answered any of my questions, which is understandable; it seems you are the only one in the pro-censorship camp getting most of the flak. I ask again: Who does this system benefit? How does it benefit those people, and what is its effectiveness?

We can see that there are alot of people here who do not agree with you. While it is possible that everyone else is in the wrong... it is more than likely that you might be on the wrong side of the fence. Which is regrettable, as you are obviously someone of considerable intellect.

Unfortunately, since you will be gone for the next 5 weeks, I will probably not be able to see a reply.

Anyway, please watch this.

http://www.babelgum.com/3021436/good-internet-censorship.html

For the record, I am from a country where media censorship is publicly active. While it may seem like our society is functioning fine, this country is comparable to a police state. And this is a country with democratic election processes. (I'll let you figure out which country this is). Yes, I'm not an Aussie citizen, but I'm still a person living in this country, with many Aussie mates, and paying my due tax. I have many reasons to fight for this cause.

Stop thinking about what is happening now. We are fighting against what could happen in the future.
gaz+1
Jan 24, 2010 1:07 PM
Maxxi Said: "delusions result from people believing misrepresentations, unsubtantiated claims, presumptions, assumptions and unsupported assertions."

Congratulations Maxxi by recognising the symptoms of your affliction you have taken the first steps on the road to recovery.

While 5 weeks may not be enough to cure you, I'm sure if your medications are right & you have lots of nice quiet nana naps while you are on "holidays" your delusions and propensity to regurgitate the drivel sprouted by Conroy will be a bit more under control.

Remember Maxxi no matter how long it takes, we’re here for you and will always do our best with clear, concise, facts and rationality to help you put your delusions back in the box where they belong.
anonymous
Jan 24, 2010 2:25 PM

Very well said, gaz+1, we should always make every allowance for those who appear to be showing a number of signs of some interesting personality variations.

Unless they are just representing a shadowy someone or something else, of course, in which case all the usual blogger remedies can and will be applied.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
ATO commits to complexity
Greater demand, fewer apps.
 
Photos: AusCERT 2013 day two
The second day of the Queensland security conference.
 
The illusion of cognitive computing
Opinion: IBM's Watson is a marketing success.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
To automatically deploy test/dev sandboxes by mid-year.
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Data safe with Human Services, CIO says.
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Technology chief shifts focus from building to leveraging systems.
VicRoads restructures IT team
VicRoads restructures IT team
Department moves to align with industry benchmarks.
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Malaysian staff served from Australian data centres.
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Yarra Valley Water CIO Leigh Berrell accepts his Benchmark Award for Utilities CIO of the Year.
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Domino's Pizza CIO Wayne McMahon accepts his Benchmark Award for Retail CIO of the Year.
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
CIO Jenny Levy discusses how outsourcing will help the firm "simplify, refocus and grow".
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Daniel McCabe, Assistant Secretary of Australia's Department of Defence, provides the audience at the iTnews Data Centre Strategy Summit with a deep dive into the organisation's data centre consolidation program.
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
The full keynote by Facebook data centre architect Marco Magarelli at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit. Magarelli details the design considerations behind the social network's Prineville, Oregon; North Carolina and Luleå, Sweden data centres.
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Telstra general manager of managed data centres Jon Curry guides the audience at the iTnews Australian Data Centre Summit through the build of the telco's Clayton, Victoria data centre.
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
Matthew Clark from the NSW Department of Environment guides facilties managers through the details of the new NABERS data centre energy rating tool at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit.
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
Matthew Clark (NSW Dept of Environment), Greg Boorer (Canberra Data Centres), Glenn Allan (National Australia Bank), Mike Andrea (Strategic Directions) and Bob Sharon (Green Global Consulting) discuss the impact of the NABERS data centre rating.
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Fortescue Metals 'New World of Work" project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss the shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Pacific Aluminium's lightning fast service desk refresh, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Domino's Pizza's shift to hosted services, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss McDonald's Australia's new self-service portal for employees, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss ING Direct's 'Bank in a Box', one of three shortlisted finalists for the banking and finance category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Yarra Valley Water's insourcing project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Utilities category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Latest Comments
Polls
Do you prefer the Coalition's NBN policy?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 1730

Vote