Category: Technology Author : Duncan Riley Posted: December 22, 2008
Tags : australia, internet censorship
Many in Australia, and those overseas interested in censorship would have now read a post from the Australian Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy responding to concern over the implementation of the Great Firewall of Australia.
I won’t rehash what’s already been reported, but having read it several times since publication, it’s what’s left out that makes the proposal even more scary.
Free Speech
The Minister has stated that political speech will not be filtered under the proposal, but fails to define acceptable free speech and does nothing more to articulate his previous comments that “unwanted” material will be filtered under the scheme.
The problem here is the extraordinary mish-mash of Australian laws relating to open speech. In Victoria for example inciting religious hatred is an offense, so theoretically arguing against a particular religion would constitute hate speech instead of fair political speech.
Australia has a long track record of banning books, but for all the hatred are we now not better today having access to something like Mein Kampf so we can understand how wrong it is. There is a blurred line between political and hate speech, and blocking such speech on the internet will not stop people accessing it.
Conroy is disingenuous in suggesting that the Government is pro-free speech, yet pro-censorship: the price of free speech is that we must put up with the stuff we don’t like. The alternative system is not free speech, it’s totalitarianism.
Adult Games
Australia still has the bizarre situation of refusing to categorize video games for adults. The Minister says nothing of such games online, so we can still only presume that adult games online that would be refused categorization in Australia will be blocked under the filter.
Such games include online virtual world Second Life among many.
It should be remembered that Australia is a country that refused classification to Duke Nukem 3D, let alone far more seriously violent games.
Pornography
Whether you like pornography or not, the hypocrisy of the Governments proposal remains the same. Senator Conroy continues to point to existing guidelines being extended to International content, but ignores the absurdity in the current guidelines.
R rated pornography is legal in Australia and can be purchased at newsagents or service stations. Under the guidelines proposed, R rated pornography online would be illegal unless those pages included a thorough adult verification scheme. That doesn’t mean enter your date here to proceed: as has previously been the case for age requirements for mobile content and R rated content hosted in Australia (of which there is little to none) that would include handing over credit card details, or in some cases being forced to register with the provider first, including the provision of adequate identifying measures to prove ones age.
The net affect is that 99.99% of R rated pornography, or any R rated material under this proposal will be blocked by the filter, as overseas providers will not bend over backwards to cater for a small market like Australia. Secondly: Australian’s will be none to keen to hand over details to these sites should they meet the criteria.
X Rated pornography is treated more strictly in Australia currently, but is quite legal, and available for purchase from the ACT and Northern Territory. X rated material under this proposal will be completely banned: so while it is legal to possess, look at or own in print or video, it will now be completely blocked online. Again: whether you agree with porn or not, the hypocrisy is rich. In terms of freedom of speech it also raises other issues: who is the Government to play moral guardian online over a picture of two consenting adults having sex? Presuming they are doing nothing illegal, why in the 21st century does the Government seek to prevent others seeing it? Government finally got out of the bedroom in the 80s when homosexuality became legal, some would argue that X Rated porn is no different again.
Secret Blacklist/ Due Process
The Minister points out that the blacklist to be maintained by ACMA will remain a secret, and cites legislation supporting this. His reasoning, as it seems to be for everything, is that it’s all about kiddie porn
Publishing the title or internet address of child abuse material would constitute distribution of illegal material and is therefore protected from release. To do otherwise would allow a person to view and download the material in jurisdictions where ISP-level filtering was not implemented.
That may well be the case, but the Minister fails to address concerns about due process should a site be added to the list. If there is no access to the list, there is no way to appeal a site being blocked incorrectly. Imagine a commenter leaving a lurid comment or pic on this blog, or a forum, and the site being added to the list based on this one instance. No transparency can only equal unfair and arbitrary justice that remains the hallmark of totalitarian Government.
Selection Criteria
The Minister refers to the National Classification Scheme, a system where by content providers must seek classification of content prior to publication. He then refers to content complaints being made to ACMA, and ACMA making the call on classification. One again the Minister fails to address properly the selection criteria under the scheme: will website owners need to seek classification on content prior to publication? If so, this would be an onerous burden on new media owners and businesses in Australia, costing time, money and putting those businesses at a strict competitive disadvantage compared to overseas operators.
If ACMA will decide on content classification, will they only act on complaints as is currently the process (again the Minister swaps and changes between the current and proposed system). If so, how exactly will the filter know what is acceptable and not acceptable content given the millions of porn sites alone that may fall under the censorship regime.
Likewise, will the filter then decide to block content based on keywords? Could we not see the case, as has happened before that a site about breast cancer is blocked because the filter considers breasts to be pornographic?
Overblocking
The Minister notes that in the last round of tests, overblocking, that is filters blocking legal content came in at 3-6%. He only notes that this is an advance on previous tests, but fails to address the very serious implications.
Under the scheme, three to six percent of perfectly legal content gets blocked. Anything other than a 0% rate is unacceptable.
Imagine the Australian Government waking up one morning and deciding that 6% of Australian businesses could no longer open their doors to their customers, and the outcry this would cause. This is EXACTLY what this proposal will do to online businesses, and companies with a primarily Australian focus online could find themselves out of business for no other reason that the Government’s filter has decided to block them, even though they were doing no wrong.
BitTorrent
The Minister now states that P2P filtering technology is in the mix, despite its relative infancy. The question then becomes one of “unwanted.” Will the Government now extend the censorship regime to content presumed to be in breach of copyright as well? We can bet with absolute certainty that the Record and Movie Industries already have a letter on the Ministers desk.
Like general filtering, the question then becomes one of identification and process. How does the Government identify “unwanted material” and given that the blacklist or decision process is secret, what happens when content is incorrectly tagged. As we know the music and record industries don’t have a great track record of respecting existing copyright laws when it comes to accusations (for example, the defense of Fair Use, or Fair Trading in Australia).
Further will P2P network speeds be adversely affected for legal traffic?
Internet Speeds
The Minister notes falsely once again that in other countries running ISP filtering using blacklists that there was no discernable decrease in speed, despite noting the tests here proving otherwise.
What the Minister continues to fail to mention is that the countries running blacklists he mentions were running child porn blacklists in some cases on non-compulsory feeds. What the Minister is proposing is far more reaching than anything any of these countries are running, and every time he quotes those figures it’s a lie of context.
Conclusion
While it’s a positive that the Minister has finally spoken on some of the points raised by the Great Firewall of Australia proposal, it’s what he doesn’t answer that makes the proposal even more scary.
The implementation of this scheme can and will take Australia into an elite club of totalitarian societies that value state control over free speech. The Rudd Government seems hell bent on implementing a scheme with no recourse, that may kill legitimate businesses, and slow internet speeds so that Australia can truly take its place as an online backwater in the digital age.
Today I am ashamed to be Australian, ashamed that my Government should seek to implement draconian 19th century style censorship laws over the marvel of the modern age: The Internet. Free Speech may not be totally dead in Australia yet, but it’s about to be placed on life support. Conroy can say all he wants that this isn’t about free speech, but speech censored by Government isn’t free, no matter which way you want to spin it.
![A boat from outside of the box [VIDEO]](http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/insectboat-150x150.jpg)
Dec 22, 2008
Wow.
Dec 22, 2008
Good post.
Dec 22, 2008
A good overview of the issues. Keep up the good work.
Dec 23, 2008
it is ridiculous. the gov want to control our lives. soon we wont be able to walk in our own back yards because it would be to dangerous and harmful to children. well maybe not. but they might go as far as making you get a license to use a lawn mower.
Dec 23, 2008
Time to emigrate!
Dec 23, 2008
Nice work summarising the issues. Have you read that Conroy is now enlisting the help of “tech savvy” 16-year-olds to assist in helping to ensure the filter will be hard to get around? And that the blacklist they're wanting to use is the one the IWF in the UK use? Witness the recent Wiki fiasco. And that's in a country with an opt-in filter! Oh weep for the Wide Brown Land.
Dec 24, 2008
This will only encourage people to make their own porn. Australia will one day have a porn industry as big as Californias. Bring it on.
Dec 24, 2008
Uh.. just in time for the death of optical media? I think not.
Dec 25, 2008
True. I didn't think o that. The CD/DVD format is dying in favour of legit movie downloads through iTunes and similar services. When you consider the size of HD content and how long that will take to download on a good connection this filter will only make even slower.
Dec 27, 2008
Did anyone notice that Australia is making itself a communist, tyranical, fascist, evil dictatorship like China, Iran, Belarus and Libya? Is there something these governments want to hide from the people? In Australia???? What on earth is going on in Australia??? Do the people even know their government is as evil as China and Iran??
Dec 27, 2008
agree … i am thinking about setting up my own country, somewhere in the Indian Ocean, just south of Durban….
Dec 30, 2008
Yeah, but the Australians won't know any better, a few years down the road; isn't that all there is? Australia, surrounded by endless ocean, all memories of distant lands lost?
It's what I would do if I was dictator of a country. Now get to work on my palace
Dec 30, 2008
This is the very reason I have decided to delay taking my citizenship test. I seriously question joining a country where free speech where censorship on this scale is even considered. It's insane. Even my Australian born and bred husband has question our return to Australia until this is resolved (and only in the positive e.g. no internet censorship.)
Dec 30, 2008
The other category of sites it will be blocking are online gambling sites. In Australia only one (AFAIK) company has been issued with a license to run an online gambling website in Australia and that is PBL. However you might have noticed that Partypoker.net is the site in the top 100 – a site run from overseas and, again AFAIK, illegal to use in Australia.
The question I would like to have answered by Stephen Conroy is which of the top 100 sites in Australia will be blocked?
Dec 30, 2008
“The Minister points out that the blacklist to be maintained by ACMA will remain a secret,”
Not for long it won't. Somebody inside the industry will leak it, as has already happened in other countries.
Conroy is an arrogant self-righteous right wing Catholic thug, and he ain't that smart either. He is also not that popular within his own party. There is talk that he has been handed this job because the smarter heads in the government know it will fail, technically and politically, and they want to be able to pin the blame on him so they can get rid of him. Which might explain why he is so tetchy about it all.
There is also a lot of as yet unspoken opposition to this scheme. People I know who are not porn lovers, or politically active, are pretty angry about this illegitimate grab for control over information.
Leaving aside the prohibitively costly and unworkable amounts of content classification required (100s of millions of sites, and many billions of individual web pages), the only way the government can truly censor the internet is if they take control of the security certificates, and I can't see how that will ever be allowed to happen. Short of that, a simple anonymising VPN connection will get around any censorship scheme, piece of cake.
Dec 30, 2008
… and I thought China was bad. This just opens the door for more government control over your lives. One giant step backwards for Australia.
Dec 30, 2008
Duncan,
Thanks for this great summary. I have just referenced it in its entirety in a letter to Senator Conroy (whom I have already contacted and received a form letter from.
Something I would like you to consider as an follow up to this article: it is my understanding that iiNet is the only ISP that will be working with the Government on the next round of trials. We need to hold them to account for this, as a secret test with unknown judging criteria can be spun on the backend. iiNet's stated purpose in agreeing to the testing is to “put the final nail in the coffin”* of this idea, however any testing respresents a danger to our freedoms, as the technological problems of today can only be the source of innovation tomorrow – and this is an innovation that we don't need.
In short: anything that can be done to put a spotlight on iiNet and hopefully have them pull out of testing can only be a good thing.
* iiNet email to me on Dec. 10th, in response to this issue.
Dec 30, 2008
Well written, and completely factual.
Conroy is from a lunatic fringe, who, while acknowledging the problems with his proposal, goes not way into solving them, and chooses to fire on with his draconian unworkable scheme despite the protests of, well everybody. Herein lies the problem with democracy (it was us that put him there) and now we have this- politicians with an agenda, trying to push through social reforms on technological issues, IT JUST WONT WORK. The minister for censorship seems blissfully unaware that censorship reflects societys lack of confidence in itself, and we will now all pay the price for it. It really saddens me that he can't see how this is a much bigger deal than him ramming home some vote grabbing populist nonsense, punishing the majority for the crimes of a minority.
Dec 30, 2008
I don't usually comment on articles but I wanted to lend my voice in support. I agree with what you are saying and I think you said it well!
Dec 30, 2008
What interests me is where this requirement has come from???? All of a sudden it has just popped up and has very serious and constraining effects on all electronic international connections. What is the modus operandi for this?
Is this a domestic or government requirement? Who are they protecting from what? There is no evidence to say how and why we need this?
Dec 30, 2008
Speed and overblocking are definitely concerns but most of the other stuff is just bringing the medium/delivery system (depending on what you want to call it) that is the Internet in line with the rest of the delivery/mediums. It seems to me most people have issues with the Rating System more then they do with the concept of filtering the internet.
JMTC
Dec 30, 2008
Great post, Spot on…
Dec 30, 2008
“Conroy can say all he wants that this isn’t about free speech, but speech censored by Government isn’t free, no matter which way you want to spin it.”
Having emigrated to Australia as a political refugee from a country with no freedom of speech, I have never read a truer word being written! I am terrified of what this means to Australia if it is implemented, and am not exaggerating when I say that I will leave this country if it comes into being! I have experienced the terror of censorship and “law enforcement” at its worst, and have no intention of doing so again.
Dec 30, 2008
We all know that child porn is not posted to websites, it's distributed covertly and carefully between offenders. The recent 'bust' in Queensland confirmed this.
Therefore, Conroy must have another motive for introducing filtering on unspecified 'unwanted' material. It's time he came clean.
Putting filters in to stop child porn, is like putting roadblocks in the street, when the crims are using helicopters. Come on Conroy. Stop feeding us bull about how importantant it is to get 'empirical evidence' about something that's transparently stupid.
Dec 30, 2008
Normally it takes about 18 months to realize a labor government is a dud, Kev's managed it in 12
Dec 30, 2008
Find the email address of a federal politician
and let them know what you think. Tell the ALP members they will be spectacularly voted out of office at the next election on this issue alone if they persist and finally implement the plan. Tell them to cross the floor and oppose the legislation when it come time for the vote if they value their seats.
Dec 30, 2008
Unfortunately ALP members will never cross the floor due to the way their party operates. If they vote against the party line they will lose their seat regardless.
Our only hope is to either kill it at it's source e.g. Conroy or Rudd or kill it in the senate. The Liberal Party won't be supporting it so if the rest of the minor parties vote against it, it won't get through.
Dec 31, 2008
try writing a 'Your Will' letter to your federal member. http://www.rag.org.au/rag/mywillet.htm
and as for the ALP members being forced to vote along party lines that is illegal under the Commonwealth crimes act.
“THE CRIMES ACT (COMMONWEALTH) 1914 Part ll.
Section 28
Interfering with political liberty
Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.”
Not that Kevin747 and his ilk are likely to to hinder a member from carrying out the will of their constituents
Dec 31, 2008
Hooray! China has really become a powerful country as we are exporting our values not just importing, LOL.
Dec 31, 2008
Here we go again american social control freaks of 19th century draconian methods used to lie and decieve the public in the interests of the goverment and corporations. This is about social control and how about the thoughts of goverments microchipping humans and surveillence cameras in your streets and in your own home. This is the reality of the situation and this is only a taste of what is to come.This is the american way of controlling the masses the way of congress saying we have no rights. But you know people will fight these issues
Dec 31, 2008
one thing that our governement doesnt understand is that pornography and p2p data are the main reason why isp's have large download plans. does the government really think that isp's will be able to sustain the market when everyone has jumped back to small download quota's because theres no reason to get such a big plan. it will eventually downsize the online economy. isp's will be fighting desperately for very little margins. and then we have the NBN. whats the point when people cant really use it to download via p2p? then theres the scare factor. people do not like change. its kind of like taking away the baby bonus or FTB. they wouldnt dare do that so why would they dare do this? looks like liberals will be back in the next round.
Dec 31, 2008
After years of criticising China's censorship policies, our government is now going down the same road. May God help us, because Rudd and Conroy will not!
Dec 31, 2008
give it six months and the Crudd (or Mr Sheen as i like to call him) government will be asking you to pay a tax on breathing (yes it is on the books in thier climate change legislation), so if they can tax you for just being alive why can't they take away every other freedom you have, the answers is they can and they will and stupidly you people will love him for it.
You all voted for him so be happy and reap what you have sown you idiots.
Dec 31, 2008
When this plan is started, we should offer bounties to hackers outside of tyrannical rule, Australia to infiltrate the severs and destroy this filter.
It could done, nothing is 100% secure.
There are other protocols that will rise up if they get their elitist claws on .torrents.
MUTE comes to mind, which is totally anonymous, there are others out there too.
Screw Kevin Bloody Dudd and his cronies..
Dec 31, 2008
Maybe this might convince a few voters that they should be voting for the party that reflects their views the most rather than just going for one of the two major parties. We have the gift of preferential voting in this country, meaning that you aren't forced to choose between Labor and Liberal, you can vote for minor parties, and yet so many people don't appreciate it.
Dec 31, 2008
wtf mates
Dec 31, 2008
so how can we counter this? Hackers and computer nerds will have no problem getting past the firewall and the this battle will be no different then war against piracy… they people of Australia will figure out a way to counter the wall.
Dec 31, 2008
Wow. I'm engaged to an Australian, and am seriously considering never stepping foot there again… the government is becoming paranoid and ridiculous.
Dec 31, 2008
This is totally ridiculous. I am all for stopping child porn etc but this “filter” will be affecting honest and decent Australians. Telstra refused the offer to trial it and iinet said yes so they could prove how ineffective it is and how it is going to slow down access speeds. So we get to pay for the same amount yet lose speed. Now are we going to have to ssh tunnel to proxy servers or will that not work either? An the operation of torrenting is only illegal if you are downloading copyrighted content. This totally sucks.
Dec 31, 2008
What a bunch of fucking prudes.
Dec 31, 2008
FCUK RUDD, FCUK CONROY AND FCUK AUSTRALIA.
Dec 31, 2008
It all started when your government banned most firearms. Now they know they have nothing to fear from the populace, and they can do whatever they want to you.
It's happened time and time again, to the detriment of millions of people killed in the 20th century by their own governments.
Dec 31, 2008
Yay for New Zealand!!!!!
Dec 31, 2008
you can vote for minor parties, but the unfortunates of our system is that the lower house of government can only be occupied by 2 parties, ALP and LIB, the minor parties are all senate parties and any votes you give them go down to 1 of those 2.
What needs to happen is let any party occupy the lower house, that will solve a lot of problems.
Dec 31, 2008
This will only end up qaffecting the nontech savvy and the mums and dads. Anyone with half a clue will be able to get around it. The people that this is aimed at will not be effected.
It would be like goping fishing in the middle of the desert, you aint gonna catch anything.
So who voted for Labor? I know i didn't.
Dec 31, 2008
This is 100% what The Government wants, 0% what the people want, and 0% of what the people need. Last time I looked Australia was A Democracy, The Government *is supposed to* be “of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE”. Currently Rudd-and-Co are 100% AGAINST THE PEOPLE. Why have we not given them the-old-heave-ho and found someone who is actually competent and capable to do their job? SURELY there's some magic clause which gives THE PEOPLE to reject outright and completely THE STANDING GOVERNMENT, and get them turfed? Perhaps a few words to Our Lady GG might see appropriate action being taken?
Dec 31, 2008
Smoke and Mirrors as it will never happen and I hate to imagine the amount of money being wasted on this fruitless exercise when the world and this country has so many better areas the money could be spent on.
If it does fall over I'd expect Conroy to resign from his position, or the Labor government may as well fall on their sword next election.
Dec 31, 2008
I wouldn't worry too much, no democratic govenmrnt is efficient enough to enforce this crap
Dec 31, 2008
Time to move to the USA… whats with the Filtering anyway? who wants it?
Dec 31, 2008
this is going to go ahead no matter what.. its the labor parties promise..
are we becomming communist.. hell yes.. labor are sociallists and tthere is nothing better than making us all commies… it is for this reason i never buy products made in china.. commies… pah.
but chairman rudd wants us to be communist…
you all voted him in… so suffer..
Jan 1, 2009
Child porn is not traded on websites with “CHILD PORN CLICK HERE” and http://www.childporn.com. Unless they plan on having a filter that scans every image to detect nudity.
Soon enough, the nutjobs at Family First will have anything related to abortion filtered.
Jan 1, 2009
rod can fuck off.
Jan 1, 2009
Bye Bye Senator Conman…..
Jan 1, 2009
Goodbye Australia!
Jan 1, 2009
Who here can say they voted this government in – no one here will own up! Not surprising – I would be embarrassed if I did…
And time to bring in a few terrorists from Guantanamo Bay… what else has this government got in store? Thanks KRud for the 'transparency' we were promised!!!
Jan 1, 2009
This really is ridiculous, Sure make the filter, But mandatory ? Do we need the government to look over our shoulders when we are surfing the web and tell people of 18+ years old what we CAN and CANNOT look at ?
If it's about Protecting the children make the whole filter optional so that parents can enable it. Don't force beliefs on everyone.
Not only are we in a country where we have ridiculously small download limits so cant download much at all, We pay through the roof for it, And soon alot of the internet will be unaccessable for us..
Not to mention the 'real' people that you are trying to stop here wont be affected by this at all, At least i know this wont stop me downloading my TV shows and such from Bittorrent, 5mins to load up PuTTY and setup a tunnel to a server on the east coast of US and this billion dollar filter is useless.
This is friggin ridiculous really, In a time of economic crisis what do we do.. throw several billion dollars at a filter that will not even work. Don't we have better things to spend our money on ?
Jan 1, 2009
Previous comments suggesting those who voted labour in are to blame or should be ashamed are ridiculous! We KNEW for a fact we all were being shafted by the Coward government, at the time Rudd was the most viable option. I voted labour because what they offered was more in line with what I wanted for our country, as did MOST Australians. Compulsory Internet filtering was NOT on the agenda during the election campaign, and if it was I would NOT have voted labour. Just as I won't vote labour during the next election if it is implemented.
Regardless of if you objections are on technical or freedom of speech grounds (or both), just about everyone agrees that this Internet filter is BAD for Australia. Technically ineffective, with potentially a huge impact on freedom of speech. Think about whose interests this filter could be easily adapted to serve. Think about what industry has proven itself throughout the world as being sociopathic in serving their own interests. Think about who has powerful lobby groups to get in the ear of government. Beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing people!
Jan 1, 2009
What is overlooked in the above is not only is the ACMA process secret, it relies, in part, on an overseas charity for its determination of acceptable content.
Conroy, in his response to representations notes that ACMA refers to the United Kingdom Internet Watch Foundation for listings of unwanted material. Yes, this is the organisation that had Wikipedia banned in the UK over one image on its site; the decision was reversed after a public outcry and confirmation that the 'offending' image has been in the public domain since 1976. Interestingly, it insisted that it was the correct decision to ban the site based on its 'rules'.
The UK Internet Watch Foundation is a self regulated charity! Meaning, Australia's determination of acceptable content is being sourced from a foreign charity that has now parliamentary control in ANY country.
Clearly, Conroy and his departmental advisers just have not got a grip on what they are doing, saying or the consequences of their actions. A classic case of poor policy development leading to a draconian outcome for the Australian public.
Jan 1, 2009
Good post Duncan. I think this is an issue that Joe Public doesn't understand, and so this issue isn't getting the attention it deserves. You've inspired me to blog about it myself, at http://theblogisthelife.blogspot.com/2009/01/li…
Jan 1, 2009
Good post Duncan. I think Joe Public has such little understanding of this issue that it's not getting nearly as much press time as it deserves. It's scary to think this is the sort of government our country voted in. You inspired me to write my own blog post on this issue, you can read it here: http://theblogisthelife.blogspot.com/2009/01/li…
Jan 1, 2009
Good post Duncan. I think Joe Public has such little understanding of this issue that it hasn't yet sunk in what it could mean, and it hasn't had the exposure that it deserves. You inspired me to write my own blog post, you can read it at: http://theblogisthelife.blogspot.com/2009/01/li…
Jan 2, 2009
People keep using the word “democracy” in this thread to describe our government. What kind of democracy has compulsory voting? Our system is flawed from the outset. It should come as no surprise when the powers that be pull this kind of swiftie on the people. This kind of thing is sadly very typical of “modern” Australian thinking. Knee-jerk reactions and small-minded decision makers are the order of the day. Australia is becoming a nation of wowsers. The day of the fair go is long dead, the underdog is no longer rooted for, he is just plainly rooted. Pathetic and worrying, and not a little bit progressive.
Jan 2, 2009
The best part about it is, they'll never block those child pornography sites anyway. Go to any school in the country and after a few hours on the web you can find an x-rated porno site which has slipped through the schools formidible child safe blockers- and these are websites that are ACTIVELY trying to get people to visit their sites. Child pornography sites and networks are only found when police arrest a sicko and find all the filth on his pc. They then get him to roll over for a lighter sentance to find out how the system works. This censorship has NOTHING to do with protecting chinldren, and everything to do with taking away just about the only thing which allows almost total freedom. The laws and regulations are being written by people who have little to no experience of the internet-who grew up when computers were bigger than the offices they now work in. People who believe they know better than everybody else so they'll “protect” us from filth on the internet. In its most benign state the idea is ridiculous and in its darker forms as others have suggested, Draconian and Totalitarian.
Jan 2, 2009
Might be a good time to design and build an encryped traffic handling system that only the source and target can see
Jan 2, 2009
fuck mr rudd and fuck mr conroy.. both faggots need a wakeup call.
Jan 3, 2009
The great fallacy is that the proponents of internet filtering do not understand what the internet is – they think of it as a glorified pay-TV system. It is more like the telephone network – would we accept a regime where every telephone call was listened to and if you said something obscene you would be cut off and your number barred? If the concern is control of access by young children, then this belongs in the home. The government is totally out of touch on this issue. As for child porn, those involved will find ways around any filters. Nothing can really stop the Internet as people can transmit multiple part encrypted files that can be combined through appropriate software. Filtering will only degrade the internet and block legitimate sites, without achieving the stated objectives. We should reject any filtering proposals as unconstitutional and a serious restriction on liberty of the Australian people.
Jan 3, 2009
I'm ashamed to share this country with people who voted for these idiots!
Jan 3, 2009
Please keep up the good work – as an Aussie living abroad, this just makes me wonder how the attitude of the people has changed for something like this to even be a possibility.
Jan 5, 2009
Shaun – I don't see how it is 'vote grabbing populist nonsense'. As you admitted earlier in your post, its massively unpopular. Apart from loony lefty Clive Hamilton and religious conservative Steve Fielding, I haven't heard a single published voice in support of it. Labor, Liberal, Green voters are all against it – in pop-polls only something like 2.5% say they support it.
It makes me wonder what on earth Conroy is thinking. I can think of only two plausible explanations:
1. Conroy is relying on a survey that showed more than 50% of parents were supportive of voluntary ISP-level filtering. He is too stupid to see how changing 'parents' to 'general population' and 'voluntary filtering' to 'compulsory censorship' might just possibly affect the percentage in favour.
2. Conroy is not actually that stupid, and this is a deal done behind closed doors that benefits all political parties by controlling anti-government dissent. Labor are rushing to do it now, hoping that the fuss will have died down before the next election, especially if a gentleman's agreement has been reached not to campaign to overturn the legislation.
I hope it's number 1 – number 2's just a bit too conspiracy theory for my liking.
Jan 6, 2009
i reckenn the government should shove the proposal up its arse and rotate it is bullshit, what is wrong with adult supervision and net nanny?? and since when does australia represent a great percentage of pedo's this will do jackshit and piss 20 million people off!!!!!!!
Jan 7, 2009
Out of the frying pan and into the fire…
Jan 22, 2009
I have a plan: Create an ISP in Hutt River Province and it will not have to censor anything because it is not an Australian ISP. BTW Hutt River Province is in Australia but is a seperate country.
Jan 25, 2009
Not at all true, you wankers, what are you smokin'?:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/170…
Jan 25, 2009
Very interesting. Never ceases to amaze me what you find online or happening on the net these days.
Jan 26, 2009
oh good god.
you think that the Australian filtering proposal is made up?
please, just get back to your rock.
Jan 29, 2009
omg
i just had the best idea for a get rich quick scheme
1. register for a site that is legal but you know will get blocked anyways have to pay to join
2. sue the government
3. ?????????????????
4. Profit
5. leave australia and go live in Canada or something
6. ????????????????
7. Profit
Jan 29, 2009
I live in Australia and have been reading a lot about this ON THE INTERNET… the current government still has another ~2 years in office but I really really hope that this fails like most other proposals by the Rudd government (his son plays WoW btw).
The government has kept this one very very quiet and almost nobody I know has heard about it. The problem is that the mainstream media don't understand what implications this would have, they just think it blocks CP and terrorism
Jan 30, 2009
wow that so weird how ppl could loss so much wight but i bet they try so hard 2 get like cause there are some ppl that just give up and they think they cant do it nomore
Jan 30, 2009
<h1>OMg wow
Jan 26, 2010
http://adsoftheworld.com/files/images/carte-web-en.jpg
The picture above the article is disingenuous. It looks like the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) organization agrees with you. It’s misrepresentation, and you should remove the RSF logo from the image.