An Australian Government committee has recommended the introduction of compulsory virus scanners on computers or users won’t be allowed on the internet as part of an alleged crackdown on “cyber crime.”

The Hackers, Fraudsters and Botnets: Tackling the Problem of Cyber Crime report from the House Standing Committee on Communications Inquiry into Cyber crime makes 34 different recommendations, with most shrieking of gross nanny state paternalism.

The headline proposal, if adopted by the Government, would force Australian internet users to install and keep up-to-date virus scanners on computers as a condition for internet access via the contractual obligations with their ISP. Users would also be forced to “take reasonable steps to remediate their computer(s) when notified of suspected malware compromise.”

In the event that the customer does not meet these contractual obligations, ISP’s must provide “a clear policy on graduated access restrictions and, if necessary, disconnection until the infected machine is remediated.”

What the report doesn’t state though is how such restrictions would be imposed; forcing ISP’s under law to enforce such rules may be possible, but the only way ISP’s will be able to do this is by spying on their customers.

If that isn’t scary enough, the report also notes that such data would go back to the Government. Recommendation 12 notes that the ” Australian Communications and Media Authority further increase its access to network data for the purpose of detecting malware compromised computers.” The compilation of the data even gets a name in Recommendation 13: the “Australian Internet Security Initiative network.”

But Government intervention doesn’t stop there. Recommendation 16 states that “The new scheme should involve the Australian Communications and Media Authority, Internet Service Providers, IT security specialists, and end users in a more tightly coordinated scheme to detect and clean malware infected computers,” suggesting that once malware was discovered on a users computer, the Australian Government would involve itself with that computer.

Domain Registrars

While much of the report deals with the interaction between ISP’s, Government and end users, the domain name industry also comes under fire. Recommendation 20 states that domain name registrars must filter applications, attempt to identify any fraudulent uses for domains, and take down any name deemed bad by the Government.

Recommendation 21 notes that this regulation would be enforced by law.

Cyber health warnings for mobile phones

The report suggests that education is an important part of the process, and regularly repeats the need for various industry participants to educate users. Recommendation 24 though goes into bizarre territory, stating that “manufacturers and distributors of personal computers, mobile phones and related IT devices such as modems and routers,” and that they must “address the e-security vulnerabilities of these products and the provision of e-security information to consumers at the point of sale; and require that the information is presented in a manner that is clear and accessible to a non-IT literate person.”

The report doesn’t state what form these cyber health warnings should take, but it’s not inconceivable that an iPhone purchased in Australia might soon come with a cigarette packet style health warning stating something like “this phone may be bad for your cyber health.”

Manufacturers though won’t just have to apply cyber health warnings, they will also have to meet Government guidelines dictating an appropriate level of cyber-security. Recommendation 25 notes that ” industry specific regulation under the Australian Consumer Law, including a scheme for the compulsory independent testing and evaluation of IT products and a product labeling scheme.”

If they release a product that doesn’t pass Government tests, the Government seeks to amend “Australian Consumer Law to provide a cause of action for compensation against a manufacturer who releases an IT product onto the Australian market with known vulnerabilities that causes losses that could not have reasonably been avoided.”

Yes: you read that right: the Australian Government wants to punish manufacturers when hackers find ways into their products. It would be like the Government fining the builder of a house because it was broken in to, even when the best efforts are made to prevent such an event occuring.

Conclusion

The report follows proposals by the Australian Government to track emails and browsing history of every internet user in the country, a massive undertaking of unprecedented scope.

The Government has not yet stated that they will be introducing all of the recommendations of the report, but likewise the report came from a Government dominated House Committee; it would be fair to suggest then that it would most likely have the support of the Government.

With the new proposals added to the list, Australia will soon censor the internet, track everything everyone does on it, and then dictate what software should be installed on your computer, with a kicker that if you don’t comply, you’ll lose internet access. If that doesn’t sound like the actions of a police state, I’m buggered if I know what would.

Australia Takes Further Step Towards Police State With Cyber Crime Proposals is a post from: The Inquisitr

Australian Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy has been caught out of his depth once again on all matters internet, managing to describe malware as “Spams or scams that come through the portal.”

In footage from an SBS News story on cyber security, Conroy tells a reporter:

“There’s a staggering number of Australian’s being in having their computers infected at the moment, up to 20,000, uh, can regularly be getting infected by these spams, or scams, that come through, the portal.”

And this man wants to filter the internet and is currently running a jihad against Google. Fail doesn’t even come close here

The footage as follows (via The Next Web)

Australian Censorship Minister Claims People Under Attack From “Spams Through The Portal” is a post from: The Inquisitr

In a stunning blow to the growingly theocratic Australian Government, the United States Government has officially raised concerns about Australia’s proposed internet filter.

According to Australian media reports, the U.S. State Department has “raised…concerns on this matter with Australian officials” through a formal diplomatic exchange.

The move by the United States to speak out against internet censorship in Australia adds Australia to a list of countries including Iran and China that the United States has targeted over freedom of speech online.

The news comes after major internet companies including Google and Yahoo spoke out against the Australian Government’s totalitarian censorship plans last week.

Both tech giants made submissions to the Australian Parliament arguing against the introduction of internet censorship on freedom of speech grounds.

How Wrong Is Net Censorship in Australia? The U.S. Government Is Officially Concerned About It is a post from: The Inquisitr

In one of its most cynical moves yet, the Australian Government will delay the implementation of Internet censorship until after the next Australian Election.

In a letter to an opponent of internet censorship, Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy wrote that the Government would introduce “legislative amendments into Parliament to require all ISPs, starting twelve months from the passage of the legislation, to filter RC material hosted on overseas servers.” (emphasis is mine.)

Note the overseas servers is an extension of current policy; it is already illegal to host RC (restricted content) on an Australian server, filtering being the new part.

The Australian Parliament next sits on February 2, 2010. Even if the legislation were presented to the House of Representatives on February 2 (and there is no indication at this stage that it will be,) the legislation must pass the Senate (which isn’t assured) and eventually return for a third reading in the House of Representatives before it passes. Given the contentious nature of the legislation, it would be fair to presume that there will be proposed amendments and/or strong opposition in the Senate for the bill. Even if it passes the Senate quickly, by the time it is passed and gains royal assent, at the very earliest the bill would be law in late February 2010, for implementation in late February 2011.

The next Australian election must be held no later than the April 16, 2011. But likewise, although Governments can hold out to the last minute, very few in Australia have. The first meeting of the House of Representatives of the 42nd Parliament occurred on 12 February 2008, and therefore expires on 11 February 2011. If the current Prime Minister follows his Labor predecessors, the election will likely be in March, not April. Notably writs for the next election must be issued no later than 21 February 2011.

Under the unlikely scenario that the bill passes in February 2010, internet censorship would come into law in Australia in February 2011, which even if the election hadn’t been formally called, would none the less fall a week or two before the formal campaign (and the unofficial campaign would be in full swing.)

There’s no way in hell that Rudd will risk implementing internet censorship in the middle of an election campaign, because it risks distracting from the Government message. It could easily become a wedge point against the Government, particularly when voters start asking why their internet connections have magically become slower all of a sudden.

More likely is that Senator Conroy is looking for the legislation to pass before Winter recess, with implementation a couple of months clear of the election, which if opinion polls are to be believed, will return the Labor Government.

What should be noted is the bizarre implementation of a 12 month clause; while not unprecedented, there is no requirement under Australian law for a 12 month implementation of new legislation. Indeed, Australian Governments in the past have managed to pass retrospective legislation. Conroy may argue that 12 months is fair game for the ISP’s to get their filters ready, but likewise if we are to believe the filtering report, the implementation isn’t that hard, it’s 100% perfect and easy (apparently), and if they were serious the date would be July 1 (a traditional implementation date for many new Australian Government laws.)

It’s the height of cynicism that the Australian Government, seeking to implement draconian internet censorship in Australia, would be so afraid of what the reaction might be they’d delay it until after the next election. Weasels of the first degree.

A full copy of the letter below, the 12 month clause third last paragraph, page 2 (letter via insertthehandle on Reddit)

Australian Government To Delay Internet Censorship Until After Next Election is a post from: The Inquisitr

I don’t need to highlight the multiple posts here at The Inquisitr when it comes to my stance against Chinese style censorship in Australia; I’m a foundation member of the Pirate Parry in Australia despite previously swearing off politics for life; half of that drive was censorship driven, the other half was a real need for copyright reform.

So I’m naturally not inclined to criticize those who try and support the anti-censorship drive. But today, there is one cause that is damaging the anti-censorship cause, and that’s the people behind the now unregistered stephenconroy.com.au.

If you believe the media release (link) that SAPIA Pty Ltd put out today, auDA (the Australian domain registrar) undertook an unprecedented act of political censorship by suspending the domain.

It’s a nice line, and I’d normally be the first to support it, after all, it makes for a good anti-censorship line.

Except for two things: it’s not based on facts nor reality. I should note at this point that I have previously been a member of auDA, although I’m not today, although I might still be on their books as an unpaid, or unrenewed member.

No matter how good the tale, the deregistration of stephenconroy.com.au was not made on censorship grounds (and for the record, I haven’t spoken to contacts at auDA.) The registration was 100% dodgy to begin with.

To register a .com.au domain name, you need to have a business relationship with the name registered. Originally that meant a business or company name, but in more recent years that has meant essentially a business slogan as well.

Those rules may well sound weird compared to other domain names, and they are. There’s a reason .com.au is one of the more smaller domain names vs other domains, and that’s the strict registration laws.

In the case of stephenconroy.com.au, despite the political implications, the rules don’t allow for protest sites; the rules are the rules, love them or hate them.

One of the reasons I originally joined auDA (see above) is that I didn’t necessarily agree with the rules, and I still don’t mostly; but mostly on the grounds that they aren’t always applied evenly. auDA has basically allowed big business to register crap names that have little to nothing to do with them, but on the grounds they are the basis of an ad campaign, vs a trademark or company registration.

Still, there was, and still is no registration or ad campaign between SAPIA Pty Ltd and Stephen Conroy, at least when the domain was registered.

Well, except today. I found this Victorian business registration on ASIC, dated today. There’s no supporting evidence it came from SAPIA, but maybe they’ve gotten smart.

Either way, as much as I’m anti-censorship, rules are rules. auDA isn’t prefect, but there is really nothing wrong with the deregistration of the name so far, no matter what some people may think. If SAPIA get the name registered as a business (and not, it can be a broader name, say Stephen Conroy sucks, on that basis you can register the part name) I’m all for them. But until that time, lets stick to playing fair, after all, Conroy isn’t.

Anti-Conroy Campaigners Damage Australian Anti-Censorship Cause is a post from: The Inquisitr

Michael Arrington

Mark Zuckerberg

Marissa Mayer

Stephen Conroy

Ev Williams and Biz Stone

The Kanye meme: the Inquisitr tech edition is a post from: The Inquisitr

Stephen Conroy, best known outside of Australia for his moves to introduce Chinese style censorship, made the announcement this morning, saying that the reforms will promote greater competition and consumer benefits.

“The Government will require the functional separation of Telstra, unless it decides to voluntarily structurally separate” Conroy told the media. “The Bill will be tabled in the House of Representatives today.”

The decision to force Telstra to split is being made in conjunction with the Government’s moves to roll out a National Broadband Network.

Telstra, until the 1990′s the Government owned monopoly telecommunications provider was privatized as one entity, with Telstra maintaining ownership of the copper telephone network. The ownership of the network has meant that Telstra has maintained an unfair market position as both a retailer of phone services, and the owner of the wholesale network all phone companies must access to offer telephone and internet services to Australian homes and businesses.

The call doesn’t redeem the Government when it comes to censorship, but I know I won’t be the only one who thinks that finally the Australian Government has done something seriously right in the space, something that the last Government should have done years ago.

Epic Win: Australian Government to force wholesale separation of Telstra is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Australian Government for the first time since their election may be considering optional internet censorship, the original policy they were elected on.

Australian Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy today (Tuesday local time) told a Senate estimates committee that the “Great Firewall of Australia” could be implemented by a voluntary industry code, as opposed to legislation.

The implication from Conroy is that the same outcome can be done via an industry code, but more likely that the Australian Government doesn’t have the numbers in the Senate to pass the enabling Legislation. The current Australian Government does not hold a majority in the Senate (the upper house), and relies on the votes of the Green Party, and a number of independent senators. So far, the Greens, and the Independent Senators have expressed serious reservations on the proposed fascist state censorship proposal.

Senator Conroy told the Senate Committee: “Mandatory ISP filtering would conceivably involve legislation … voluntary is available currently to ISPs…One option is potentially legislation. One other option is that it could be (on a) voluntary basis that they (ISPs) could voluntarily agree to introduce it.”

There is no concrete evidence that the Australian Government is backing down from its China inspired censorship regime outside of Conroy’s words.. The current ISP trial continues.

Australian Government may backflip on compulsory internet censorship is a post from: The Inquisitr

Controversial Australian Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy is back in the news after mocking a company for not breaking the law.

Conroy, speaking at the CommsDay Summit in Sydney Tuesday, mocked ISP iiNet over its defense in court that it didn’t know what its users were downloading. As we’ve reported previously, iiNet is being sued by big media over alleged illegal downloading by its customers.

From ITNews.com.au:

In what was at times a heated morning at the CommsDay Summit in Sydney, Conroy told an overflowing room that the idea that iiNet “have no idea if any customers are illegally downloading music” on their network is a “stunning defence”.

“The capacity to be able to ignore what your customers are doing on your network is being fought out in the Courts but I thought the defence of ‘we have no idea what anyone is downloading over our network’ was a classic,” Conroy said.

There’s one rather problem with Conroy’s mockery: it’s illegal to spy on users in Australia without a court order under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. If iiNet had been spying on what its users were downloading, they would be breaking Australian law.

Stilgherrian rightly points out that even if they were illegally spying on customers, how could iiNet tell whether a particular data stream is an “illegal” copy or not? “A music file looks just the same whether it’s being used legally under the terms of its license or under fair dealing, or not. Does Senator Conroy imagine illegally-made copies are stamped “pirate” or something?”

Australian Censorship Minister advocates illegal taping of Internet Accounts is a post from: The Inquisitr

The full Wikileaks release (note offline as of 4am US PDT/ 8pm AEDT):

“Wikileaks to Conroy: Go after our source and we will go after you.”

The Stockholm based publisher of Wikileaks today issued a warning to the Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Steven Conroy, who is responsible for Australian internet censorship.

Senator Conroy issued an official media release yesterday in response to Wikileaks’ release of last year’s confidential Australian internet censorship blacklist. The Senator said that his department, “is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution.”

The Senator is perhaps unware of the legal and diplomatic risks associated with the statement.

Sunshine Press Legal Adviser Jay Lim stated:

“Under the Swedish Constitution’s Press Freedom Act, the right of a confidential press source to anonymity is protected, and criminal penalties apply to anyone acting to breach that right.

Wikileaks source documents are received in Sweden and published from Sweden so as to derive maximum benefit from this legal protection. Should the Senator or anyone else attempt to discover our source we will refer the matter to the Constitutional Police for prosecution, and, if necessary, ask that the Senator and anyone else involved be extradited to face justice for breaching fundamental rights.”

Senator Conroy may wish to consider the position of the South African Competition Commission, which decided to cancel its own high profile leak investigation in January after being advised of the legal ramifications of interfering with Sunshine Press sources.

Let me be the first to say that should Conroy breach the law in Sweden that as a citizen who respects international law, I will do everything possible to assist Sweden in the investigation.

Wikileaks threatens Australian Minister over censorship list: Conroy could be jailed in Sweden is a post from: The Inquisitr

This is the first of our occasional posts on Australian web, tech and related news.

TPN Broke: The Podcast Network, the first podcast network on the planet is in dire financial straights. The company is unable to meet its monthly hosting bill and is soliciting donations, needing $3,000 to keep the door open…until next month.

The network had a difficult 2008, first suffering a hacking after security patches weren’t applied to WordPress installs, then in December losing the majority of its back catalog when a server failed.

Wikileaks Censored: pages on Wikileaks has been censored in Australia, although technically there’s no way to enforce the ban…yet. The pages banned relate to a list of banned sites from the censorship regime in Denmark (ironic really). To make matters worse, the Australian Communications Media Authority is threatening sites with a $11,000 AUD fine per day if they link to the page on Wikileaks.

I’m not going to link to the page, even if this site is hosted in the US, however you can read Wikileak’s response to the ban here. In Australia, it’s illegal to link to content that might be illegal, even when you haven’t published the content yourself. Proto-fascism cometh.

Fake Stephen Conroy outed: Australia’s favorite Twitter imposter Fake Stephen Conroy has been outed as Telstra engineer Leslie Nasaar. Telstra, who’s as popular as herpes in Australia, have naturally reacted in their usual fashion, which is to force the account offline and shut everyone up. Still, at least they haven’t sacked him yet, the fate handed to one worker/ blogger a couple of years back who dared to speak the truth on Telstra’s corporate blog.

Oz Wrap: TPN Broke, Wikileaks Censored, Fake Stephen Conroy outed is a post from: The Inquisitr

Despite saying previously that “unwanted” content would be included in the Great Firewall of Australia, Australian Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy had also claimed that the proposed Internet censorship regime was focused on blocking “illegal sites.” Until now.

At an estimates hearing of the Australian Senate’s Environment, Communications and the Arts committee Monday, Conroy said that the trial of the filter now underway was based on blocking “illegal sites,” but the censorship of other content would be “determined after the trial”.

Some have incorrectly suggested that this other content would include X and R rated pornography, for the purposes of the internet, this content is already illegal in Australia. X rated pornography is illegal to sell in Australian states (but legal in the Northern Territory and ACT, it’s also legal to possess), and R rated pornography is legal but only with strict age verification which websites would not meet. See our run down of what might be blocked in this post.

Crikey also suggest that “additional content that will be considered after the trial relates to illegal content such as gambling sites, websites that counsel suicide, seditious material and material banned at the behest of multinational copyright owners,” however this content is already technically illegal, so it hardly counts outside of illegal content as defined by the Minister. Take it as a given that they will likely end up on the blacklist.

The implications of what Conroy is said is far more serious again.

The opposite of illegal content is legal content the last time I checked. Legal “unwanted” content (unwanted being the criteria given by the Minister) could well include political speech where that speech may constitute hate speech in some Australian states. It may include debate on immigration, the debate on global warming, discussion of the links between Organized Crime and the previous Government…it could just about mean anything the Minister decides he doesn’t like. That open door can and will be abused by do-gooder groups who want things banned, after all the criteria now isn’t illegal content, but unwanted content.

There’s one thing though to take away from the Ministers disclosure: the do-gooders like Clive Hamilton and the Christian Lobby can no longer seriously claim that this filter is all about child porn when the Minister himself has clearly confirmed that it’s something far more wide reaching than that.

Not long now until Australian joins China, Iran and other progressive places.

Australian Minister confirms legal content may be blocked by Censorship Regime is a post from: The Inquisitr