mars-z.org

The fight for free access to information is being played out to an ever greater extent on the Internet. The emerging general trend is that a growing number of countries are attemptimg to tighten their control of the Net, but at the same time, increasingly inventive netizens demonstrate mutual solidarity by mobilizing when necessary.

The Internet: a space for information-sharing and mobilizing

The “Enemies of the Internet” list drawn up again this year by Reporters Without Borders presents the worst violators of freedom of expression on the Net: Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, North Korea, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Uzbekistan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.

Among the countries “under surveillance” are several democracies: Australia, because of the upcoming implementation of a highly developed Internet filtering system, and South Korea, where draconian laws are creating too many specific restrictions on Web users by challenging their anonymity and promoting selfcensorship.

THE Australian Greens want to ban major banks from charging $2 fees for non-customers to withdraw cash from their ATMs.

The party will propose amendments to the trade practice laws to stop major banks charging for ATM use.

But it won’t advocate the fee ban for credit unions, building societies or independent ATM operators, such as corner shops and clubs.

Greens leader Bob Brown said the multi-billion dollar major banks didn’t need the extra annual $680 million generated from inflated ATM fees.

“Australians spend around $1000 on bank fees, 20 per cent more than in the United Kingdom where ATM fees don’t exist,” he said.

The $2 fee doesn’t reflect the real cost of processing an ATM transactions, he said.

“The Reserve Bank of Australia estimated it was about 50 cents in 2000, which is likely to be even lower now.”

There are jerks on the internet. Given how many jerks there are off the internet, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. (I’m willing to bet that the first cave painting was barely dry before a jerk came along and drew an oversized penis on one of the animals.)

Nevertheless, the offensive defacement last week of two Facebook pages, tributes to slain Queensland children Elliott Fletcher and Trinity Bates, became a minor flap in the media. Words like “sinister”, “disgusting” and “sick” quickly appeared in various articles.

Where an outraged media go, politicians quickly follow. Barely one news cycle after the story about tasteless Facebook pranks, Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed an “online ombudsman” to “deal with such incidents”, an idea tentatively endorsed by the Prime Minister. Meanwhile, Queensland premier Anna Bligh wrote to Facebook angrily demanding an explanation.

This is the cue for tired cyber-libertarians to again point out the internet is global and dynamic and instructing the Australian civil service to police it might be a touch impractical. But this cycle — internet nastiness, media attention, government condemnation — is repeating itself with depressing regularity. (The mandatory internet filter and proposed crackdown on racist material online are still current news.)

Can anyone seriously imagine a government department, staffed by dozens of bureaucrats, investigating a tasteless Facebook page set up by a bored high-schooler? This appears to be exactly what our leaders are suggesting, and it’s easy to point out the flaws in such an idea. But has debating these schemes on their merits become counter-productive?

South Australian E-crimes Police sent a take down letter to David Thorn the infamous email troller.

“Michael the Police Officer has kindly pointed out to me that it is a criminal offence to solicit money with the intent to purchase drugs and sell them at a profit. As such, I have amended the previous article accordingly. I did not mind caving on this request as I find the amended version more amusing than the original.”