EDIT: *getting cross* NO it’s NOT the same ACT. September was Crime and Terrorism. Federal Police inform ACA of sites that are blocked due to crime and err terrorism. December is Content Services. First is Opt In and Second is Opt Out. Cos we know that pr0n is so much worse than crime and terrorism.

Back in September I reported on a new bill passed in the government:

Australia you can’t be trusted! (blame Chaser?)

From Mashable (why didn’t I see this anywhere else? hmmm?):

Is Australia the New China?

by Kristen Nicole

Several privacy advocates are in an uproar in response to a bill introduced by Australia’s Parliament, which would grant the country’s federal police the power to control which sites can be accessed by users of the Internet. Titled the Communications Legislation Amendment (Crime or Terrorism Related Internet Content) Bill 2007, the federal police would have the power to add onto (or remove from) the blacklist, naming sites that are currently banned from Australia , as determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

This extends the rights of the ACMA onto the federal police, which appears to some as a way of limiting the rights of freedom of speech. The legislation is being promoted as a way to target phishing and terrorist sites, as well as those that publish information on other criminal activity. However, we’ve all been subjected to politicians taking action under the guise of protecting us from terrorism, and the result is several privacy groups that are wary of this bill being passed. Next thing we know, Australia will be blocking YouTube.

[via zdnet]

Well, it’s heating up again:

Conroy announces mandatory internet filters to protect children

Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy says new measures are being put in place to provide greater protection to children from online pornography and violent websites.

Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material.

but it’s confusing cos Mandatory gets switched later in the article to:

Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.

So then ACA have given the Federal Police the right to block our access to sites, as opt-in ? and now the Government are about to force ISPs to block access to sites deemed inappropriate, as mandatory?

When did opt-in become sort of mandatory?
Or are there two bills – Federal Police filter, one and ISPs filtering the other?

*confuzzled*

others who seem to be on top of it:
AcidLabs reports on Duncan Riley (also at TechCrunch), Nick Hodge, Mike Seyfang, Gary Barber, Kathryn Greenhill, Jasmin Tragas, James Farmer and Michael Kordahi.

Facebook groups (they don’t seem to mention that the ISP MUST have it, but that the individual broadband subscriber can opt out. )
Australian ISP filtering plan is stupid
People against mandatory filters in Australia

EDIT: Ack spelt Conroy wrong in tags
ACMA ACT link
Explanation for Content Act

Technorati Tags: Communications Legislation Amendment, Crime or Terrorism Related Internet Content, acma, federal police, Conroy, filter, ISP, censorship. Australia