Research: Internet censorship best left to individuals

 

Report part-funded by Google concludes mandatory filtering regime "misconceived".

Two UNSW researchers have called for a review of media content regulations in Australia to aid consistency and cut confusion across criminal codes in state and federal laws.

University of NSW professors Kate Crawford and Catharine Lumby said in a 60-page report released last night that the Federal Government also needed to rethink its attempts to regulate converged media environments like the internet.

They said that the internet could not be considered a "singular medium" like radio, TV or cinema and therefore should not be subject to traditional forms of government regulation.

"It is a whole new media environment that incorporates many media forms," the professors noted.

"This requires us to rethink how we regulate content, protect vulnerable groups and define the relationship between media consumers and media producers."

Traditional media regulation was assumed to be a matter between government and industry, according to the report.

It also assumed audiences were "largely passive bodies of consumers" where the Government's role was to intervene and protect against inappropriate content.

"In contrast to this model, contemporary media [i.e. internet] users are not just 'consumers' – they are highly active, and are often media producers and distributors," the report stated.

"Within social networking services that host extraordinary quantities of data it is users who are the most likely to identify offensive material and to notify the relevant host or government agency."

The researchers suggested that individuals – not governments or industry – were best placed to determine the appropriateness of internet content in the age of converged media.

They also recommended the creation of a "Convergent Media Board" to consider social, cultural and regulatory issues and identify areas for further policy debate and research.

The report, entitled The Adaptive Moment: A Fresh Approach to Convergent Media in Australia, was part-funded by Google Australia and featured input from the Internet Industry Association's outgoing chief Peter Coroneos.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Research: Internet censorship best left to individuals
computer keyboard chained
"Yes still the debate rages. I simply run opendns, there is others the kids are blocked from the majority of porn, simple. I can easily add content or not as I see fit to protect my kids. I am sure ..."
By pameacs
 
 
 
Comments: 7
mrhasbean
May 6, 2011 7:26 AM
Wow, amazing, you mean it's best for people to take responsibility for what they and their kids look at on the 'net?

Who'd have thought...
umbria
May 6, 2011 10:16 AM
Get real.

How are busy working parents supposed to regulate what their kids see on the Net between 3pm and their getting home from work? Antivirus, malware protection and ISP-level blacklist filtering are cheap and low-impact ways to prevent a lot of unwanted content from reaching home and business computers. The fact that a minority will circumvent them does not justify not using them.

Our kids deserve our very best efforts to protect them, and I cannot see how anyone can object to blocking content online that is illegal to distribute in Australia offline.

The false-positive argument about ISP-level blacklisting of RC material is easily answered by comparing it to antivirus programs. Should it occur the affected resource is simply whitelisted - you don't turn off the antivirus program!
TReichle
May 6, 2011 12:07 PM
@umbria

>How are busy working parents supposed to regulate what their kids see on the Net between 3pm and their getting home from work?

>ISP-level filters are not cheap and not low-impact

See the slow down problems and how much it will cost to run

Installing filters on the computers at home. That is the cheap and low-impact solution.

Most home-routers these days also have a blacklist ability

Sure you can circumvent these but they are harder to circumvent then the ISP-level.

>Our kids deserve our very best efforts to protect them

Yes and the best one is not the isp-level one

>I cannot see how anyone can object to blocking content online that is illegal to distribute in Australia offline.

And how do you know it is only the illegal content that will be blocked?

>The false-positive argument about ISP-level blacklisting of RC material is easily answered by comparing it to antivirus programs. Should it occur the affected resource is simply whitelisted

And how do you know if something is false-positive? To bring it too the attention of the people in charge means you have to admit to circumventing the filter

ALSO

example.com is offensive to some people. example.com is not illegal.

The only way you can block it is through voluntary filters on your network.
Mitch
May 6, 2011 12:19 PM
Indeed put filters on your own PC and stop expecting the crap as hell government to do your parenting.

HubertCumberdale
May 6, 2011 4:13 PM
umbria wrote:
How are busy working parents supposed to regulate what their kids see on the Net between 3pm and their getting home from work?

So basically the filter only needs to be turned on during those hours. No need to inconvenience everyone all day. Between 9am and 3pm kids are at school and that is filtered anyway right? Between 8pm and 8am kids should be asleep so no need to have it switched on in this period either. So 8am to 9am and 3pm to 8pm the filter only needs to be active during these periods. oh yes and on weekends too.
grump3
May 6, 2011 6:38 PM
Conjob has proposed secret blacklist of "undesirable" sites & topics to be blocked, including information on abortion, euthanasia, drug use & possibly anything else the Govt of the day wants to hide from the public.
No doubt Wikileaks would be included.

Sure to please the Christian lobby & irresponsible parents too lazy to supervise their kids properly or lock down their PCs with content filters.
pameacs
May 7, 2011 8:44 AM
Yes still the debate rages. I simply run opendns, there is others the kids are blocked from the majority of porn, simple. I can easily add content or not as I see fit to protect my kids. I am sure with tech savvy and some time and effort they can circumvent it. When I find out they loose the computers. No access at all. It's called parenting. Also I am concerned that parents are allowing there kids to be home for lengthy periods with out some one present. Ok perhaps you are running late and would have been home half an hour later, that is different and I am sure that little Johnny would be keenly hacking your set up knowing mum or dad could walk through the door any minute. Perhaps we have a whole new business her for the adult education program of TAFE for a) proper parenting and b) How to set up home internet so that your kids cant access content.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
computer keyboard chained
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 510

Vote