Internet Censorship

[bdave351]

Hang on though, there was a promise for a filter from the Rudd lot, but and most importantly there was no mention of MANDATORY.

Thats the sticking point.

Little Johnny had a free filter for all parents who wanted one, that worked fine and is a good idea for parents. No attempt to impose any form of censorship on the population, just a tool for parents.
Conroy canned that (took the funding) so there is NOTHING now......and the world hasnt ended. But we apparently need protection that his new filter will give us?

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Anyone watch Q&A on the ABC last night?

It would seem all the hysteria about the internet filler has been generated by misinformation. ACMA plans to block the same stuff it has been blocking from other forms of media for the last nine years. It is simply trying to bring the internet in line with print and broadcast media.

Originally Posted by Work Horse

If others are hoping party politics will change the governments course of action they need to think of another strategy IMHO.

The Liberal party set up the "black list" when it was in power. Now the Labour party is in power and has to enforce it. So the idea that either could do it for political gain is neutralized.

A bit like kids arguing over who gets the biggest piece of cake. You make one kid cut the cake and the other kid decide which piece he wants, no arguments

[bdave351]

And a stupid idea is a stupid idea no matter which party does it.

One however was smart enough to ditch the idea after a lab trial showed it was a huge failure. The other now says its going to do it anyway after running its own trials....whch dont matter as its doing it anyway.

And in the end, the only ones who suffer is us, the normal people who will pay more for a slower internet that can be abused everytime there is need for compromise in the senate to get fieldings family first vote.....

[vztrt]

as above

Optus says 'yes' to internet filter plan

Phillip Hudson
April 23, 2009

OPTUS customers in Sydney and Newcastle will be asked to take part in the Federal Government's controversial test of internet filters.

In a boost for the Government, the nation's second-largest internet service provider said yesterday it would take part in a six-week trial.

The Government made an election promise to offer households a family-friendly clean internet service but has struggled to deliver the pledge in the face of severe criticism from some sectors of the internet industry that it was censorship that would block legitimate sites and dramatically slow internet download speeds.

The Broadband and Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, said Optus's decision to participate would ensure the Government received "robust results" to inform the development of the filtering policy.

He said the Government was testing the feasibility of a filter to block material that had been "refused classification" such as images of child sexual abuse, bestiality, sexual violence and material that advocates committing a terrorist act.

Optus said it would send an email to residential customers about the trial, which will begin on May 22. Its general manager for regulatory compliance, Gary Smith, said customers would be able to opt out even after it started and only content on the official Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist would be blocked.

Some observers questioned the timing of Optus's decision to co-operate with the Government on this issue and whether the company was trying to win favour in Canberra to secure a role in the plan to build the national broadband network.

Optus said it had applied to participate last December. Its director of government and corporate affairs, Maha Krishnapillai, said the company was taking part to explore the ways it could help families to use the internet safely.

"Optus believes the best way to accurately gauge the impact that this type of filtering may have on our network, including download speeds and customer experience, is to play a pro-active role in the pilot," he said.

The Government suffered a blow last month when the nation's third-largest internet service provider, iiNet, pulled out of the trial, saying it would not work, and a whistleblower website published a list of websites it claimed were on the ACMA blacklist that included a dentist and online poker sites. ACMA said the list was fake.

Seven other internet service providers, including the fourth-largest, Primus, and six smaller companies, have signed on to the trial.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

The Liberal party set up the "black list" when it was in power. Now the Labour party is in power and has to enforce it. So the idea that either could do it for political gain is neutralized.

A bit like kids arguing over who gets the biggest piece of cake. You make one kid cut the cake and the other kid decide which piece he wants, no arguments

I have no problem with the blacklist... all the present system does is charges ACMA with identifying URLs that should be blacklisted, adding them to the blacklist, and following up complaints... Thus, any Australian-based site can be issued with various orders to remove links to any URL on the blacklist.

This system, whilst pointless (ACMA cannot regulate links originating overseas) and what I consider a complete waste of taxpayers' money, has the advantage of not censoring anything. The URLs on the blacklist are still accessible, it's just that Australian sites cannot link to them. This also has the advantage of having zero impact on ISP performance.

The mandatory filtering will drive small ISPs out of business. Only the largest ISPs can afford the best systems, so the smaller ones will be stuck with the systems that degrade performance more than the better ones. Would you stay with your current ISP if speeds suddenly dropped by ~80%?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by vztrt

as above

Lets hope the trial is a failure.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Lets hope the trial is a failure.

Thank god I live in Melbourne. I know I'd be annoyed paying for internet and it running as quick as dial-up.....oh wait I did that with the pre-paid rubbish optus offers.

[vztrt]

Well apparently this filter will cost 90k per blocked website....

http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/t...708489312.html

Internet filter: $44.5m and no goal in sight

Asher Moses
June 3, 2009 - 11:56AM

The Rudd Government's internet censorship policy will cost about $90,000 per blocked web address to implement and the Government has admitted it has not developed any criteria to determine whether trials of the scheme are a success.

The Opposition, Greens and online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia are concerned the lack of success criteria is a sign the policy itself has no clear goals and is instead being dictated by what the technology will allow.

Nine ISPs are trialling the web censorship plan, which will mandatorily block all content that has been "refused classification" by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

Results of the trials are due to be published in July but, in response to a freedom of information request, the Government has admitted that "there are not success criteria as such".

"This exposes a major shortcoming in the Government's approach," Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin said.

Greens senator Scott Ludlam said: "It sounds as though we'll filter as many sites as the technology allows us to ... that's the reason I think people are so concerned about this in that it seems to be really open-ended."

EFA spokesman Colin Jacobs said: "The pilot seems to have been a political exercise in deflecting criticism. Without any benchmarks, the Government can claim it was a success regardless of the cost or performance issues that ISPs encounter."

ISP engineer and filtering critic Mark Newton said: "If I spent several hundred thousand dollars on a technology trial at work without having any idea about what the trial was attempting to test, I'd probably be out of a job."

The ACMA blacklist of prohibited URLs, which forms the basis of the Government's censorship policy, contained 977 web addresses as at April 30, according to ACMA.

The Government initially planned to censor the entire blacklist but, after widespread complaints that the list included a slew of legal R18+ and X18+ sites, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, backtracked, saying he would only block the "refused classification" (RC) portion of the blacklist.

According to ACMA, 51 per cent of the blacklist, or 499 URLs, is RC content.

Based on the Government's budgeting of $44.5 million to implement the filtering scheme, this means the policy will cost $90,000 per URL.

"For the cost involved with implementing a mandatory filter, you could perhaps get far more powerful results in relation to striking at the actual heart of the problem, by increasing law enforcement resources to assist with the actual targeting of the producers and distributors of abhorrent content," Senator Minchin said.

Although the new Government plan to block just RC content will not prevent adults from surfing for porn, it is still fraught with difficulty as the RC category includes not just child pornography but anti-abortion sites, fetish sites and sites containing pro-euthanasia material such as The Peaceful Pill Handbook by Dr Philip Nitschke.

Sites added to the blacklist in error were also classified as RC, such as one containing PG-rated photographs by Bill Henson.

Senator Ludlam is concerned that the Government is testing an expanded blacklist of 10,000 sites - a 20-fold increase on what it intends to block - despite having not defined the objectives of the policy.

He said that, if the objective was to stop the flow of child porn, filtering sites on a blacklist would not achieve this goal because the blacklist would never capture even close to all of the child-porn sites on the web and would be ineffective against peer-to-peer file sharing.

"It's like trying to stop the drug trade by blocking one set of traffic lights," Senator Ludlam said.

He noted that this week's arrest of 16 Australian men for accessing a web video of an eight-year-old Russian girl being raped was the result of "people booting down doors, not a net filtering outcome".

Senator Conroy's spokesman, Tim Marshall, did not respond to a request for comment.

[Fev]

90k per website is insane!!! Wasting that sort of money on something NO ONE wants is ridiculous!

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Fev

90k per website is insane!!! Wasting that sort of money on something NO ONE wants is ridiculous!

Governments are good at wasting other peoples money, actually thats the one thing they do well.

[bloggs24]

I hope there not going to use the rape video as a way to gain support for the filter, as from what ive read this child porn problem is so underground that its vitually impossible to find surfing the net, and that you have to be invited into it.

This is just a system the goverment wants to introduce to "protect" kids from the internet, but it wont be long before they use it for there own good. I'm amazed theres been no kind of opposition towards it...

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Well apparently this filter will cost 90k per blocked website....

Originally Posted by the age

Based on the Government's budgeting of $44.5 million to implement the filtering scheme, this means the policy will cost $90,000 per URL.

Oh please......

Lies, dam lies and statistics :evil3:

[vztrt]

.........................never mind......

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by bloggs24

I hope there not going to use the rape video as a way to gain support for the filter, as from what ive read this child porn problem is so underground that its vitually impossible to find surfing the net, and that you have to be invited into it.

This is just a system the goverment wants to introduce to "protect" kids from the internet, but it wont be long before they use it for there own good. I'm amazed theres been no kind of opposition towards it...

There has been a crapload over at Whirlpool Australian Broadband Forums. Even ISPs are jumping on the ridicule bandwagon, others just bending over and offering to test it.

[bdave351]

Actually its more like $142,000 per site now that Senator Conjob changed the policy on the fly again yesterday......

Which as has been pointed out, takes a 10 year old three clicks to bypass, and could be paid to a police officer for a year including travel etc to actually catch someone instead of this head sticking in the sand exercise....

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by bdave351

Actually its more like $142,000 per site

The filter is being designed to block as many sites as required, no one seriously believes the cost will be per site

Originally Posted by bdave351

now that Senator Conjob changed the policy on the fly again yesterday......

So if our elected representitives listen and act on concerns raised by members of the public this is a bad thing?

Originally Posted by bdave351

Which as has been pointed out, takes a 10 year old three clicks to bypass, and could be paid to a police officer for a year including travel etc to actually catch someone instead of this head sticking in the sand exercise....

The government are doing both policing and testing a filter, how can this be a bad thing?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

The filter is being designed to block as many sites as required, no one seriously believes the cost will be per site
So if our elected representitives listen and act on concerns raised by members of the public this is a bad thing?

The government are doing both policing and testing a filter, how can this be a bad thing?

The PARTY knows best.
The PARTY always listens to the people.
The PARTY is the protector or the people.

The worker's horse, I mean flag, is deepest red.
It shrouded oft our martyred dead......

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by flappist

The PARTY knows best.
The PARTY always listens to the people.
The PARTY is the protector or the people.

The worker's horse, I mean flag, is deepest red.
It shrouded oft our martyred dead......

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Support for the internet filter is bipartisan. Between them the two major parties represent most of the Australian population. That's not to say most Australians support a filter, but as their elected representatives do it will go ahead, that's how democracy works.

The Rudd government went to the last election promising to do it, so they have a mandate. In fact if they don't try and do it they will rightly be accused of breaking an election promise.

I'm still on the fence with the whole idea, and will wait with interest for the government trail. If others are hoping party politics will change the governments course of action they need to think of another strategy IMHO.

I understand there is a loud minority that don't want the government to trial an internet filter. I understand some in this loud minority think anyone who doesn't agree with them are fools. Welcome to one of the worlds best democracies. Lets all join hands and sing:

Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in nature’s gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history’s page, let every stage
Advance Australia Fair.

In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross
We’ll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who’ve come across the seas
We’ve boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.

In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.

[Daymoe]

I think popularpotato.com will be used more than ever now, or hire a dedicated server overseas and tunnel your web information through that. Bypassed simply, but we shouldn't have to resort to that. Its very easy, its just the same thing you do to get around school blocks.

[bdave351]

What exactly is the benefit here then work horse?

Please let me know.

When we talk about a quick view of some of the downside of it.....
1. The ideals of a representative democratic society oppose censorship;
2. Australians have demonstrated they do not want it;
3. There are plenty of alternatives available (including ISPs that voluntarily offer filtering services);
4. The Government failed to advise the filters would be mandatory for all prior to the election;
5. Blacklisted sites are kept secret from the Australian public;
6. Any blacklist would need to be distributed to all ISPs in Australia, and will provide anyone a concentrated list of the 'worst of the worst' web pages when leaked;
7. It is easily circumvented or bypassed;
8. It introduces delay and declined performance in internet traffic;
9. It will increase the cost of broadband;
10. Filtering products incorrectly block legitimate traffic;
11. It introduces another source of failure and Internet outages;
12. The filter is proposed to filter HTTP and HTTPS traffic – which is not all protocols or even the majority of Internet traffic;
13. Those viewing child pornography will take steps to ensure their traffic is better protected (encryption, anonymisers such as TOR) to avoid censorship, which will hinder law enforcement;
14. It will give parents a false sense of security regarding online content;
15. It will introduce a level of insecurity in “secure” (SSL) Internet connections (if HTTPS sessions are filtered);
16. Costs spent in implementing the filters can be better spent elsewhere;
17. Children aware of the filter will deliberately attempt to find filtered sites and bypass the filter;
18. Top Internet Service Providers oppose the proposal;
19. Shifting parental responsibility to the ISPs/Government does nothing to prevent societal problems;
20. Other countries have blacklisted political critics where mandatory filtering has been imposed; and
21. There are too many individual URLs on the web, that any blacklist containing only a couple of thousand URLs will prove highly insufficient in an attempt to protect people from inappropriate web content;

And yes the $142,00 cost is based on the current $44 million put into this compared to the number of sites blocked, not the amount they can block when someone decides we should no longer be allowed to read about graffiti, abortion, gay stuff etc.

We need to be proactive yes, in protecting the kids.

Censorship of all society in a half azzed way is no way to acheive that, nor is sticking our heads in the sand and thinking if we use a magic filter on a small part of the web that the problem will go away.

There has been ZERO support from law enforcement for this, and as was demonstrated yet again this week when that kid rape video story came out, the police said this would have had zero benefit.

The AFP child protection unit has had its budget CUT, not increased.

This $44 million could be used to really do something about protecting some kids if we gave it the the state and federal agencies with it directed just to the relevant units.

Not using it to ruin youtube videos of the peaceful pill or 15 year olds doing graffiti.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I understand there is a loud minority that don't want the government to trial an internet filter. I understand some in this loud minority think anyone who doesn't agree with them are fools. Welcome to one of the worlds best democracies. Lets all join hands and sing:

We may be one of the world's best democracies, but this censorship plan is a one-way ticket to undermining that democracy.

To demonstrate the potential lunacy of this filter-
Currently (for the policy seems to be quite - how best to put it - flexible), the filter will attempt to block any content that would be given a 'refused classification' rating.

You sound like the type that probably agrees with the current classifications policy of not having a R18+ rating for video games.

What this means is that any game that has content that is considered suitable for adults only is refused classification (as there is no adults-only classification for games) and cannot legally be sold.

So, as these games are refused classification, technically under the rules proposed for the filter - any gaming site, review, etc. that makes reference to these games should be blocked. Of course, the filters aren't particularly smart - so if you go to a typical gaming site, they might have a Top 10 list, or similar, which will likely list those games that are refused classification - effectively blocking the entire site.

Australians all let us lament,
For we are young and censored;
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;
Our home is girt by the great barrier firewall;
...

Fixed it for you.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I understand there is a loud minority that don't want the government to trial an internet filter.

So then, why didn't the silent majority take up the Howard government's free internet filtering software when they could? It was a failure too as no-one wanted filtered internet.

It's a bad idea, implemented poorly, can be easily bypassed that will affect us all. What's the benefit?
If the problem is the stopping the distribution of such material such as child pornography and the like, then put your money and resources in to stopping the people that make it. An internet filter is not a solution to the root problem which is stopping of the production of illegal material.

[Work Horse]

Australia was the first country in the world to mandate the wearing of seat belts for front seat passengers. There was a lot of criticism of this decision at the time; people should be allowed to decide for themselves, you could never make people do it, it was more dangerous to wear a seat belt in some situations, the cost, the waste of money to police etc.
Interestingly much of this criticism came from the car makers, no business likes government mandating anything they do.

Ended up Australia was on to a dam good idea!

The idea of bring the regulation of internet content in line with print and broadcast media has wide support. Just how you go about it is not known. There is a lot of hysteria about what may happen if we try or whether it is even possible. So we are having a trial to see what is feasible.

ISP's are against the idea of a trial, no business likes government mandating anything they do. A lot of misinformation has been generated about what may happen. People like Mark Newton are not worried about democracy, they are not elected by us and are not working for the common good. Personally I dislike some of what politicians get up to but in the end they are answerable to us.

[bdave351]

Thats a very interesting arguement Work Horse, but again, what is the benefit of THIS proposal?

Australia wouldnt be the first country in the world to do this, we would be taking the lead from the shining lights of the international community like Burma, China, Iran etc.

The seat belt analogy only works IF this is a good idea. And Im yet to hear one arguement as to the benefits of this when you consider the whole scheme.

Keep in mind, this in no way will bring the internet into line with print or broadcast media either.

[sgt_doofey]

But Work Horse, if the internet filtering is implemented, all I have to do to bypass it is to start using an overseas proxy or establish a VPN connection to a server outside of Australia. Both of these tasks take less than 5 minutes to set up and then I have an unfiltered internet connection again. I'd have access to all the child porn, bestiality and Queensland dentist web sites that are on the blacklist again.
Is it worth spending so much of tax payers money on something that simply is not going to be effective?

[ch33z1l]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

all I have to do to bypass it is to start using an overseas proxy or establish a VPN connection to a server outside of Australia. Both of these tasks take less than 5 minutes to set up and then I have an unfiltered internet connection again. I'd have access to all the child porn, bestiality and Queensland dentist web sites that are on the blacklist again.

The UNDERGROUND child porn network does not include just hillbillies and bogans. Some of these people are well respected individuals, and no doubt these methods of bypassing and proxies are already well known.
Another reason why the filter will fail.

I think it all stems from the failure of Steven Conroy to deliver the high speed broadband network as promised pre election, and this filter is just a method to divert everyone's attention from that failure.

[4Vman]

Internet blocks and internet filtration/censorship is just like locks of locks.. they only keep honest people out. Anyone with ulterior motives will find away around the lock or the filter....
I personally object to this kind of govt control.

[onfire]

Originally Posted by flappist

The PARTY knows best.
The PARTY always listens to the people.
The PARTY is the protector or the people.

The worker's horse, I mean flag, is deepest red.
It shrouded oft our martyred dead......

Is that a 1984 reference?

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by onfire

Is that a 1984 reference?

No just a little something I listen to before bed each night :
The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyred dead,
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

Look 'round, the Frenchman loves its blaze,
The sturdy German chants its praise,
In Moscow's vaults its hymns are sung
Chicago swells the surging throng.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

It waved above our infant might,
When all ahead seemed dark as night;
It witnessed many a deed and vow,
We must not change its colour now.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

It well recalls the triumphs past,
It gives the hope of peace at last;
The banner bright, the symbol plain,
Of human right and human gain.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

It suits today the weak and base,
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place
To cringe before the rich man's frown,
And haul the sacred emblem down.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

With heads uncovered swear we all
To bear it onward till we fall;
Come dungeons dark or gallows grim,
This song shall be our parting hymn.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

[vztrt]

With the Anniversary of Tiananmen Square incident. The chinese show us how wonderful censorship is.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/china...0604-bvxf.html