Electronic Frontiers Australia

Planned US anti-piracy laws a draconian mess

2012-01-19T04:39:37Z

By Kim Heitman, EFA Secretary

The battle over proposed anti-piracy bills in the US is not just about Hollywood versus the internet, it is a fight between the past and the future. It also throws up a real danger that the laws could become an easy way to silence critics.

Internet sites such as Wikipedia, the user-built online encyclopaedia, yesterday "blacked-out" in protest against the two bills going through the US Congress.

The websites hope to draw public attention to the draconian provisions of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).

Internet experts say the laws would allow owners of copyrights or trademarks to shut down US websites; block foreign websites or freeze online banking accounts without judicial order. Infringers would be liable to massive new penalties and criminalisation of harmless activities such as uploading video clips of members of a family singing copyrighted songs.

See the whole article at The Age.

Melbourne event: War on the Internet

2012-01-24T01:38:34Z

War on the Internet

Update: videos from this event are now available at: http://vimeo.com/efaoz

Update: Julian Assange is recording a video that wll be played at this event. For anyone unable to attend, we'll be streaming the whole event here: http://www.livestream.com/efa_oz

Electronic Frontiers Australia, in partnership with the Australian Greens, is proud to present:
War on the Internet, an event featuring:

Jacob Applebaum - leading computer security researcher and hacker
Bernard Keane - 'Crikey' journalist and author
Scott Ludlam - Senator for Western Australia and Greens spokesperson for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy
Suelette Dreyfus - author and researcher on whistleblowing

When: Saturday 21st January 2012, 3.00 - 5.00pm

Where: Trades Hall, Corner Lygon & Victoria Streets, Carlton, Melbourne 3053

The response of governments and corporations to Wikileaks, Anonymous, the occupy movement and the Arab Spring has been defensive and warlike. The internet and social media were declared tools of agitation. Behaviour that sought peaceful democratic reform was characterised as treasonous or even terrorist.

Government asserted the right to flick the internet off-switch, and law enforcement, Internet Service Providers, telcos and the judiciary were enlisted to harass activists via subpoenas, takedown notices, mercenary denial of service attacks, and direct denial of services based on unexplained breaches of hard to find user licences. It also involved the ritual harassment of activists in the far corners of international airports, dark places reserved for unlawful arrivals and criminal suspects.

It doesn't have to be like this. Come and hear from an activist, journalist, researcher and legislator challenging the gatekeepers and proposing alternatives to the weaponisation of cyberspace.

Come and add your voice to the global conversation.

This is a FREE EVENT and NO RSVP is required.

View Larger Map

For more information, please email: jlawrence@efa.org.au

In principle support of R18+ rating for video games

2011-07-23T09:05:37Z

Some of EFA’s campaigns, such as fighting against the Internet Filter and pushing for a R18 rating for video games, can be seen as long-term goals. We’ve been fighting them for a number of years and sometimes it can be difficult to see light at the end of the tunnel, no matter how hard we try or how logical our arguments seem to be.

Today we’ve made a significant step towards one of those goals, the government has announced in-principle support for introducing a R18 rating on video games; this means that its introduction is now all but certain and we could see it being implemented within months.

Part of the why it has taken so long is the result of how difficult it is for changes to censorship laws to be conducted inside Australia. The decisions ultimately come down to the Attorney Generals of each state and territories who must all agree unanimously. Decisions such as these are typically made at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting (SCAG) which only occurs three times a year. As you’d know, the Attorney General in each state is appointed by the majority government of that state. As a result, the list of active Attorney Generals is in a constant state of flux as each state and territory changes government in elections.

Historically we’ve have had some Attorney Generals in strong support of the reforms and others in strong opposition, but in many cases those in support have lost office before they’ve convinced their counterparts in the other states. Getting all our ducks in a row, as it were, was a seemingly impossible task.

So what’s changed? The Gillard government has come out in strong support of the introduction of the R18+ rating essentially saying that they’d planned to go ahead regardless of what the state Attorney Generals thought. Indeed there hasn’t been unanimous support this time around either with New South Wales failing to fully commit claiming they haven’t had enough time to form a viewpoint (despite the fact this topic has been out in public debate for years).

Consequently new games rated as R18+ by the Australian Classification Board will be banned under current New South Wales law, but these changes make it possible for that state to address the law in their own time, rather than holding back the rest of Australia.

South Australia have also put forth an interesting position where they support the R18 rating but also wish to eliminate the MA15+ rating for video games entirely within their state and place any games currently falling within its guidelines inside the new R18 rating. They claim the reason for this is so that parents have a clearer understanding that R18 means ‘not suitable for children’ and that parents are currently confused by the current MA15+ classification. The important thing to note is that, like New South Wales, these changes only have effect within South Australia.

Regardless of the positions of these two states this decision allows their debate to be restricted to their individual state borders and not hold back the reforms for the rest of Australia. It will also make it easier for people within those states to lobby more effectively.

There is, however, room to be cautious as the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has published a press release cautiously welcoming the decision. This will come as a surprise to those who have been following the debate as they have traditionally been one of the largest groups opposed to these reforms (despite the fact their view are shared by only a fraction of Australians).

The ACL feels that rather than allowing previously banned games to be available under the R18 banner, they will remain in the Refused Classification bracket and remain illegal to be sold. Is this going to be the case? We’ll have to wait and see how exactly it’s implemented, but make no mistake, we’ve taken a very positive step today.

Ultimately the thanks for the introduction of the R18 rating fall to one particular group of individuals: you. The only reason that these reforms have been made possible is that people, just like you, have tirelessly campaigned in the face of seemingly impossible odds. It is this campaigning that has made the Gillard Government push forward and ultimately secure the commitment of the individual Attorney Generals.

Congratulations all, you did it.

New domain names on the way

2011-06-29T03:53:17Z

At last weeks ICANN meeting in Singapore, the ICANN board made a historic decision, to go ahead with a program of creating many new top level generic domain names, and EFA was there. A top level domain is one at the top level of the domain system (a name like .com, or .org, or .au), and a generic name is a name that isn't a country code domain (e.g. a name like .com, rather than a country specific name like .au or .uk). What it means is that we can expect to see hundred of new top level domains, ranging from generic terms like .shop or .music, to domain names created by particular companies to support their brand (like .canon or .hitachi), and more fully international domain names (that is, domain names in languages that do not use the same alphabet as English).

This has been something ICANN has been working towards for several years (since at least 2005), and has been discussed at great length, in hundreds of separate meetings, and with the involvement of a very broad range of people, including governments, businesses, interested individuals and experts, and civil society organisations like EFA. It is not a decision taken lightly. It is still controversial, with some ICANN board members voting against it, and some government objections remaining on the record, but it is now moving forward with a definite timetable, and we can expect to see top level domains proliferating starting late next year.

Previously, ICANN carefully weighed the pros and cons of each possible domain name, and this is going to make the process much more routine. It is still no easy task to create a new top level domain name, with a complicated application process and a $185,000 dollar application fee.

EFA supports this decision. Not all of the new domain names will be useful - many of them will created purely in the hopes of attracting commercial use, and may prove to be as much of a commercial failure as domains like .biz. But the current situation of artificial scarcity and competition for a limited .com space helps no one. More importantly, we feel that many of the new domain names proposed may have important free speech or consumer benefits, and allowing generic top level domains in other scripts is essential for non-English speaking people to have true equal access to the internet.

EFA appreciates there are still imperfections in the process, and there will be a lot of discussion to follow, but the existing rules are a result of a lot of negotiation, and while there are flaws, few of those that remain are glaring. EFA still feels the rules in place still give too much power to trademark holders and individual governments, but many ICANN participants feel they give too little, and in a complex multi-stakeholder institution like ICANN, compromise is inevitable. A lot of work remains to be done, especially on support for developing nations.

EFA is always interested to hear members opinions on domain name policy issues.

EFA News

2011-06-21T13:15:38Z

I'd like to quickly update our members and supporters with a few bits of EFA news.

Things have been outwardly quiet recently; although we have been active behind the scenes and in the media, commenting on issues such as privacy, copyright, censorship and games, we have not been producing as much content and commentary as we'd like to.

Why is this? We've been working on some much-needed internal reorganisation, which includes: a completely overhauled web presence; a brand new system for managing our members and supporters (and letting you manage yourselves); and our own payment integration, so we can do away with the (deservedly) despised Paypal. When we relaunch, we want a new focus on providing useful and engaging information in the form of issue backgrounders and position papers, FAQs and legal explainers. The new site and associated tools will let us focus more on providing better content and on education and campaigning.

Once we're up and running we'll be doing a better job at managing our corps of volunteers. If you have skills in legal affairs, research, writing, campaigning, design or anything else that can assist our mission, and you're interested in volunteering, please drop us a line at volunteer@efa.org.au.

In the meantime, keep a lookout for us in the media, and you might be interested some recent submissions we've made to inquiries on classification and cyber-safety.

Finally, on a personal note I'm a little sad to announce that I'm stepping down as Chair of EFA. It's been a very rewarding experience, and as a result I am even more passionate about the issues than I was when I first joined EFA. That's why I'm pursuing an opportunity to work inside our nation's Parliament and see just how policy is really made in this country.

Fortunately, the organisation will be in excellent hands. I'm very pleased to welcome David Cake to the role. David has a long history with the organisation including seven years on the Board. David has recently been leading EFA's international affairs effort, and I know he is champing at the bit to lead our upcoming campaigns. Sarah Stokely will be stepping up as Vice-Chair. Both David and Sarah know the landscape very well and have many fresh ideas to drive the debate, and the organisation, forward. Over to you, David and Sarah.

EFA relies on your support and ideas, so if you have any feedback on campaigns you'd like to see, information you need or anything else, please contact us.

Conroy: Filter alive and kicking

2011-05-27T07:47:00Z

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy went in to bat for the Labor Government's mandatory internet filter again, reaffirming the commitment to the unpopular policy. Nothing has changed since earlier debates; the filter still has the same problems it has always had - it's useless, unworkable and expensive. It still won't help anybody.

The latest line, that the Minister trusts "to the common sense of the Australian public with respect to the classification system", is a little strange. Censorship policy is complicated, especially when it comes to the internet, and it's not clear how pursuing this scheme is somehow leaving the whole matter up to the folksy wisdom of the Australian people. Of course, if you ask people whether they want something done about child pornography (for instance) they are likely to say yes. Who wouldn't? But the more they learn about this particular "something", the more skeptical they become.

Last year, several large ISPs including Telstra, Optus and Primus announced they were voluntarily pursuing a blacklist filter against child pornography. It's disappointing, and a little surprising, that the Government did not use this announcement as a good pretext to put the filter policy out to pasture. The reason is, of course, that they don't believe it goes far enough. The Minister at one point in his remarks at the Estimates hearings commented that: "If you believe a voluntary filter should block child abuse, how would you justify having a voluntary filter not block a bestiality or pro-rape website?" This language will be very familiar to those of you who have followed Senator Conroy's role in the debate.

If, like us, you believe that the word "bestiality" does not automatically end a discussion, you can probably think of a few answers to that question. One reason might be that those forms of content, unsavoury as they may be, are not criminal to possess. Another reason might be that child pornography is defined in the statute books, but something like "pro-rape" is quite vague. Perhaps one calls to mind a website that encourages, and even provides instruction on, attacks against women - something none of us would tolerate. What about a website set up by fetishists to explore power games amongst consenting adults? It might not be popular, but is it a menace to public decency?

Playing the bestiality and "pro-rape" cards also begs some important questions. How many bestiality sites are out there? Is there any evidence that Australians are seeking them out? Would those who do be stopped by the filter? If they aren't stopped, will they be harmed? Of course, these questions are not answered by the Minister. If they were, the answers probably wouldn't add up to a public emergency that could be solved by the proposed blacklist.

We must be resigned to the fact that as long as Senator Conroy remains at the helm of internet policy, we're going to be hearing about this great Bestiality Shield. Luckily, there are others in Parliament who have weighed the policy more thoughtfully, and for now it appears the filter would be unlikely to pass through even the lower house. We still remain resolutely opposed to internet censorship, especially the Labor plan, and we'll work to make sure that those other policymakers don't fall for the moral panic line.

EFA Welcomes R18+ games guidelines

2011-05-25T23:48:17Z

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today welcomed the release of draft
guidelines for the classification of computer games that includes an
adults-only category.

"Australia is the only developed country where computer games with adult
themes are seized at the docks," said EFA Chair Colin Jacobs. "It is long
past the time to harmonise classification laws and give adults the freedom to
choose what to watch and play. Whether the disc goes into the DVD player or
game console, the principle should be the same."

The guidelines include an R18+ category for adults-only games. Games that do
not fit into the MA15+ category are banned for sale in Australia under the
current system. For the new guidelines to be adopted, the agreement of all
the states is required.

"The federal government has shown strong leadership in this area which we
applaud," said Jacobs. "This is something the public wants and it would be a
scandal if one recalcitrant state attorney-general derailed it to score
points or because they thought it was all too hard."

"This isn't about putting more violent games into the hands of kids," added
Jacobs. "It's the opposite, a category that is specifically forbidden to
children. In a free country like ours, giving adults that choice shouldn't be
controversial."

- Ends -

Below is:

- Background information
- Contact details for media

Background:

* Minister's Media Release and draft guidelines
- http://bit.ly/m8Myxx

* Electronic Frontiers Australia
- http://www.efa.org.au/

About EFA:

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. (EFA) is a non-profit national
organisation representing Internet users concerned with on-line rights and
freedoms. EFA was established in 1994, is independent of government and
commerce, and is funded by membership subscriptions and donations from
individuals and organisations with an altruistic interest in promoting online
civil liberties.

Media Contacts:

Mr Colin Jacobs
Chair
Phone: 0402 631 955
Email: cjacobs@efa.org.au

Mr Stephen Collins
EFA Spokesperson
Phone: 0410 680 722
Email: trib@efa.org.au

Righting the Copyright Imbalance

2011-04-19T13:13:25Z

The Australian Digital Alliance's policy forum, Righting the Copyright Imbalance, brought together activists, policymakers, researchers, and other stakeholders interested in copyright reform. There was an excellent range of speakers, and I highly recommend that you check out the podcasts of the forum available on the ADA website.

The most striking theme that came up during the forum was the role that international agreements have played in shaping Australia's copyright law. Dr. Nicholas Gruen argued that while our international obligations under agreements like the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS) do limit reforms, Australian policymakers have been too cautious; treaty obligations do not pose legal risks, although they may lead to legislation being contested and require policy backdowns.

The current risk-averse attitude to copyright policy, Gruen argues, is leading to an overcompliance with international agreements, and contributing to a intellectual property framework that constrains innovation. Several of the other speakers at the forum picked up on and extended Gruen's point. As one participant put it, what we need is to be "a little bit more bolshie" about pushing for an intellectual property regime that meets Australians' needs. This is particularly worth bearing in mind as negotations around the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement go ahead - with further worrying intellectual property provisions (for more, see EFF and TPPAWatch).

The issue of safe harbours also ran through discussion at the forum. As the forum's background information puts it,

The safe harbour limitations to intermediary liability are in urgent need of reform because they are
too narrow and only protect ISPs. The concept of safe harbours is to protect people who merely
provide a service from being liable for the copyright infringement of people who use their service, if
the service provider expeditiously blocks access to infringing content once notified. Safe harbours
protect ISPs from unnecessary legal risk which enables them to provide services to the public.

As well as more general discussion of problems with current safe harbour provisions, Tom Joyce of the University of Queensland and Paula Bray of the Powerhouse Museum talked about some of the practical challenges involved in working within the current system.

Kim Weatherall provided an excellent summary to round off the forum. She mapped out the key challenge for those interested in pushing for copyright reform as being developing reform proposals that:

are persuasive, targeted, and relevant;
will persuade government that our concerns matter and require government action;
are relevant, and make sense within the constraints of international treaties.

More broadly, Weatherall also emphasised the need for coordinated action, and for solutions that don't require legislative change.

Did you attend the forum? What were the issues that seemed most vital to you? Even if you didn't attend, we'd love to hear your ideas on copyright reform - what's needed, and how can we achieve it?

Copyright fight heating up in Australia

2011-04-18T00:48:15Z

There's little sign that the global copyright war will let up any time soon. Wherever you go, the content industries are working hard to secure stronger "protections" for intellectual property and tougher penalties against those who infringe against these protections. Given the forces they can bring to bear - an army of lobbyists and an ocean of cash - it's not surprising that industry has won many of these battles.

Australia is one front in this war, and several notable skirmishes have occurred in recent times. The most significant has been a case in which the movie studios, represented by AFACT (the "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft") sued Australia's third-largest ISP, iiNet, for authorising copyright infringement by allowing its users to download movies using BitTorrent.

Under Australian copyright law, a third party can be held accountable for a breach of copyright if they are found to have authorised the breach by "countenancing" it and providing the means to do so. This was tested in the courts in 1975 when a university was found liable for breaches of copyright because it provided a photocopier which students could use to make copies of books.

Bringing this suit against iiNet was a clear attempt to make ISPs liable for the content traversing their networks and is a probable first step on the road to introducing a graduated response mechanism to Australia. The ultimate outcome of the case will have enormous repercussions for the future of the industry and copyright law in Australia.

Fortunately, the signs have been positive so far. AFACT initially lost the case, with a heartening judgement by the trial judge, Justice Cowdroy, who even took AFACT to task for misleadingly using the word "theft" in their name. Justice Cowdroy found that the ISP had not authorised the infringement because they did not provide or operate BitTorrent; and even if they did, could fall back on the safe harbour provisions of the Copyright Act.

Unfortunately the content industry were not willing to let things be, and despite already losing one appeal so far are set to take the case to the High Court. Should iiNet eventually be found liable, it will precipitate a seismic shift in the way ISPs operate and could usher in an era of greater monitoring and punitive measures for alleged infringers. The industry are clearly hoping for a "three strikes" system. It's unlikely this would affect industry revenues, but Australian internet users would surely suffer from this lack of due process.

One of the more ridiculous but high profile cases involves two well-known songs with Aussie themes. Larrikin Music vs EMI is a case in which, for once, a large music publisher is on the receiving end of an overreaching copyright claim. Larrikin is a small company that owns the copyright to a well-known folk song, "The Kookaburra Song", which was composed in 1932 for a contest being held by the Victorian Guides. They claim that their song was plagiarised in the opening flute riff used in the 80's classic, Men At Work's "Down Under".

They claim that the melody in those first bars was copied from the Kookaburra Song. You can listen to some kids singing the former here and the Men at Work song (if you aren't old enough to remember it) here, and come to your own conclusion.

Sure enough, these handful of notes were sufficient for a court to find that the classic song infringed on Larrikin's copyright, and this too has been upheld. It's hard to find a better example of copyright acting as a barrier to the creation of art, but I don't expect a change of heart from EMI any time soon.

One tactic that industry employ around the world is the commissioning and release of reports showing the devastating impact piracy is having on the local economy. We're not spared this perennial favourite; several of these reports have made the news in recent weeks. The first, released by AFACT, extrapolated a telephone survey into massive economic damage, claiming piracy costs the Australian economy $1.4 billion per year, and at least 6,100 jobs. The numbers and methodology are both suspect and attracted a fair amount of criticism.

The second report, by sister lobbying organisation the Australian Content Industry Group, was based on the flawed TERA report from Europe and applied those numbers to the Australian economy. They took a little poetic license in making the assumption that the rollout of Australia's National Broadband Network would increase internet speed and penetration and thus lead to more piracy. The result, of course, would be billions lost to the economy and 8,000 jobs gone.

Both of these studies indulge the bizarre conceit that any movie ticket sales forfeited due to piracy represent a net loss to the economy. Of course, this isn't so; and in a country like Australia, a net importer of content, the opposite is likely to be true, as the money is likely to be spent on goods or services more efficient at creating employment locally. Nevertheless, these reports are getting into the hands of the media and lawmakers, and used as ammunition in the fight for tighter laws.

As if that wasn't enough, we face increasing pressure on the diplomatic front. Significant, and regressive, changes were made to Australian copyright law as a result of the Australia-US free trade agreement, including the outlawing of circumventing technological protections measures (TPM) such as DRM schemes. This pressure has kept up, with negotiations for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and now the Trans-Pacific Partnership burdened by the usual demands from the copyright lobby: longer terms, criminalising infringement, and statutory penalties.

Like our counterparts at EFF, ORG and many organisations around the world, we here at Electronic Frontiers Australia feel that the debate around copyright long ago derailed. The discussion is almost always about the evils of piracy, which is perfectly legitimate when put in proper perspective. But what we really want to see is a broader discussion that takes into account the wider benefits to society and artists that copyright is designed to bring. Ever-longer copyright terms and tougher penalties come at a cost to consumers and artists who now need legal advice every time they create a new work.

We're doing our best to reframe the debate so that Australian consumers have a voice.

This post originally appeared in ORGZine, the online magazine of the UK's Open Rights Group.

ICANN San Francisco meeting

2011-03-14T21:46:50Z

ICANNs San Francisco meeting is only just officially beginning, as I write Vint Cerf has just finished his speech at the welcoming ceremony, but already the process is in full swing, with working groups, review teams and councils meeting over the last two days to get started on the weeks work. Running the domain name system, and IP number allocation, is a complicated business, and the ICANN multi-stakeholder model still works largely by gathering hundreds of people together a few times a year to discuss it.

So what can we expect from this weeks meeting? The big issue remains the plan to open up the process for creating new top level domains, opening up top level domains to anyone with a few hundred thousand dollars and the resources to run a domain name registry. Domains like .sport, .music, .eco and .gay are planned, as well as allowing corporations to run their own domains ( .canon and .hitachi, for example), potentially seeing hundreds of new top level domains. The ICANN community has been working through the issues involved for years, and negotiated a lot of complex compromises between the varying interests of users, domain name owners, trademark holders, domain name registries and registrars, and ICANN itself. We seem to have a document that most of the ICANN community agrees on now — apart from the GAC (the government advisory council, representing those governments that participate in ICANN). Now that the process is nearly over, governments (particularly the US government) have realized that there are a few things they don't like about what is on offer, and have a few ideas for how it should be instead. A special extra meeting between the GAC and the ICANN board in Brussels showed that while some disagreements could be resolved, some ran deep, and negotiations continue.

So what are the things governments want changed? Thankfully, one US government proposal — that any government should be able to veto any new top level domain name — didn't meet with enough support, and has been dropped. Making it easier for governments to make their displeasure known has certainly been part of the GAC agenda, and is being carefully considered, but for now they do not have the final say (and objections generally require multi-government support). Those who want to run potentially controversial domain names like .gay must be happy that the board is resisting giving individual governments veto power. Other GAC demands include stronger rights for trademark holders (rights rejected during earlier negotiations), rights that some feel will just allow large trademark holders to stifle criticism and competition, and bully smaller domain name owners into giving up domains that they might be legally entitled to.

Another issue is the planned .xxx domain. The story of .xxx is a long and complicated one that has been going on since at least 2004. Initially approved by ICANN, that decision was reversed under pressure from the US government, than several years later ICANNs independent review process decided that the board was wrong to reverse it's initial position, and should put it back on the agenda. So, now the decision has come around again, this time with an added context of being a test case for ICANN accountability. There are both issues to do with the domain itself — many within the adult website community are not happy with the plans for running .xxx, and the possibility that it will make censorship easier and disrupt existing businesses — and how the .xxx domain once again raises the issue of how ICANN deals with decisions that are unpopular with governments. The board is expected to approve the domain this week, but I'm sure there will be discussion about it before then.

All of this takes place under a general atmosphere of governments questioning ICANNs role. The organizations that coordinate the phone and postal systems and similar international infrastructure are UN bodies, with who is allowed to even speak or attend firmly under government control, and usually run in a way that allows individual governments to block initiatives they disapprove of. That the Internet is run by a multi-stakeholder organization that allows pretty much anyone to turn up and participate many governments find distinctly uncomfortable, and when the ICANN board is telling them directly that they may not take the advice of government the level of discomfort is quite high. The issue of the moment (the new top level domain process, in this case) always has the shadow of the bigger question of 'who should run the Internet' hanging over it.

There are a lot of other issues at ICANN — I'll be concentrating on security and stability issues as part of the Security, Stability and Resiliency review team, itself part of ICANNs multi-year process of showing it can provide its own accountability and review mechanisms without the oversight of the US Department of Commerce (and I'm happy to hear feedback from EFA members about other issues of concern). There is the ongoing work of making domain names available in other languages and scripts, dealing with abuses of the system, and all the other issues involved in running what is now a complicated and mature system. A more complete summary of issues has been provided by Kieren McCarthy. But somehow the issues that are causing controversy always come down to free speech and those who want to make things less free (often for their own commercial reasons), and government desire for closer control over an internet that seems to be running well without it.

Electronic Frontiers Australia

Planned US anti-piracy laws a draconian mess

Related Posts:

Melbourne event: War on the Internet

Related Posts:

In principle support of R18+ rating for video games

Related Posts:

New domain names on the way

Related Posts:

EFA News

Related Posts:

Conroy: Filter alive and kicking

Related Posts:

EFA Welcomes R18+ games guidelines

Related Posts:

Righting the Copyright Imbalance

Related Posts:

Copyright fight heating up in Australia

Related Posts:

ICANN San Francisco meeting

Related Posts: