过滤:澳大利亚对互联网审查的突袭

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2008-12-22 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1319466
Derek E. Bambauer
{"title":"过滤:澳大利亚对互联网审查的突袭","authors":"Derek E. Bambauer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1319466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Australia's decision to implement Internet censorship using technological means creates a natural experiment: the first Western democracy to mandate filtering legislatively, and to retrofit it to a decentralized network architecture. But are the proposed restrictions legitimate? The new restraints derive from the Labor Party's pro-filtering electoral campaign, though coalition government gives minority politicians considerable influence over policy. The country has a well-defined statutory censorship system for on-line and off-line material that may, however, be undercut by relying on foreign and third-party lists of sites to be blocked. While Australia is open about its filtering goals, the government's transparency about what content is to be blocked is poor. Initial tests show that how effective censorship is at filtering prohibited content - and only that content - will vary based on what method the country's ISPs use. Though Australia's decisionmakers are formally accountable to citizens, efforts to silence dissenters, outsourcing of blocking decisions, and filtering's inevitable transfer of power to technicians undercut accountability. The paper argues Australia represents a shift by Western democracies towards legitimating Internet filtering and away from robust consideration of the alternatives available to combat undesirable information.","PeriodicalId":43790,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law","volume":"34 1","pages":"493-530"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Filtering in oz: Australia's foray into Internet censorship\",\"authors\":\"Derek E. Bambauer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1319466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Australia's decision to implement Internet censorship using technological means creates a natural experiment: the first Western democracy to mandate filtering legislatively, and to retrofit it to a decentralized network architecture. But are the proposed restrictions legitimate? The new restraints derive from the Labor Party's pro-filtering electoral campaign, though coalition government gives minority politicians considerable influence over policy. The country has a well-defined statutory censorship system for on-line and off-line material that may, however, be undercut by relying on foreign and third-party lists of sites to be blocked. While Australia is open about its filtering goals, the government's transparency about what content is to be blocked is poor. Initial tests show that how effective censorship is at filtering prohibited content - and only that content - will vary based on what method the country's ISPs use. Though Australia's decisionmakers are formally accountable to citizens, efforts to silence dissenters, outsourcing of blocking decisions, and filtering's inevitable transfer of power to technicians undercut accountability. The paper argues Australia represents a shift by Western democracies towards legitimating Internet filtering and away from robust consideration of the alternatives available to combat undesirable information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43790,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"493-530\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1319466\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1319466","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

澳大利亚决定使用技术手段实施互联网审查,这创造了一个自然的实验:第一个在立法上强制过滤的西方民主国家,并将其改造为一个分散的网络架构。但拟议的限制是否合法?新的限制来自工党支持过滤的竞选活动,尽管联合政府给予少数民族政治家对政策的相当大的影响力。这个国家对线上和线下的材料有明确的法定审查制度,然而,依靠外国和第三方网站的屏蔽名单可能会削弱这一制度。虽然澳大利亚对其过滤目标持开放态度,但政府对哪些内容应被屏蔽的透明度很低。初步测试表明,审查制度在过滤被禁止的内容方面的效果如何——而且只过滤被禁止的内容——将取决于该国互联网服务提供商使用的方法。尽管澳大利亚的决策者在形式上对公民负责,但压制异议者的努力、将阻止决策的工作外包,以及将不可避免的权力转移给技术人员的过滤,都削弱了问责制。该报告认为,澳大利亚代表了西方民主国家向互联网过滤合法化的转变,远离了对打击不良信息的替代方案的有力考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Filtering in oz: Australia's foray into Internet censorship
Australia's decision to implement Internet censorship using technological means creates a natural experiment: the first Western democracy to mandate filtering legislatively, and to retrofit it to a decentralized network architecture. But are the proposed restrictions legitimate? The new restraints derive from the Labor Party's pro-filtering electoral campaign, though coalition government gives minority politicians considerable influence over policy. The country has a well-defined statutory censorship system for on-line and off-line material that may, however, be undercut by relying on foreign and third-party lists of sites to be blocked. While Australia is open about its filtering goals, the government's transparency about what content is to be blocked is poor. Initial tests show that how effective censorship is at filtering prohibited content - and only that content - will vary based on what method the country's ISPs use. Though Australia's decisionmakers are formally accountable to citizens, efforts to silence dissenters, outsourcing of blocking decisions, and filtering's inevitable transfer of power to technicians undercut accountability. The paper argues Australia represents a shift by Western democracies towards legitimating Internet filtering and away from robust consideration of the alternatives available to combat undesirable information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The New Geographies of Corporate Law Production Post-Conflict Pluralism Genocide and Belonging: Processes of Imagining Communities The "Memory Effect The Parthenon Marbles Revisited: A New Strategy for Greece
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1