Australians Soon Will Need a License to Access the Web

Despite fierce opposition, Australia’s Communications Minister, Malcolm Tent, last week successfully saw his bill passed through parliament that will require Australians to have a license to use the Internet.

The minister’s basic argument was this:

You wouldn’t want someone driving on the road without a license. The World Wide Web is now an essential part of the world’s social and economic infrastructure, and, as such, it needs to be protected. Though online criminal activity is rife, the biggest danger to web security is from its regular users—you and I—who unwittingly support criminal activities by setting weak passwords, opening spam emails, and neglecting proper computer maintenance such as scanning for viruses.

With rights come responsibilities. A basic awareness of the proper usage and the dangers of the web is essential for every citizen who wishes to go online. The consequences of using the Web in ignorance are arguably more hazardous to public wellbeing than reckless driving, and we all bear a duty to society to use the web responsibly.

From July 1st next year, anyone in Australia wanting to access the web will need to pass a test that demonstrates basic understanding of the web and its appropriate usage. People won’t be able to sign up with an ISP without quoting a license number, and libraries, internet cafes and other venues that offer free internet will also need to verify user credentials before allowing users online. License holders will need to be 16 or over, and children will not be allowed online except with adult supervision—with stiff fines for parents, teachers and others who fail to monitor their children’s online activity.

To be honest, though I understand the complaints of civil libertarians and others, I don’t think this is such a bad idea.

Admittedly, I’m a bit skeptical about one aspect of the test, which requires people to undergo a psychological examination. (The idea is to weed out internet users prone to becoming trolls etc.)

That seems a bit extreme to me, but otherwise, I think this is a good idea overall, and I hope it will spread to other countries. (Several countries, including the US and UK, are watching this closely to see how it goes.)

What do you guys think? Is this a good thing, and do you hope other countries will take it up?

2 Likes

Why not just focus on educating people instead? I’ve often thought that schools should be providing ‘Internet literacy’ classes (or whatever you want to call it), not just to teach safe use of the web, but also to teach about the importance of fact-checking information found online.

I don’t believe this would be very effective. They do something similar here in Brazil as part of the driving test, but it doesn’t seem to stop people from driving like lunatics!

Perhaps it sounds paranoid, but I’m also not keen in the government being able to say who can or cannot use the Internet. One can easily imagine a situation in which certain people are screened out (by the psychological test) as being at risk from becoming extremists/terrorists and prohibited from using the internet, even from a library.

4 Likes

Yeah, I’m sure that will have to happen. I’m hoping to make some $$$ offering courses! (There’s always a win for someone! :stuck_out_tongue: )

True, but perhaps better than nothing.

Yep, but I think that’s the point of it.

Governments are usually pretty well meaning, though, aren’t they?

Call me cynical, but I imagine the real intent is to be able to “tax” or charge a “fee” for the test and license more than it is out of any great concern for internet users.

1 Like

It’s April first in AUS, isn’t it?

4 Likes

That’s right.

When personal computers first started becoming popular (I cut my teeth on an IBM PC/XT 8086 with 640K of RAM, running DOS 3.31), I started to take an elitist attitude towards people owning computers. I was of the belief that there were too many people who were purchasing and using computers that had no business using computers because they didn’t have a rudimentary understanding of how it worked, or how to maintain it.

Given that the internet, today, is filled with a LOT of people who still don’t have a rudimentary grasp of how to keep their system secure and virus-free, I’m surprised that I do not still have that elitist attitude.

The World Wide Web, although not its original intent, is for the FREE exchange of information and ideas. To limit that in any way, shape, or form is criminal. Any gov’t who is seriously considering this approach might as well be North Korea or China. This is but one step in that direction, anyway. Why not go full-throttle? <sarcasm mode off>

As much as I dislike the fact that the average Internet user doesn’t know how to keep their system secure, I abhor the prospect of instituting this kind of mandate. It’s counter-everything that the Internet basically stands for (spammers and get-rich fanatics notwithstanding.)

V/r,

:slight_smile:

1 Like

That sounds to me like a waste of tax dollars. Comparing operating a motor vehicle to the internet is ignorant at best. I think these days governments just want to see how far they can push and get away with it as this is utterly ridiculous.

1 Like

You are aware that this was an April Fools joke - or did you miss all the references to that earlier in the thread?

2 Likes

nope

Read it, did not catch it. Much relieved. Thanks for pointing that out.

:slight_smile:

2 Likes

whilst it is an april fools joke it is an interesting point of discussion. Should the internet be controlled more than it currently is? Google etc al announced today that it would be removing (from it’s searches) photos etc that were deemed indecent (i think it’s just children but could be others too).

Personally i think this is a good thing and more needs to be done to control what is on the internet. Is this censorship? Probably, but there is a reason for censorship. If i wanted to build a bomb in the pre-internet days i would have a reasonably difficult time finding out how. Anybody these days can find instructions pretty easily, i don’t think that is a benefit to society along with a lot of the other crud that exists out there.

For everything the internet has given us with one hand, has it taken just as much with the other?

No, but that’s the tricky issue for the web. It’s a big mess, but that’s part of having a free and open web, so we can’t have one without the other. If something is illegal that’s one thing. But just censoring what we don’t like is a slippery slope.

that is true. i guess it also depends on your countries laws as to what is actually illegal so that would be hard too, and also knowing or reading how to do something is not illegal i guess.

Yes, all dictators agree with you 100% on this point.

:slight_smile:

2 Likes

whilst democracy works so perfectly… :wink:

1 Like

I can’t see the image.

While the US isn’t perfect, it’s WAY better than communism or monarchy or dictatorship.

If you’re happy living under circumstances like that, then more power to you. However, your argument that “information not available is a boon to life” doesn’t hold water, so please don’t try to promote censorship as a cure all for the world’s ills. The problem isn’t information - the problem is radicalisation and a complete disregard for innocent life.

:slight_smile:

O my, I knew I shouldn’t have mentioned politics, even as a joke. :stuck_out_tongue:

In your opinion! There are examples of each that work or have worked well. We are continually spoon fed political agendas that our governments/dictators/media wish to push. It’s the same world over. I (on occasion) watch BBC news, Russia Today and Aljazeira which is quite interesting to see the same story told from a different perspective. Democracy can be as corrupt as communism.

but perhaps this is getting a bit too political… perhaps we should just stick to whether more controls on the internet are positive or negative

I also didn’t say those words! what i did say was that removing child porn/exploitation and how to build explosives from the ‘free to everyone’ internet is probably not a bad thing. I also did agree with ralphm on his point.

@ralphm you made a good point which led to me come to the realisation that whilst some things are illegal to do it is not necessarily illegal to have the information available. Whether it should be available morally i guess is up to the individual.

It’s a bit like if your local library from 20 years ago now stocks hard core porn next to the instructions on how to blow stuff up, right next to the front door so it’s not difficult for anyone to find. I just find it difficult to accept that it is now just seen as part of the library and everyone is happy about it just because they have more books on trout fishing these days. But i’m old fashioned and that is my problem i guess.

You didn’t say those exact words, no. But when you say that taking any information off the internet or making certain information unavailable because said information can be used for nefarious purposes, it’s essentially saying that not having that information available to the public is a boon.

This also begs the question of where to draw the line. Certain information that you consider to be bad may be lifesaving to another (ethics and morals aside.) Who gets to determine what is and is not “bad”? You? Me? Kim Jong-Un?

:slight_smile: