It seems the old jokes told by some of the commonwealth countries of Australia being a land populated by criminals and their relatives is more than believable for the Australian govt.http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081111-isps-talk-back-about-australias-non-optional-filtering-planaustralian-isps-pan-government-mandated-net-filtering-plan.html
As if Australians weren't riled up enough over their government's Internet filtering initiative, the level of discontent has risen amid recent revelations that certain filters will not be optional, as citizens were first led to believe. Criticism is building against Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, and now Australia's ISPs are joining the dogpile.
The Australian government first unveiled its filtering initiative in 2007, expected to cost AUS$189 million to implement. The money would be used to help ISPs cope with filtering requirements using the Australian Communications and Media Authority's official blacklist, which is, in turn, based on the country's National Classification Scheme. Despite widespread public outcry, Australia began testing the system in Tasmania earlier this year. At the time, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) claimed that the filters would be enabled by default, but that consumers would be able to request unfiltered connectivity if they wished to opt out of the program.
In October, however, it came to light that those claims were only partially true. It turns out that there were actually two blacklists—one that filters what the Australian government deems illegal, and one that acts as an "additional material" blacklist that targets content inappropriate for children. Users in the tests could only opt out of the "additional material" blacklist; the original blacklist for vaguely-defined "illegal" content would be required for all users. When this news came out, a spokesperson for the Australian Communications Minister confirmed that the filters would be required for all Australian citizens.
During a Senate questioning session, Communications Minister Conroy avoided answering questions about the dual filtering system and comparisons to countries like China and Saudi Arabia. "We are aware of technical concerns with filtering technology, and that is why we are conducting a pilot, to put these claims to the test," Conroy said, according to The Age. When pressed about how the government would define "unwanted content," Conroy pulled a Sarah Palin and simply stated that he couldn't answer those questions but that he would get back to the Senate with more info.
I think we can see the straight road ahead here folks, decent and honest law abiding citizens are now not to be trusted in what they which to research or may wish to hear alternative opinions on, your free to use the internet to access whatever they
want you to and nothing else, in fact your a potential criminal and the govt is taking you down, pre-emptively of course ... and for your own good
If your not encrypting your emails folks can I suggest now is the time to start, their seems to be a funny smell in the wind from many countries falling victim to this power crazy trend.