"This difference is, of course, that the decision as to what is be viewed and what is not is moved from a choice made by an individual to a compulsion imposed by a government agency, without transparency to the individual that a decision is being made," the submission said.

"Use of compulsion rightly calls for special vigilance to ensure that denial of choice is fully justified. Special safeguards are appropriate and necessary where there is also no transparency to the user as to the decision that has been made."

"Google, like many other internet companies, has a global, all-product ban against child sexual abuse material, which is illegal in almost every country, and we filter out this content from our search results and remove it from our products,"

"But moving to a mandatory ISP level filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material is heavy handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information."

Tags: Broadband,  Google,  James Riley,  YouTube,  Stephen Conroy,  Twitter,  Internet filter

It is vital that, not only Australian, but any internet user be aware of this information and all that relates to the current Federal Australian Government, and in particular Senator Conroy's plans, for the introduction of mandatory internet filtering for this country.

Any well versed internet user knows exactly what this means, and that no matter what system is put in place, it will not resolve the "problem".

Don't let it happen in Australia! Don't let it happen anywhere! Make them, force them, to deal with the real issues at hand and put in resources to ensure the safety of children etc. This notion is ludicrous, wasteful, laughable and deserves to be highlight exactly as that!

Currently we see a very public targeting of Google and YouTube, aligned with actions in China and Thailand (among others). Is this current Government also expending vast amounts of public resources targeting other services and companies (Microsoft? Yahoo? Facebook? Twitter? etc etc). If there exists a level of self-regulation on issues such as 'child pornography' as there appears to be to a degree, the issues raised by this current Government become even more watery and illegitimate.

Don't be fooled parents! Don't think that this will protect anyone! And don't be fooled that it won't slow networks, become political (think about it, all information about Abortion or Euthanasia will most likely be blocked...not just some, ALL!), and since our Government sites Thailand and China as case examples, its a dangerous path on which they walk.

Don't let it happen! Post your thoughts.

Sylvestor

January 29th, 2010

BEFORE AND AFTER: Google planned to use the Aboriginal flag as part of a redesigned logo (left) to mark Australia Day but the finished article (right) bore no flag

THE Territory man who designed the Aboriginal flag says he stopped online behemoth Google from using it because they were "disrespectful" in the way they approached him.

Google planned to use a drawing of the flag as part of its redesigned logo to mark Australia Day.

The design, depicting the letters of Google as Australian animals against a night sky with the Aboriginal flag forming one O, was created by 11-year-old Jessie Du from NSW, who won a competition to feature on the search engine's homepage.

But Google caused an online furore when it posted the design - without the Aboriginal flag.

This week Harold Thomas, who lives in Darwin's rural area, said negotiations "just broke down" over his copyright to the flag.

"I'd be tickled pink to have Google use my design on their logo," he said.

"It's customary for anybody using it in a commercial situation to (pay) a fee component.

"It's not about what I wanted. It's about the process.

"The prizes had been issued before I'd been contacted - that put me on the back foot, in a defensive manner.

"They were just niggling and did not want to respect me as an artist.

"They didn't make me an appropriate offer."

He said he was later offered "a pittance" but would not say how much.

Google public relations manager Annie Baxter said the company refuted Mr Thomas's claims.

"Knowing that the flag was copyright, it was imperative to us that we had the copyright holder's permission before displaying it on the homepage," she said.

"While we were hopeful that we would be able to show Jessie's beautiful image in its original form, unfortunately we weren't able to reach an agreement with the copyright holder, despite definite efforts to do so."

She would not say how much Google offered Mr Thomas.

Like me, wouldn't you just love to know how much Google offered Harold Thomas for use of the flag image in the doodle? I still find it quite amazing that for the purposes of displaying a child's artwork - and to celebrate our National Day - the 'edits' were simply the result of a 'money deal gone wrong'.

At least that's how I see it! Shame really, since now its just about getting some media attention. Outback, Australian artist versus the monolithic multi-national organisation. Sad really.

I wonder if News Limited has paid Mr Thomas a fee for displaying the flag image in their news stories? I guess that's different...isn't it? ;)

Sylvestor