Politics

The Government’s nicely-timed announcement last week that they will proceed next year with their Internet censorship scheme has not only drawn widespread ire in Australia but has continued to raise eyebrows overseas. The filter has been covered around the world from the BBC to news outlets in Poland, Pakistan and even China. Unfortunately, it’s not a good look — despite any nuances the policy might have, we’re gaining a reputation as the Iran of the South Pacific

Google Australia posted a statement today on its official blog calling the government’s ISP filter heavy handed and outlining the search giant’s concerns about the scope of filtered content. Google’s major concern is that the scope of filtered refused classification content is too wide, citing a recent report by Australian media academics, professors Catharine Lumby, Lelia Green and John Hartley

The New Zealand government has reintroduced a newly rewritten addition to the Copyright Act which will allow rights’ holders to send copyright notices to ISPs, and force them to pass them on to account holders. Section 92A of the Copyright Act will allow rights holders to take people who have been identified as infringers more than three times in front of a Copyright Tribunal. This law will allow the Copyright Tribunal to hand down either a $15,000 fine or six months internet disconnection. The law specifies that the account holder himself is responsible for what is downloaded via the account, and doesn’t make allowances for identifying the actual copyright infringer if there are multiple computers tied to an account — via Slashdot

Given the recent coverage and controversy over Australia’s forthcoming web censorship system, it is somewhat surprising (and worrying) that Clause 11 of the UK’s proposed Digital Economy Bill seems to have gone by largely unnoticed. It amends the Communications Act 2003 to insert a new section 124H that could give the Secretary of State powers to order ISPs to block pretty much any website for pretty much any reason. Such orders would not require the scrutiny of parliament, or anyone else for that matter, because the Secretary of State would not be required to publish them — via Slashdot

One of Australia’s top communications experts says the Government’s internet censorship trials were designed to succeed from the outset, presented no new information and are now being used by the Government to further its political agenda. His comments came after Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday announced he would introduce legislation before next year’s elections forcing ISPs to block a secret blacklist of refused classification (RC) websites for all Australian internet users. Separately, a report into the scope of content that will be caught up in the net filters concluded that the Government’s policy might lead to a wide range of innocuous material disappearing from Australians’ computer screens. Commentators in Australia and overseas have interpreted Senator Conroy’s policy as pushing the country towards being like repressive regimes such as China and Iran. University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt said the Government had still failed to address serious issues such as whether the internet filtering scheme would result in any meaningful reduction in harmful content and whether it was worth the effort, given the risk that the scope of blocked content could widen significantly

Australia’s lack of constitutionally guaranteed rights made a much higher level of censorship possible in Australia than in other democracies, constitutional law expert Professor George Williams said today. Australia does not have a Bill of Rights which protects free speech at a federal level, said Williams, the Anthony Mason Professor of law at the University of New South Wales. We don’t have the protections that they have in every other democratic country. That means Australia might be subject to far more stringent regulations on the internet than would be possible in other democratic countries

Civil rights and online free speech lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today criticised the government’s internet filtering report, claiming civil rights implications should be the focus rather than the technology’s impacts on internet speed and performance

Google and several other Internet giants are lobbying the UK government to drop a proposal that would allow the secretary of state to introduce new changes to copyright law. The proposal is part of Britain’s Digital Economy bill, a comprehensive package of legislation that contains other controversial measures, including a requirement for ISPs to track illegal file sharing and possibly suspend the accounts of repeat offenders. Last week, Google along with Yahoo, Facebook and eBay sent a letter to Peter Mandelson, first secretary of state and head of the UK’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), asking the government to drop the 17th clause of the bill

German federal president Horst Köhler has refused to sign a law to block child pornography that passed Parliament earlier this year, stating that he needs more information. In Germany, the federal president has the right to reject a law only if its passage violated the order mandated by the constitution, or if it is obviously unconstitutional — he can’t veto a law simply because he disagrees with it. The law was passed under a coalition government, but a different coalition took power before the law reached the president’s desk. Political observers guess that the political parties would like to get rid of the law without losing face, but since it has already passed the Parliament, they can’t simply abandon it — via Slashdot

After the report last week that Brazil’s e-voting machines had withstood the scrutiny of a team of invited hackers, reader ateu writes with news that a hacker has shown that the Linux-based voting machines aren’t perfectly safe; he was able to eavesdrop on them (translated from Portuguese) by means of Van Eck phreaking — via Slashdot

Lord Mandelson will present the Digital Economy Bill to the public, which among other things is aimed at reducing illicit file-sharing. According to parts of the bill that leaked today, the legislation could lead to jail terms for file-sharers and unprecedented power for the entertainment industries

Plans to store information about every phone call, email and internet visit in the United Kingdom have in effect been abandoned by the Government. The Home Office confirmed the Big Brother scheme had been delayed until after the election amid protests that it would be intrusive and open to abuse. Although ministers publicly insisted yesterday that they remained committed to the scheme, they have decided not to include the contentious measure in next week’s Queen’s Speech, the Government’s final legislative programme before the election

The newly formed Australian Pirate Party came out swinging yesterday with a release criticising the international discussions currently being held in Korea to cement an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. These discussions had their roots back in 2006 when the US and Japan floated the idea of a new treaty to help build joint intellectual property rules to fight counterfeiting and piracy. June 2008 saw Australia included along with other countries

European Internet users accused of illicit file-sharing will not be disconnected on the whims of the entertainment industries. After an all night session European Union lawmakers agreed on a compromise text. Those accused will be entitled to a fair and impartial procedure, which will include the right to be heard

Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, warned internet users today that the days of consequence-free illegal filesharing are over as he unveiled the government’s plan for cracking down on online piracy. Mandelson, speaking at the government’s digital creative industries conference, C&binet, confirmed that the internet connections of persistent offenders could be blocked – but only as a last resort — from the summer of 2011. He added that a legislate and enforce strategy was the only way to protect the intellectual property rights of content producers. The strategy, which will be officially set out in the government’s digital economy bill in late November, will involve a staged process of warning notifications with internet suspension as a last resort

In a great blow for consumers everywhere, the prospect of 3-strikes for copyright infringers has returned with a vengeance, as both the EU Council and French Constitutional court pushed forward with their respective legislation. HADOPI is alive, and the EU has shredded requirements for judicial oversight

Germany’s new Government coalition has spoken out against legislation that will allow alleged pirated to be disconnected from the Internet. The two parties, CDU and FDP, agree that such a law is not going to solve the piracy problem. In the coalition agreement that’s currently drafted both parties have agreed not to allow Internet disconnections for alleged copyright infringement offences. The decision is huge blow to the lobbyists of the movie and music industries, but not really unexpected