Many people fear the idea of filtering for the fact that it can be used to withhold vital information necessary for gauging the accountability of governments. However, that is not the case, since filtering the internet helps in harboring criminal activities.
This is because security is important to everyone and every government has the responsibility of ensuring that no room remains for groups such as internet frauds to infringe its security.
Being that the internet platform is a hub for intellectual material, without filtering, many people get exposure to material of high content and misuse such material (Sturges 2008 p.4-23).
Some of the materials may be of high sensitivity to the government and open exposure to the public provides unrealistic access to matters of security importance.
When a government decides to hold information of security importance, it is upon citizens to understand that there are so many people out there looking for that information. The problem is that they need such information for personal interests and can end up damaging the reputation of the country.
The issue of keeping of information by governments does not hold because as the government leaves the internet open to no filtering, it only protects the rights of a few individuals. If it decides to filter information, it takes the interest of the entire country into consideration and works towards ensuring the safety of its entire population.
That makes internet filtering essential to any government and should the Australian government decide to censor information passing through its web space, it is only carrying out its responsibility of ensuring that its information does not leak to wrong hands (Beattie 2009 p. 64).
It is important noting that without internet filtering, decision making becomes a problem to consumers because marketers manipulate their thinking. They present products in terms of attractiveness and that alters the process of product search (Sahoo, Param Vir & Mukhopadhyay 2012 p.1329-A4).
Filtering helps by presenting the chance for consumers to find the best alternatives to look out for instead of going for predetermined sets, which may not give them the desired satisfaction.
The decisions for searching for products becomes from informed choice making instead of imposed decisions following the overwhelming scenarios of the cases where there is nofiltering on the internet.
It is important noting that filtering presents consumers with the chance of assessing product and service alternatives they have from the given recommendations. Their search decisions become informed and that gives them a comparison benefit for getting the best products in the market.
In addition, internet filtering helps in the transformation of the variable qualities of a product other than just its attactiveness.
Customers become capable of making their decisions by weighing the given variables contained in a product and that helps them in making less searches because they will look for valuable qualities to look for unlike in cases when there are no recommendations (Dellaert & Häubl 2012 p. 277-288).
These are situations, which have worked in many areas, but there are still a couple of occasions, when internet filtering gets beyond the expectations of the common citizen.
In the cases when filtering becomes a strict measure that leads to censorship, the expectations of the importance of the internet turn contrary to what people needed. There have been a couple of situations when internet filtering has led to extreme limitations on the freedom to access of information.
It hinders objective reporting of vital information especially when a government remains high handed on the information passed to the public. This is contrary to the expectations for freedom of expression earlier hoped for in most countries by the coming of the internet.
However, that is not reason enough to worry because the expectations of the early infiltration of the internet into the community has led to tremendous changes in the lives of people.
There is substantial amount of economic growth, political freedom, academic support and many positive turns in the lives of people because of the advantages presented by the internet (Moses 2010 p. 581-604).
Politically, the internet play a major role in the dissemination of information and the public has a wider spectrum for displaying its opinions. There is no adequate amount of filtering, which can deter the public from expressing itself. Instead, filtering only focuses on encouraging responsibility among internet users.
It is unimaginable stating the extent to, which unfiltered information can pass through the internet in a viral manner. The damage cannot be accounted because if people are not controlled, they tend to care less about their actions.
Therefore, filtering has little concern to the creation of censorship as purported by most people. It is, instead, a way of cultivating a sense of responsibility on those passing information to others.
The only role the governments such as Australia can play in the maintenance of internet filtering is ensuring that there is significant regulation of internet content without violation the rights of its citizens.
It can ensure that the associated goals for the viability of the process is duly respected so that filtering does not turn into censorship and raise concerns of the accountability required on the part of the government on the use of powers it has over its citizens (Koumartzis & Veglis 2012 p.16).
In conclusion, filtering protects information of national security and helps governments to maintain their national secrets. It is all in the interest of individuals and the state and failure to do so can lead to scandals with both persons and states.
Filtering helps in containment of information within limits of government requirements to prevent occasions when people misuse the freedom offered by the internet (China and the Internet 2010).
It is a personal responsibility to use the internet in a reasonable manner, but since that has failed and led to multiple cases of cyber crimes it is just necessary that filtering stays to maintain things under control.
Otherwise, cases such as online gambling, spreading of viruses, financial frauds and pornography cannot keep away from the internet. It is only through filtering that government secrets and infringement of personal rights can stop.
This leaves this contribution in support of internet filtering because it supports a freedom for the entire community without just consideration of personal interests.
References
Beattie, S. 2009. Community, Space and Online Censorship: Regulating Pornotopia, Ashgate Publishing, New York.
‘China and the Internet’ 2010, International Debates, 8, 4, p. 10, MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost.
Dellaert, B, & Häubl, G 2012, ‘Searching in Choice Mode: Consumer Decision Processes in Product Search with Recommendations’, Journal Of Marketing Research (JMR), 49, 2, pp. 277-288, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost.
Koumartzis, N, & Veglis, A 2012, ‘Internet Regulation, a New Approach: Outline of a System Formed to Be Controlled by the Internet Users’, Computer Technology & Application, 3, 1, p. 16, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost.
Moses, L 2010, ‘Creating Parallels In The Regulation Of Content: Moving From Offline To Online’, University Of New South Wales Law Journal, 33, 2, pp. 581-604, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost.
Sahoo, N, Param Vir, S, & Mukhopadhyay, T 2012, ‘A Hidden Markov Model for Collaborative Filtering’, MIS Quarterly, 36, 4, pp. 1329-A4, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost.
Sturges, P 2008, ‘Access denied: The practice and policy of global internet filtering’, The Electronic Library, vol. 26 no. 6, pp. 4-23.