'Open Government' invites filter discussion

By Liz Tay on Jul 20, 2010 12:38 PM
Filed under Strategy

AGIMO moves forward with Gov 2.0 recommendations.

The Federal Government has invited "continued engagement" in response to online criticism of its Open Government promises and mandatory internet filtering proposal.

Last Friday, outgoing Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner made a 'Declaration of Open Government', in accordance with recommendations provided by the Gov2.0 Taskforce in December.

"[The Government] is committed to open government based on a culture of engagement, built on better access to and use of government held information, and sustained by the innovative use of technology," it declared.

"Collaboration with citizens is to be enabled and encouraged. Agencies are to reduce barriers to online engagement, undertake social networking, crowd sourcing and online collaboration projects and support online engagement by employees, in accordance with the Australian Public Service Commission Guidelines."

Tanner's invitation to engage was followed by 71 comments on his AGIMO blog entry, before the comments were closed for the election period yesterday afternoon.

Many posters welcomed the declaration, but some took issue with the promise of openness while the Government planned to introduce a mandatory, ISP-level internet filter.

One commenter, Gail Tuft, asked: "How can the Gillard government declare Open Government as a commitment when the same government is playing hardball on a mandatory secret censorship system?"

"You can't have both," Tuft wrote. "You are either open and treating Australian adults as adults in the modern world or you are censoring and treating Australian adults as though they are children."

Others, posting under the names Chris, Kanook, Luke P and Greg Khun, suggested that the declaration was "hollow" and a "statement without substance".

"I'd like Labor to be open about your precious internet filter, ACTA, NBN discussions, the constant piling on of matters into the 'Refused Classification' category..." Luke P wrote.

Addressing the criticism, a spokesman for the Department of Finance and Deregulation told iTnews: "As stated in the Declaration, the Government welcomes open discussion and continued engagement."

The declaration is accessible from the Department's website.

'Open Government' invites filter discussion

13 comments in this discussion

"Sorry, Brett, the declaration got censored out also, because it is too dangerous for us to see it. Can't have the punters getting ideas :-("

By anonymous

Tags

agimo, gov20, tanner, finance, filter, dbcde

Feds to 'refresh' data centre facilities panel

Police Federation makes play for unsold 700 MHz

Feds set 2017 deadline for online services

Attorney-General agency implicated in web blocking scandal

Breaking Stories

Bendigo Bank readies mobile payments scheme

NBN Co could miss revised June fibre targets

Tablets conquer Australia-NZ market: analysts

GE partners with AWS for big data project

Wall Street to simulate cyber attack

Comments: 13

ITrant Jul 20, 2010 1:29 PM	"Consultation" or its offspring "engagement" is merely a means by which the most powerful manage the objections of the least powerful. In these times of government by opinion poll. "Engagement" is used to capture objections to be used to frame the spin to be applied to an unpopular measure. "Safety for all" sounds much better than "mandatory filtering". Don't be fooled. Only vote for people who have already actively opposed the filter. A politician's promise isn't worth the paper on which it's written.
EMwyres Jul 20, 2010 1:29 PM	As a parent, and active internet user - I will open the discussion..."Dear Open Government - you plan to filter the internet is ridiculous. You plan to spend $44.5M to block access to certain site which will be completely visible to those who wish to see it anyway. This alone demonstrates that it is a complete waste of money. Please spend the $44.5M on more AFP officers to seek out the hosters of the 355 child pornography websites, remove this material from the internet, and have the creators and distributors of the material prosecuted. This content is already illegal practically everywhere in the world, and mechanisms are already in place to deal with it. Use them, instead of wasting money on this politically motivated exercise in complete futility."
Digger11 Jul 20, 2010 2:34 PM	This is certainly good news. We need to get the filter workign effectivley to stop the filth on the Interent and protect our children and the disadvantaged who cannot look after themselves. The really good news is that the filter has bilateral support so even in Gillard flukes a win, we will still get the filter.
anonymous Jul 20, 2010 5:02 PM	Anyone else think it's funny how Open Government only gets a brief run every three years? And troll off, Dig, you stopped having even some slight humour value long ago.
Ace Jul 20, 2010 5:23 PM	Yes, but it's got to be difficult being a Lib supporter who want a Labor inspired filter :-)
peterniss Jul 21, 2010 1:31 AM	Don't feed the troll (Digger11) please. I say that because nobody who knows anything about the filter would say something so blatantly stupid. I just wanted to share my experience with the internet filter here in the UK (not manditory for subscribers over 18 but still a pain in the butt non the less). I had to resort back to my 3g broadband stick recently and lone behold half the sites in my favourites were blocked (non of which have anything to do with porn or anything remotely dodgy btw). I rang my isp who told me they could do nothing to help and tough cheese basically. I was left scratching my head as to how these sites ended up on the list and why my service provider would do nothing to help me. Its then I realised what Australia is in for and why the current government has conveniently shelved the filter until safely after the election. A filter is not a bad idea if you have small kids, but a manditory filter is just a bad idea for everyone. And its only when its too late will everyone realise this.
Bazwalt Jul 21, 2010 9:17 AM	rolls eyes at digger11 ANYWAY...the whole situation really comes down to being a moral and technical issue. What right does the government have to decide what I view? None What right does the government have to decide what is deemed appropriat for me view? None I pay for the internet and all of its wonders...I expect just that. If I want an added layer of protection on my service...I would expect to pay for it...not just have it thrown over the top of my service without my say so. Technically - It's been proven that this filter has not been tested in all environments. What's worse is that the government is 110% O.K with me bypassing it. So, given the technical knowledge out and about these days...$44M+ of TAX PAYERS money is being wasted on a filter that is neither effective nor illegal to bypass. So what's the point? The fact that we are able to bypass the filter without any legal repercussions is what infuriates me more. Followed by the moral and technical issues. Digger. Please go back to hiding under your rock.
Maxxi2 Jul 21, 2010 10:09 AM	Peterniss, that is a strange example you have from the UK. Are you saying you were getting IWF filtering blocks on half your favorites sites? That is amazing. Never heard of that one before. And it never happened to me in my time there. The response from your ISP was pretty off. First thing your sites did not end up on the IWF list, you might want to look into how that works. Second, does your ISP run it's own commercial filters? Third, the IWF filter at ISPs in the UK is mandatory for ALL users in ISPs that subscribe to the program. It has nothing to do with age. 97% of UK internet users are filtered and the number of complaints or problems is miniscule. You sure it was not another issue, and you have assumed it was the filter? Do you have some screenshots of the IWF deny page naming the URLs in question?
thor Jul 21, 2010 2:58 PM	Maxxi2 you might be correct regarding the UK example but Peterniss bring an excellent point for we need computer based filter system (home filter) rather than ISP base. Working in a high school designing and implementing Filtering system, any high school child knows how to get around the filter. The internet speed there because of the filter was incrediably slow. Digger11- You talk about the filth on the internet, what you determin as filth (gambling, 18+ sex sites, Euthanasia) is a matter of opinion. Things I do believe should be block at an ISP level is child porn. You also say protect the children, most children are more tech savvy than there parents by the time they get to high school. Before that there parents show be the ones to be looking after them, not the government. People complain that the government isnt doing enough to protect but really its the parents job. If they can't protect there kids, maybe they should be having kids in the first place. What the government needs to do is inform the parents on the best way to look after the kids in a safe manner. I believe Tafe course are also available for those that are interested as well (don't quote me on this one.)
anonymous Jul 21, 2010 6:03 PM	@thor, you're absolutely right, but we shouldn't waste our time feeding the trolls. They are just trying to distract us from addressing the biggest assault on the right to access information that we have seen for many years. It seems to be a political power play where the sanctimonious ones want to prevent everybody else from being able to freely access information. They and their willing political cohorts are playing the save-the-children card, when in reality there is no relevance in that to what they are seeking to impose on all of us. Namely, secret government censorship of our access to the Internet.
Rookie Jul 23, 2010 2:53 PM	http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html Comrade Julia and her fellow commies are coming!
BrettWinterford Jul 23, 2010 3:24 PM	What happened to that declaration of "open government"?
anonymous Jul 23, 2010 4:39 PM	Sorry, Brett, the declaration got censored out also, because it is too dangerous for us to see it. Can't have the punters getting ideas :-(