At 04:46 PM PM 24/07/2001, David Goldstein wrote:
>I agree there must be safeguards, but is it really the best way to
>make publicly available a list of URLs to the public? After all, some
>of this will no doubt, if they are outside Australia, still contain
>content such as child pornography. I hardly think that it's advisable
>to provide an online "street directory" of child pornography.
>
>And the OFLC database doesn't contain the contact details of the
>"publisher" as does the publication of the URL for a web page. It's
>not just paedophiles either, the growing vigilante groups would
>surely use information such as this to target people.
>
>There must be another way to keep the ABA accountable without making
>public the information.
David,
Your allegations about an "online street directory of child pornography"
are presumptuous and offensive.
EFA has challenged the grounds on which the ABA denied an FOI request for
information about the operation of the scheme. Either they have valid
grounds at law to so deny, or they don't. We have asked the AAT to decide
on a question of law, as is our democratic right.
If Australia's Internet censorship system is operating as advertised:
1. Australian sites that are found to contain prohibited content should no
longer be online.
2. Overseas sites so found should be filtered by filter software.
3. Child pornography should have been referred to the police, whether
found in Australia or overseas, and duly prosecuted. In any case, EFA has
indicated that it does not expect information about child pornography to be
released. (There were only 4 such complaints out of about 80+ for the
period in question).
The period of time covered by the FOI request was the first two months of
2000, plenty of time for all of the above outcomes to be achieved. The
Minister himself does not believe information about ABA decisions should be
censored (see Hansard extract below).
Until the AAT decision is handed down, it is presumptuous and impertinent
to pass judgement on what information might or might not be released, or
what EFA might or might not do with the information obtained.
Greg
---------------------------------------------
Senate Hansard, 25 May 1999, p.5271
Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.49
p.m.)—This is one of the hazards of the
legislation—that there is potential trammelling
of such a database so that citizens cannot see
what is the outcome of the process of censorship
and classification itself. The government
needs to be very wary of that. To restrict that
database from being accessible and online is
to put a layer of censorship onto censorship
itself. The government ought to be very clear
that that is not going to happen and that such
a position could not arise because otherwise
we are moving into a system of secrecy which
has no public review.
Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister for
Communications, Information Technology and
the Arts) (12.50 p.m.)—
.....
What I suspect is a more legitimate concern
is to ensure that a description of the material
does not disappear from public view. There
could not be any offence taken by being able
to access a site that described the material or
gave details of any take-down orders or the
whole circumstances in which the material
had found its way onto the classified lists. So
there is no intention to somehow ensure that
people are unaware.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 03:10:06 EST