There are a number of reasons you could reasonably assume the government would block out 90 per cent of a document obtained using the freedom of information. If the document threatened national security, for example, it would make sense to keep that information confidential. But as Ben Grubb has reported on the SMH today, the Government has blocked out 90 per cent of a document about their plan to monitor all Australian’s web usage for the pathetic excuse that it may cause “premature, unnecessary debate”. So much for democracy, huh?
It came out last month the the Government was holding highly confidential talks with ISPs about making ISPs log every website every Australian web browser visits. It later came out that they were considering the possibility of making ISPs connect this information to people’s offline information, like passport numbers.
The Government’s explanation for blacking out 90 per cent of the document is that it isn’t complete yet and could change before being opened for public discussion. Releasing the information now could create “a confusing and misleading impression”.
The SMH has both the censored document and the Attorneys-General department’s explanation available to download and read in full on their website, and you should definitely head over there and read both.
Does anybody else feel like they’ve woken up in an Orwellian nightmare?
Devz
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 2:00 PMBring on wikileaks.
King Trash
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 2:39 PMThat is just plain sickening.
Righey
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 2:52 PMFar out. I freaken hate this stupid commy government.
Alan
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 2:53 PMwho the frig can you vote for in this environment when everything is censored or put off until after the election
Mahq Barkley
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 2:55 PMStephen Conroy has a lot to answer for. No wonder he is hiding behind government cloaks shielding himself from Australian’s opinions. Blody Coward
MrQuick
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 2:58 PMReally?
Its premature to debate an issue less than a month away from an election?
Matejay
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 3:21 PMHow about stripping everyone of their right to vote because most people are just too dumb anyway to decide properly, huh?
David
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 3:23 PMI for one don’t think its that big a deal. The Gov’t obviously (and misguidedly, I will admit) blacked it out so the whole thing wouldn’t be blown out of proportion by editorials/technology sites. Law Enforcement Offices (the only people that can legally see the information, remember) can already pull so much other information (Bank statements, credit cards, criminal history, phone records) that this isn’t that much of a big deal. They wont sell it to third parties. They wont leak this to anyone. It’s going to sit on your ISP’s database and, for 99.99% of users, the information s going to be routinely deleted. Unless you google a red-flag keyword or hit up Pirate Bay.
Oh wait. I just got it. Everyones upset because you wont be able to pirate stuff anymore^^
T
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 3:43 PMYou absolutely disgust me.
Dean
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 3:55 PMOh right, the whole “if you’ve got nothing to hide, then why complain?” argument. Except the exact same argument can be made of the government: if they’ve got nothing to hide, why censor 90% of the document?
Sam
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 4:02 PMTell me, do you close the door while you go to the toilet? What? You’re doing something illegal in there?
simulacrum
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 4:04 PMDepends on how detailed the information they pull up is. Pulling up a phone record is one thing, recording your phone conversations and keeping a record of them is another.
Bjorn
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 11:32 PMWhat are you on about? Sorry that I don’t want my personal important information sitting on a server somewhere waiting for it to be accidentally leaked all over the web!!!
censored
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 4:04 PMYour belated campaign against the filter is to be commended, but censorship of this document is not surprising. It, and the filter, are just part of a wider move to police citizens and restrict the free flow of information. And it is not confined to one side of politics. The Howard govt, like it US counterpart exploited 9/11 to pass a whole raft of measures which eroded civil liberties. We now consistently tap more phones and email accounts than the entire US – which has more than 10 times our population! (The figures are public info – just look them up). And, of course, the ALP was happy to leave these measures in place, just as the Libs could be expected to happily keep any filter introduced by the ALP. There is a much broader issue here, which many including the poster David above are missing. Such laws may seem useful, even innocuous today but we must consider how they could be used in future.
matt
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 5:04 PMthe sad thing is.. how clumsily they go about it… and still get away with it…
****
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 7:55 PMthis post has been censored for views against the government….
actaully I’d be suprised if you’d even get that ^
John
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 7:57 PMThe Government██████████████ is██████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ so██████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ awe██████████████ ██████████████ some.
Cameron
Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 2:50 AMThe stupid thing is, now that we know about it, we still cant stop it, because like what “Censored” previously mentioned, doesnt matter who wins the election, both the liberals, and the ALP will be happy to pass this and any other filtering/Usage recording laws under the reason that it will protect Australians and their families
Michi Weiner
Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 2:51 AMIts one thing for the government to institute a filter in a transparent manner, however the fact that the whole filter is being organised so covertly is deeply worrying. The only reason information would be kept from the public is because the public wouldn’t like the implications that the information alludes to. Considering the 10% we do know is already igniting significant debate in Australia, it is worrying how much worse the other 90% could be.
Considering the implications of this piece of legislation, the public and media’s reaction is incredibly small. For the government to take notice, I think they need to be told that it will actually be a major factor influencing the coming election.
censored
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 5:16 PMMichi, all due respect, but it isn’t a major factor in the election. The average punter, told that filter will counter paedophiles, will support it, same as they will go along with any measures supposedly against “terrorism’, drug traffickers, corruption and inscrutable foreigners they don’t understand. The Greens? They’ve proven – along with independents – time and again they will sell out their principles, and cheaply at that! ultimately, you either go with the program or you live outside the system and (most likely) break the law.
Rawprawn
Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 2:53 AMVote Green above the line…the only party against the filter.
Watch the film “the most dangerous man in America” to see how governments quickly learned to sensor information from media. Food Inc is a classic, we don’t want people complaining of disease in meat, and substandard conditions for animals, so create a law to ban any publication of photos of feed lots. Same thing is happening here, censorship for the betterment of govt and big corporations.
Ard
Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 4:11 AMThat’s not true. The democrats also oppose the filter.
http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/no_internet_censorship/
Glen
Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 5:36 PMThe democrats??? Who the F**k are they???
Ard
Monday, July 26, 2010 at 3:03 AMNot sure if you’re being sarcastic.
Anyway, they were the third most voted for party a decade or so ago, until they appointed a retarded politician (Meg Lees) as leader. She wrecked the party by allowing the go ahead of the GST.
Since then, they’ve been on the mend and seem to have some sound policies, if you don’t want to vote for labor, via voting for the Greens.
StevoTheDevo
Monday, July 26, 2010 at 1:38 PMGet real Ard, who are the Democrats preferencing if not Labor?
Oh, both Labor and Liberal!!!
On a split ticket.
That’s a much better system, it’s like a mystery vote!
Vote whichever way you please, and vote below the line if you don’t like the agreed to preference deals…
Saying simply that voting Green is a vote for Labor is a stupid argument for stupid people…