Blackout: 125 websites self-censor to protest filters

By Ry Crozier on Jan 25, 2010 3:14 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Complete round-up of day one.

Open source developer Samba.org and at least two minor political parties were among around 125 websites to ‘black out' today to protest the Government's internet filtering plans.

A search by iTnews also located anti-filter campaigners Stopinternetcensorship and web developer Simon Elvery's homepage among participants.

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) has posted a live list of actual participants, which numbered 125 at the time of writing.

The number is down on the 500 that had earlier pledged to participate but the EFA list included only those that had actually placed the ‘black out' HTML code on their pages today.

An EFA spokesman said the organisation was still working through "board and publisher approvals" before some higher-profile pledges could be fulfilled.

And others were still pledging to participate, meaning the total number of participants by weeks end could hit the 500 mark.

"There's plenty more filing in," the spokesman said.

A tweet earlier today said "more have pledged in 8 hours than over the last four weeks!".

Political interest came from Greens' senator Scott Ludlam and from the Australian Democrats, which issued separate statements in support of the online protest.

Democrats national president Julia Melland encouraged other internet users to black out their facebook or twitter pictures for solidarity.

She said the party would reveal new draft policies "for the internet and classification" in coming weeks.

"The Australian Democrats are committed to doing everything we can, including blocking any legislation should we get Senators up in the Federal election, to stop Australians from having their internet censored," Melland said.

Ludlam said he was also "proud" to take part in the action, which has the backing of Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA).

"Communications Minister Stephen Conroy should start paying attention to the almost universal condemnation of this scheme and pursue alternatives rather than pushing ahead with the mandatory filter," he said.

Blackout: 125 websites self-censor to protest filters

7 comments in this discussion

"I'm pretty sure the government is shaking in their boots about this one. Well, they would be if they knew about it....and if it was a cold day. Who does the filtering? ie: If Telstra sell ..."

By Ace

Tags

internet, blackout, efa, censorship, filtering, isp, level

Industry backs 'workable' filter solution

Conroy abandons mandatory ISP filtering

US six-strikes anti-filesharing system kicks in

Tim Berners-Lee calls data retention a 'really, really bad idea'

Breaking Stories

TransGrid makes the leap to Windows 7

QLD energy provider to outsource IT services

Dotcom threatens to sue web giants over patent 'infringement'

Police tap social media in wake of London attack

Australia joins open government forum

Comments: 7

Sams Jan 25, 2010 8:46 PM	"Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) has posted a live list of actual participants, which numbered 125 at the time of writing." Not sure if it is "live" (dynamic).I put the blackout script my company website this morning it it isn't on the list yet. I've now submitted the form on that page to let them know - so maybe that's they key.
Kookedgoose Jan 25, 2010 9:19 PM	i'm curious to see which ISP's participate. A check of iiNet's website show they are.
Creationist Jan 26, 2010 1:57 PM	I wonder how much good this public hysteria will do to the cause of anti-filter movement? Reminds me of South Park episode, where Canadians went on strike to get "some of that internet money"...
Sams Jan 26, 2010 4:18 PM	You probably need to check the meaning of 'hysteria'. It isn't far past 'hyperbole'.
Slatts Jan 26, 2010 11:29 PM	Creationist wrote: I wonder how much good this public hysteria will do to the cause of anti-filter movement? Reminds me of South Park episode, where Canadians went on strike to get "some of that internet money"... I didn't think that creationists were allowed to watch South Park. It could start them thinking outside the prescribed lines. God knows where that could lead. You'd perhaps be surprised to learn that the general, non internet savvy public is mostly ignorant of the details of Mr. Conroys plans for our medium. Anything that gets the details out in plain view for the general public has got to be a good thing for the debate. Our political representatives are relying on catch phrases like "kiddy porn" and "terrorist bomb makers" to make the general public lean their way and don't want the facts that the filter won't stop any of these things, will cost the taxpayer money and slow the interwebs down. But hey, that's just my opinion.
anonymous Jan 27, 2010 2:41 PM	The Conroy claque are well aware that some people are not well informed about the plan for secret government censorship. That's why they are pushing on with this odious proposal - they think they can pull it off by parroting think of the children. Hopefully most people are more informed about this than the Conroy apparatchiks realise. The attitude of the Greens is a concern. Their recent candidate Clive Hamilton is a big filter supporter, and despite asking some good questions about the filter they have refused to say they will vote against it, but "may move some amendments". Big deal when they could kill it right off by voting with the opposition.
Ace Jan 27, 2010 5:43 PM	I'm pretty sure the government is shaking in their boots about this one. Well, they would be if they knew about it....and if it was a cold day. Who does the filtering? ie: If Telstra sell bandwidth to company X and to startup ISP Y, is Telstra responsible for filtering their customers content? Or are downstream service providers responsible? Say IBM buy an 11Gb connection off Telstra for internal use, does it get filtered? If not, is IBM then responsible for filtering content (they probably do anyway)? Anyway, if internet sites are like the shifting sands on Bondi Beach, then sitting on a beach towel doesn't seem very effective 'protection'. It will either make enough people happy that Labor can fulfil their pledge, or go down as a historic FAIL (which I'm pretty sure is what Howard was afraid of).