/ Cory Doctorow / 1:59 am Thu Feb 11, 2010

Google refuses to censor Australian YouTube

Google is seemingly bent on making a clean sweep of the Pacific Rim in its new anti-censorship campaign: first it refused to go on censoring its services at the behest of the Chinese government; now it has refused the Australian government's (batshit crazy) request to censor YouTube videos that Canberra's censor board put into its "refused classification" bucket.

The minister who made the request, Stephen Conroy, apparently missed the memo on Google and China, as he cited Google's erstwhile willingness to censor on behalf of Beijing as reason enough for the company to help him censor videos about safe drug use and painting graffiti, or those that advocate euthanasia. These subjects are all prohibited by Australia's government of the day, which apparently believes Aussies to be such soft-headed sheep that they can't possibly be exposed to ideas it doesn't like, lest they be tempted into wickedness.

"Google at the moment filters an enormous amount of material on behalf of the Chinese government; they filter an enormous amount of material on behalf of the Thai government."

Google Australia's head of policy, Iarla Flynn, said the company had a bias in favour of freedom of expression in everything it did and Conroy's comparisons between how Australia and China deal with access to information were not "helpful or relevant".

Google has recently threatened to pull out of China, partly due to continuing requests for it to censor material.

"YouTube has clear policies about what content is not allowed, for example hate speech and pornography, and we enforce these, but we can't give any assurances that we would voluntarily remove all Refused Classification content from YouTube," Flynn said.

Google baulks at Conroy's call to censor YouTube (via Resource Shelf)

(Image: YouTube/Refused Classification blog)

Previously:

40

  2. Stephen Conroy is a complete deadshit, that is acknowledged and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

    The National Broadband Network is being rolled-out by the Department of Communications at a cost of $50 Billion or so.

  4. the next time it comes to the election I now know what political party I am not voting for, it really makes me ashamed to call my self a aussie

    1. both liberal and labor gov’s are backing this. Howard wanted to do this 10 years ago but the technology wasn’t (and still isn’t) available.

  5. Surely he must know how that sounds. Something like “We’re only asking you to offer the same services you provide repressive regimes that can only stay in power through regular application of military force.” You’d think these people would be their own worst enemies, but I guess they have their own fans who just love this stuff.

  7. I like how it seems like Google has suddenly realized that they are big and they can frankly tell governments to go fuck themselves.

    I have to say, watching Google duke it out with other companies (and governments) recently, and I really feel like if have to accept an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful corporation to rule the world, I’ll take the Google brand. It is just a lot of little things that add up. Google saying ‘screw it’ to China and Austria is one piece. The night and day difference between Google’s brand of openess against Apple’s draconian closed ecosystem is another piece.

    It isn’t that Google is benevolent (though a certain former Warsaw Pact major share holder probably doesn’t hurt), it is just that they have found a model that frankly works best when things are more or less free. Could Google do something nasty to try and boost profits temporarily? Sure. It just doesn’t make any sense to do so. Why squander reputation and potential market share by pissing off the base? Google is simply better off not having to deal with nasty speech regulation and corporate lock in. They are boosted by connectivity and the free and open use of the Internet. The profitable thing to do just so happens to be the right thing to do.

    It still scares me a bit how much info Google has its hands on, but eh, I feel more comfortable with Google having it than the Apple or Facebook. What scares me is how much they have, not how they have been using it.

    I guess I could sum up my feelings by saying this:

    I for one welcome our new Google overlords.

  8. Note to Australia: It’s time you get yourselves a bill of rights. You know, add some amendments to your constitution that makes certain rights *explicit*. Freedom of speech might make a good opener. ;-)

    That is what you have the referendum system for, isn’t it? To make meaningful changes to your constitution?

    1. Note to Corporation Cheerleaders: Google is as evil a corporation as any. They will obey laws as they see fit so fk this BS that they are saving the planet from censorship. they are a for profit corporation not a charity org.

      Take Google Street View for example. Who did they ask to take photos of whole cities and upload them? In Greece this is illegal due to privacy laws yet they armwrestled our weak country into obedience. We should be all equal under the rule of law yet Google is above the law, actually they are becoming rapidly the law, so i don’t think that they are paladins of justice. at all.

      use their products but don’t fool yourself that they will not sell your data or screw you for profit if/when the occasion arises.

      PS: they are still filtering their results in China, what happened to their dramatic exit?

      1. Um, did you intend to respond to Rindan? If not, please explain to me in clear, precise language how I’m cheerleading for megacorps by suggesting that Australia should consider granting themselves freedom of speech?

      2. @8

        Your position seems to be that all laws are equally worthy of being followed, so I don’t understand why you care whether Google is still filtering in China. Either that, or you’re saying it’s okay for Google to break the law in China but not in Greece.

        By the way, it’s really illegal in Greece to take photos out on the *street*? You gotta be kidding me (which is to say, I’m sure you’re not kidding me, but that still sounds pretty crazy).

        1. well if you want to live in a democracy all laws must be followed even if you don’t like them. that’s rule of law. Greece is not China. we voted our government and we are supposed to respect the laws we voted for. and privacy laws are hugely popular. for example the surveillance camera system we bought for the olympics was dismantled due to popular demand by strictly applying privacy laws.

          btw in Greece it is not prohibited to take photos out on the street (apparently that is the case in the UK)but it is illegal to upload photos of people without their consent. plus you are talking about mass breach of privacy for profit not random tourist snapshots.

          also Greeks have an atavistic fear of surveillance cameras and police control due to our 1967-1974 dictatorship. big brother is a big issue here. and if people here decide that they do not want to be observed Google should respect that.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/12/google-street-view-banned-greece

      4. Yeah, I kinda gotta agree with EvilSpirit here; that Greek law sounds ridiculous. Google blurs out faces, and even then I agree with the concept of “no expectation of privacy in public.” They aren’t following individuals around with video cameras, they’re taking still photographs of public places. And if a law is unreasonable, unjust, and/or unethical, it isn’t immoral to break it. The law is there to serve people, not the other way around.

      5. You clearly missed the thrust of my pro Google overlords argument. I agree with everything you said. Yes, Google is a corporation. Yes, they are big and decide what laws to follow and what laws to not follow. Yes, they doing it for cash. Got it.

        That still doesn’t change the fact that Google, as judged by its actions, is a swell overlord. I don’t give two shits that they violated the “no public photography” law in Greece any more than I give a damn that they are violating Australian censorship laws or everyone’s book copyright laws. You are declaring Google evil for what it is, and I am giving you a “meh” and declaring Google dandy for what it actually does.

        When Google violates a law that I care about, I’ll look properly upset. When Google violates laws that I would happily violate myself, I frankly don’t care.

        My argument isn’t that Google is a swell company looking out for me. My argument is that Google profit model aligns their interests with mine. I want free open information exchanges and greater connectivity in the world, and so does Google.

          1. zio – The apparently strong attitude that some Greeks have against public photography is not universally shared. It is not some global norm that the company is somehow violating. The Google car/camera combination is there to take pictures of buildings, which don’t move and are in public. If they take pictures of people as they drive by, well, I can honestly say that I do not care. perhaps that is a uniquely American attitude. if taking the pictures violates Greek law, I can still say that I don’t care, but I would expect Google to do whatever is necessary to comply.

            Greece had a terrible government 25 years ago. It was awful, genuinely evil. The fact that both Google and your former regime took pictures in public … is really kind of silly and irrelevant. They’re buildings and streets. In public. Public buildings. Let’s see the pictures.

        2. +1 Rindan. At least El Goog is pretending to do the right thing, and actually building it into their business model.

        3. I agree with most of what you say.

          I am scared at the amount of power Google has accumulated, but so far they have not done anything that seriously pisses me off. They have on the other hand done an awful lot to make me think they’re still living by their motto.

          As for

          they are still filtering their results in China, what happened to their dramatic exit?

          Google aren’t exactly a local milkbar. They’re not going to be able to pack up and exit the country in less than a month. Nor did they say they were definitely leaving. They said they needed to review dealings with China and make a decision. They might be in negotiations with the Chinese Government right now about whether they should filter results or not. They might have had a board meeting and decided that offering competition to Baidu (from what I gather, pretty much the only other search engine in China) is still morally the correct thing to do filtering or no filtering.

          As for Stephen Conroy. This guy really needs to be removed from Government. He seems bent on building the biggest steepest slippery slope into fascism my country has ever faced.

    2. We don’t have a summerised bill of rights like the US most of our rights are written into the constitution. As for free speech, we are obliged (supposed to) have free speech as that is a requirement of the UN member nations.

  9. Stuff like this is also probably a good business move for Google. Even if the Australian government manages to cause trouble for them or even ban them, it’s more than made up for with long term international credibility. Google might be “not evil” or “less evil,” but more relevantly, they’re just smarter. Thinking long term and keeping consumers happy rather than fretting about profitability of every project in short term.

  10. @15

    That makes more sense out of just what the issue is here for Greeks. But then, last time I was in Greece I didn’t notice people having those blurry faces, so I’m still puzzled at how street view presents a surveillance issue.

    Also, I don’t know about anybody else, but I just tried to *get* a street view of Athens and I couldn’t, so I have to kind of suspect that Google is actually doing what Greece asked it to whether it seems reasonable to me or not.

    1. “that Google is actually doing what Greece asked it to”

      1) of course it does. for now. only that they somehow armwrestled authorities and they will be starting uploading in a couple of months.

      2) they should have asked FIRST. i snapped photos of the Google car going around my neighborhood before they got stopped.

      3) “reasonable” to you or me is not the matter here. it is about a corporation that bullies its way through national governments and peoples lives. they had similar issues in Germany, Italy, Switzerland and Japan.

      4) a corporation is not a person so it must be regulated accordingly. one thing is a tourist snapping a pic another is a non controlled entity acquiring data of such epic proportions. so yes they do blur your face but they still have the originals along with plenty other data. should they be allowed to do so? and why?

      http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/google-street-view-sued-by-swiss-privacy-watchdog/

      http://www.pcworld.com/article/164810/google_street_views_faces_privacy_critics_in_japan_and_greece.html

      http://germannews.info/techno/3091.html

  12. This fellow, in a democratic country, has the gall to just overtly compare his requests for censorship to those of autocratic governments?

  14. Thanks for pointing out exactly what content they have in their sights. Unfortunately this has become one of those ‘think of the children’ issues where any argument against it is taken to mean ‘kiddie porn for all!’.

    Having someone worth voting for next election would be cool =/

  15. I seriously can’t fathom what the hell the morons in government are doing here.

    Censoring the whole Internet, telling Google/YouTube to censor stuff, stopping me from accessing games because they’re too graphic for a 15-year old to play.

    Why don’t they just get on with making sure people have opportunities to live a good life instead of telling me what the hell I can do with me free time.

    If I want to watch people have sex with animals, or read about different euthanasia methods, or listen to graffiti artists stories, or play a game where I’m a drug-addict, what right do they have to stop me? It doesn’t hurt anyone.

    Obviously a line should be drawn where people involved in whatever activity are not old enough to make informed decisions for themselves (i.e. kiddie porn), but otherwise butt out of my business.

  16. Good on you Google. Defend freedom of Speech! Australia becomes more fascist all the time and its starting to become unbearable!

  17. This Conroy clown is always dictating morality based on his beliefs. As mentioned on his wiki page, he voted against allowing use of RU486 (abotion drug) but he decided to put his religiously dictated morals (catholic) on hold when he and his wife had a daughter with the assistance of an egg donor and a surrogate mother. FUCK YOU CONROY, you god damn double-standard asshole.

    Despite religion having little effect on the day-to-day opinions and decisions of many ordinary Australians, our politicians are for some reason unfortunately still very religious (I suppose after all it’s an easy way to buy a bunch of votes).

    The other problem is that many Aussies are still quite technologically uneducated, meaning that idiots like Conroy can spew lies, drop a big name like Google, and people will go “oh yeah… thats a website… it must be true.”

    This country’s politicians make me ashamed. The greens are the only party that ever say anything meaningful or intelligent.

    1. Indeed. What an ongoing disappointment the Rudd government has been (Conroy, stances on asylum seekers and gay marriage et al.). Not that the 50’s church based moralism of Tony Abbott is anywhere near an acceptable option, but given that we’d come out of almost 12 years of Deputy Sheriff John Howards retrogressive world view, I think most were (and still are) hoping for better.

      The sinister depths that the Clean Feed could allow the Government to plunder Australians access to information is frightening, well and truly past the confused limits of what is deemed acceptable breast size for women in pornography.

      http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/operation-titstorm-hackers-bring-down-government-websites-20100210-nqku.html

  18. I’m with Rindan, and then some. I trust Google more than any government, including the U.S. government. After all, we KNOW our government will break the law and spy on us in direct violation of the law and the Constitution. They suffer no consequences when they do so because they control the mechanisms by which they would punish themselves.

    By contrast, Google exists entirely at the pleasure of their users. If we stop trusting them, we can leave Google overnight and go to Yahoo mail and Bing.

  19. I really hate being Australian with this whole censorship debacle gaining ever increasing momentum. Even with Google’s refusal to co-operate (and even then, that’s only with YouTube! What about normal Google searches and whatnot?) the internet filter still seems inevitable. It seems so hopeless. I do not want to live in a country that endorses and practises censorship, but what can I do against it? The government doesn’t care about public opinion on this matter. It’s like Cartman: “I’ll do what I want.” Gah.

  20. it is sad to see how many people believe that a corporation is a better safekeeper of their rights than their own elected government. corporations by definition are morality agnostic. there is no good or evil – just profit. google is not different. as for breaking laws as Sork said it already shares info with the NSA and who knows who else.

    corporations are shops. they sell stuff. i choose to buy or not to buy from them, but they should never ever be allowed to be more than that. if i decide that i don’t want my picture taken it’s none of your business to demand that i should. as a state we have decided for whatever reason not to allow large databases of indiscriminate public data to exist it is none of your business to demand it. if we like it like this, it must be respected. if you don’t like it take your business elsewhere.

    i prefer to vote for my laws not trust the benevolence of a CEO. we deposed our king and our dictators long ago. i suggest that you should do so too.

    and as i said the Swiss and the Germans have their issues with Google too. they actually sued. good for them.

    1. Not to pick on you, but do you also object to the ‘large public databases’ kept by various governmental agencies and eg. credit card and insurance companies?

      There is a certain safety in large numbers — since Google’s databases tend to be global or nearly so, their interest in any individual is vanishingly small.

      OTOH, if someone is specifically gunning for you, Google (as well as all those other databases) may make it easier for them. I see how this could be a big problem.

      @everyone,

      Google doesn’t want to have several hundred ‘filtering lists’ they would then be liable for. Hence the China pseudo-reversal, to avoid this slipperiest of slopes.

      This unfortunately aligns me with the word-jumble Randian (sic) above.

    2. it is sad to see how many people believe that a corporation is a better safekeeper of their rights than their own elected government.

      Spoken like someone who isn’t an Australian.

Comments are closed.