No opting out of Australian plan to censor websites

[Kilgor]

THE Federal Government will make internet censorship compulsory for all Australians and could ban controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Australia's level of net censorship will put it in the same league as countries including China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea, and the Government will not let users opt out of the proposed national internet filter when it is introduced.

Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy admitted the Federal Government's $44.2 million internet censorship plan would now include two tiers - one level of mandatory filtering for all Australians and an optional level that will provide a "clean feed", censoring adult material.

Despite planning to hold "live trials" before the end of the year, Senator Conroy said it was not known what content the mandatory filter would bar, with euthanasia or pro-anorexia sites on the chopping block.

"We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material," he told a Senate Estimates Committee.

Previously the net nanny proposal was going to allow Australians who wanted uncensored access to the web the option to contact their internet service provider and be excluded from the service.

Groups including the System Administrators Guild of Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia have slammed the proposal, saying it would unfairly restrict Australians' access to the World Wide Web, slow internet speeds and raise the price of internet access.

EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child ****ography, as it would not cover peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.

"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child ****ography it would be a different debate," he said. But the Australian Christian Lobby yesterday welcomed the Government's proposals.

Its managing director Jim Wallace said he expected resistance from the industry but the measures were needed.

"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child ****ography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access," Mr Wallace said.


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24567413-952,00.html

Totally disgusted

[T3ngu]

Saw that in the paper. Not happy, lucky we live in a democracy, and cannot be dictated to by our government.



Oh hang on........... somethings not right here.

[Alfacentori]

Must be part of this new Revolution I keep hearing about from Rudd and Co, power to the people!! Revolution baby................
wait what?

Alfa

[PeterRJG]

This will last as long as the Labor Party realise they will not be re-elected. Hopefully, that won't be long.

If push comes to shove, my green card is still valid, and I'll just move to the US again.

[Xaito]

censorship sucks - as a internet user with a German IP i've experienced it first hand already.
It's just ridiculous when youtube tells you "this video is not available for your country" when its just a compilation of scenes from the movie "Schindler's List"...
guess someone in the censorship department didn't know the movie or something...

[PeterRJG]

censorship sucks - as a internet user with a German IP i've experienced it first hand already.
It's just ridiculous when youtube tells you "this video is not available for your country" when its just a compilation of scenes from the movie "Schindler's List"...
guess someone in the censorship department didn't know the movie or something...

I guess our Labor Party has a hard on for Germany's Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien and wants to follow in its footsteps.

Nanny states ftw!

[Kilgor]

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v341/78/58/812398776/n812398776_951274_574.jpg

[Eztyga]

Total BS, they will never get this through, it could well become an election issue given the amount of people that use the net. :-(

Ezy

[T3ngu]

Total BS, they will never get this through, it could well become an election issue given the amount of people that use the net too look at ****. :-(

Ezy

Edited for strength

[Alfacentori]

I originally thought this was just an optional child safety filter for families, seriously where did this bullsh1t plan come from?

Alfa

[Gat0r]

This will last as long as the Labor Party realise they will not be re-elected. Hopefully, that won't be long.

If push comes to shove, my green card is still valid, and I'll just move to the US again.

Oh I wouldnt feel so safe coming to the US, our goverment is has been gaining more and more unconstitutional and oppressive power (Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act, Protect America Act, all of the socialization during this financial meltdown, I could go on) it seems as though the goverments of the world are moving more and more towards centralized domination.

[Ballistic]

I originally thought this was just an optional child safety filter for families, seriously where did this bullsh1t plan come from?

Alfa

Stupid fvck minority (but extremely vocal) Christian groups (Family First for instance) who think banning, filtering and censoring access to the internet is going to stop anything. They are deluding themselves if they think this plan is going to do anything but piss off A LOT of people who pay top dollar for already ridiculously overpriced and slow internet access. IT infrastructure in this country is a fvcking joke and this is going to make it worse.

This is nothing but another draconian and absolutely foolish move to appease the minority. Rather akin to Nazi book burning and art purges.

Hopefully the Liberals will block this move like they said they will.

[INAT]

Eventually this will make its way to the United States.What happened to freedom?

[Ballistic]

Eventually this will make its way to the United States.What happened to freedom?

Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, child ****ography, Iran, Iraq, Al Qaeda, Bush, blah blah blah....

[Kilgor]

I cant wait for Min to show up and explain the labor viewpoint.

[Ballistic]

I cant wait for Min to show up and explain the labor viewpoint.

Ha yeah, should be good.p-)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I'm against this proposal.

Whilst the proposal does mean well in preventing children accessing ****ography, illegal material ect in my view it's a massive over reaction to the lobbying that is going on in this country by the religious groups.

As an aspiring artist I'm very concerned about this since many research materials will be considered immoral and may end up being blocked by such a filter.

From a legal standpoint there is not a lot we as Australians can do about it. Whilst the High Court did rule that Australia does have an implied freedom of speech, technically there is nothing stopping the government from restricting access to any and all information.

this decision wont stop me from voting for Labor. There is bigger things in this world to worry about.

Oh I'll right a letter my MP and see what type of response I get.

[Thor]

Australia is increasingly turning into a nightmare state.

Ask yourself what the next step will be, and the step after that?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Dear Jill


I’m writing this letter to voice my dismay in the government’s decision to do go ahead with the internet censorship that has been talked about in recent months.

I was especially concerned about this quote from Minister of Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Controy.

“Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy admitted the Federal Government's $44.2 million internet censorship plan would now include two tiers - one level of mandatory filtering for all Australians and an optional level that will provide a "clean feed", censoring adult material”

Which appeared in the following link on the News Limited website News.com.au

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24567413-952,00.html

Whilst I can fully understand the need to protect children from accessing explicit material and the idea behind Internet Censorship does mean well, I do feel that it is an overreaction to the lobbying of conservative members of Australia, especially religious groups.

As an aspiring artist studying Fine Art at Newcastle University I am deeply concerned about the impact such internet censorship will have not only with the research I choose to do but also the affect this will have on my own future career as an artist. I won’t hide and pretend it won’t affect me, I know for a fact that the artwork I produce could be viewed as objectionable, obscene and no doubt political parties such as Family First would like to see censored. Yet recently the justice system of New South Wales cleared photographer Bill Henson of any and all wrong doing that was sensationally reported in the media.

This censorship will have serious consequences for the Australian artistic community. I do hope that cooler heads prevail in this issue and Australian access to uncensored internet continues.

It is high time that people in this country started taking responsibility for their actions. Why should I be punished both artistically and potentially financially because Mr and Mrs Smith fail to prevent their children from accessing ****ography on the internet?

Blocking terrorist and actual child ****ography websites is one thing. Putting a blanket ban on the community in general because of a lack of vision by the government to actually tackle these problems head on is another.

Regards,

Minardiau

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Sound good guys?

[ltrowley]

Well said Min, however I doubt this 'filter' will see the light of day, and if it does it's a crying fvxking shame it did.

[Supe]

Nice. We'll be the laughing stock of the free world with this censorship. Whenever Rudd talks about freedom he should be pointed to his hypocrisy. I'd like Chinese citizens to email Comrade Rudd and his apparatchiks- to brag about the openness of China. Ok, maybe I'm stretching it a bit.

I'd like to suggest a public egging of Rudd. Perhaps some flour. Capture it in Hi Def format and repeatedly watch egg in slo mo smash into Rudd's suit. Rewind! It could be a youtube sensation.... oh wait. That would probably be censored too.

[LRPV]

So how do the Chinese beat the net filters? Dial-up direct to a foreign ISP?

I love Australia but I sometimes shake my head in bewilderment at our politicians...

[Macs.]

censorship sucks - as a internet user with a German IP i've experienced it first hand already.
It's just ridiculous when youtube tells you "this video is not available for your country" when its just a compilation of scenes from the movie "Schindler's List"...
guess someone in the censorship department didn't know the movie or something...

Yeah, that is ****. Other thing is my provider (Arcor) also banned certain websites for some time... YouP... for example, because of copyright laws. Not that I visit that site. DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE THAT.

[Supe]

So how do the Chinese beat the net filters? Dial-up direct to a foreign ISP?

I love Australia but I sometimes shake my head in bewilderment at our politicians...

Proxies are one way. If you've got people outside of China who are amenable to being used as a proxy service. Or use a free proxy server. You could also use a terminal service client like RDP or Citrix client to remote into a corporate machine (or a friend hosting a service who lives outside of a restrictive Govt firewall) and you could browse the net that way. Or use a VPN client (Cisco) to talk to an external network (encrypts traffic). I would think that all foreign entities doing business in China would be using VPN client to protect from snooping when communicating with parent company.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm

[LRPV]

Thanks Supe.

[Ballistic]

Govt's internet censor 'stricter than Iran'
24/10/2008 9:40:00 AM. | LIVENEWS.com.au

The Federal Government is accused of planning to implement controversial new internet restrictions more strict than those used in Iran, and of attempting to silence any critics of the plan.

Online users lobby groups say the two-tiered online filter system described by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy this week could slow down internet speeds by 86 per cent, and will still not cover the bulk of internet traffic.

“I’m not exaggerating when I say that this model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world,” Colin Jacobs, from online users’ lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, told Fairfax.

Mr Conroy revealed details of the government’s $44.2 million policy, which is aimed at blocking access to illegal and ****ographic material, at a Senate Estimates committee this week.

He said the first tier would block all “illegal material”, and that users would be forced to use it. The second tier would be optional, and would block out content deemed inappropriate for children.

Critics have pointed out that the filters will not block online content coming through peer-to-peer file sharing networks, which is believed to account for 60 per cent of online traffic.

Now Mr Conroy is accused of trying to silence his critics, after one of his advisors wrote an “intimidating” email to an engineer who slammed the plan on the Whirlpool broadband community forum.

Mark Newton, and engineer at broadband company Internode, was sent a disapproving email by Mr Conroy’s policy advisor after he said the new plan would not work and could even enable child abuse.

“In your capacity as a board member of the IIA (Internet Industry Association) I would like to express my serious concern that a IIA member would be sending out this sort of message,” the email from Mr Conroy’s advisor Belinda Dennett read.

“I have also advised (IIA chief executive) Peter Coroneos of my disappointment in this sort of irresponsible behaviour.”

Mr Newton told Fairfax the email showed Mr Conroy was “misusing his influence as a Commonwealth Minister to intimidate a private dissenting citizen into silencing his political views”.

Link: http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/10/24/Govts_internet_censor_stricter_than_Iran

[Ballistic]

And another good, but longer one:

In Australia's muddy Internet waters, you don't know what's being filtered
By: Andrew Hendry - Computerworld Australia (hs) (28 Oct 2008)

There's an uproar in Australia over the government's proposed mandatory Internet content filtering law. An opposition senator says a government claim that it's scheme is similar to one in Canada and other countries isn't true

SYDNEY - An Australian law expert has warned that under the government's proposed mandatory Internet content filtering scheme Australians will have no way of finding out what "illegal" content has been censored and blocked online,

The warning comes as Greens party Senator Scott Ludlam voiced concern over Communications minister Stephen Conroy's ambiguity regarding exactly what content will or won't be blocked, and who will be able to opt-out of the filtering.

Conroy's mandatory Internet filtering proposal caused a stir last week when it was revealed a member of his department had tried to censor severely critical comments made on the Whirlpool broadband forum by an Internode network engineer regarding the merits of ISP level filtering.

Graham Bassett is a barrister at Byron Bar Chambers and has taught Internet Law at Queensland University of Technology. Bassett told Computerworld Australia that under current non-digital censorship laws a schedule of content that has been censored is made available to the public. However no such freedom of information will be available for public access to monitor what is censored and blocked under the government's mandatory Internet filtering scheme.

Bassett pointed to a Freedom of Information (FOI)application lodged by the Electronic Frontiers Association (EFA) in February 2000 to obtain information about Internet content that had been the subject of a complaint to the then Australian Broadcasting Authority (now ACMA) under Internet censorship laws that came into force on January 1, 2000.

EFA chair Dale Clapperton told the magazine that the government refused to provide that information and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal accepted the government's argument that making that information public would undermine its work with international law enforcement agencies.

"The government at some stage along the way actually amended the Freedom of Information Act to say that this type of information could not be FOI'd," Clapperton said, warning that the ramifications of that ruling mean the list of Web sites put on Conroy's proposed blacklist will not be accessible to the public.

"We're not permitted to know what is on it - essentially we have to take their word for it. That was bad before when the blacklist was just being provided to manufacturers of filtering software, but now that the government is proposing to block access to everything on that blacklist by every Australian, it is unspeakably bad."

Bassett confirmed that Australians will have no recourse to determine what has been blocked, once it is on the blacklist. "If you have a situation where what is being banned is never made public, then how do we know that there hasn't been an extension beyond material which infringes censorship publication, for example a political party or some people that might be defined as a terrorist organization? The content becomes based upon whatever might be the whims of the people controlling those filters and the services that report to the filters," he said.

Bassett said the EFA's unsuccessful bid to access the ABA's list of banned online content under FOI laws means that particular legal avenue to establish what falls under mandatory filtering is a no through road. Australians, he reminded, have no explicit freedom of speech within the constitution.

"There are cases under the constitution where for example there is freedom of speech in relation to political expression, and that's been held in a number of cases. For example, in the future if you did find or were able to get evidence showing that some political group has been added to these filters, particularly at the ISP level that never gets seen by people, there might be some room for challenge there. But if those filters don't get published, how will you ever know?"

Bassett said the term "illegal" in an online context is ambiguous, where child ****ography, defamatory material or content that violates copyright infringement could all be considered "illegal" content.

Clapperton warned that we are already seeing special interest groups pressuring the government to add so-called "illegal" content to the blacklist. "[Independent Senator Nick] Xenophon has said he wants to block access to Internet gambling sites because they are supposedly illegal; the copyright holders will want to block access to all the Web sites on their sh** list; the Muslim lobby groups will probably want to block access to the Catch The Fire Christian Ministries because they are inciting racial hatred; the Jewish lobby groups will want to block access to Frederick Tobin, any other holocaust-denying Web sites and Hamas; and the Family First Senator [Steve] Fielding has said he wants to block access to "pro-anorexia" Web sites.

"Every organization with an axe to grind and any kind of political clout will be lobbying the government to extend the blacklist to block access to whatever it is that pisses them off. They don't even tell the operators of a site that it has been blacklisted, which as a practical matter means there is no appeal for these decisions. In the case of a false positive it is really dependent on somebody discovering it by chance," he said.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam grilled Senator Conroy during a Senate Estimates hearing last week over the details of what will be considered "illegal" under the filtering scheme, and what level of filtering users will be able to opt-out of (see summary). "I'm no clearer than I was before the conversation I had with the Minister last week. What I think they are trying to do is have two levels: One level where everything which is "illegal" would be blocked, and there would be a less restrictive list of material that would be automatically blocked and you can opt-out of that. I don't think they are all that clear themselves how that is going to be technically possible," he told Computerworld.

Ludlam questioned Conroy's comparison of Australia as following other countries such as the U.K., Canada and New Zealand where filtering of blacklist material had been introduced. "It got really muddy around the subject of what other countries were doing, and what would be considered mandatory and what would be opt-out. He really muddied the waters on the countries that they are trying to compare us to. My understanding is not a single one of them has instituted or even seriously tried to institute mandatory content blocking. As far as I am aware they are all trialling optional content blocking," he said.

"None of them are really having a proper go at mandatory filtering. When you look at the countries that are attempting mandatory filtering of "illegal" content on the Net, it's a very different set of countries: China, Burma, the UAE and other places."

One gaping chink in Conroy's filtering armor is its inability to block data transferred over peer-to-peer networks, which is estimated to account for upwards of 60 per cent of all Internet traffic.

Ludlam believes Conroy's lack of clarity over what will and won't be blocked can be attributed to the government still being at the early stage of trialling the filtering technology, which also explains why no path has yet been set for the mandatory filtering to make its way into legislation.

"My understanding is that the tests they have conducted to date weren't all that promising; I don't think they know for themselves exactly how this is going to work. My personal opinion is that it's probably going to fail, and if it doesn't fail it's going to be dangerous. In the meantime we should really be spending the money that they are putting towards this on old fashioned law enforcement, and on the education programs that we already have," he said.

"I'm all for opt-in blocking. If parents want to be able to choose the level of protection in their own homes or if people just basically don't want to run the risk of being exposed to objectionable material they should be given world-class opt-in provisions."

Link: http://www.itworldcanada.com/a/Security/f34c1a8b-4bdf-483d-9d21-b14f7f3fa6fb.html

[Eztyga]

We already have some of the slowest internet in the developed world, this will not help.

Ezy

[digrar]

If it does drop 85%, that will be the end. Productivity will dive and Krudd will get the arse.

[uTu]

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v341/78/58/812398776/n812398776_951274_574.jpg

LOLOL I'm so stealing that pic idea mate. Yeah hammer the kiddy fiddlers but this has to be bad for free speech surely. More effective than any foreign invader. Wow, OZ of all places - surreal, not right. '... for we are young & not so free'

[Ballistic]

These measures are FAR too sweeping and open ended to be targeting JUST child ****ography.

There are far better and more direct ways at targeting those filthy fvcking perverts than subverting the rest of Australian freedoms in the process.

If Mr Conroy thinks he can try and silence critics opposed to these moves I think censorship has gone to his brain. This fvcker needs to be removed.

[kalboy]

obviously Kev Rudd loves the Chinese way of life. He'd introduce Mandarin as our second language if he could. I often hear people saying "if you dont like our country then go home. Maybe Kevin 747 should take a one way trip to China or Iran and leave our freedom and rights alone.
:bash:

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

obviously Kev Rudd loves the Chinese way of life. He'd introduce Mandarin as our second language if he could. I often hear people saying "if you dont like our country then go home. Maybe Kevin 747 should take a one way trip to China or Iran and leave our freedom and rights alone.
:bash:

Ah what freedom and rights?

[LRPV]

These measures are FAR too sweeping and open ended to be targeting JUST child ****ography.

There are far better and more direct ways at targeting those filthy fvcking perverts than subverting the rest of Australian freedoms in the process.

If Mr Conroy thinks he can try and silence critics opposed to these moves I think censorship has gone to his brain. This fvcker needs to be removed.

Under current legislation you could be treading a fine line....incitement...conspiracy.... The problem is already here...

[ShotOver]

We already call the Balluchi Valley Rud (River) Kevin, mainly because of the Rhyme, also because both are totally and utterly full of ****.

[BAF]

there is the first bits of freedom going down the drain, i hope for you aussies it doenst go trough, or at least stays with that, and not losing more freedoms in the long run.

[Ballistic]

Under current legislation you could be treading a fine line....incitement...conspiracy.... The problem is already here...

Incitement of what ? I'm just saying the Government should wake up and realise they have an absolute moron in charge of Broadband and Communications and should remove him from his position.

[Fade]

Net filters may block **** and gambling sites

Family First Senator Steve Fielding wants hardcore ****ography and fetish material blocked under the Government's plans to filter the internet, sparking renewed fears the censorship could be expanded well beyond "illegal material".

The Opposition said it would take "a lot of convincing" for it to support the controversial mandatory ISP filtering policy, so the Government would need the support of Senator Fielding as well as the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon to pass the legislation.

Industry sources said Senator Fielding's sentiments validated ISPs' concerns that the categories of blocked content could be broadened significantly at the whim of the Government, which is under pressure to appease vocal minorities.

A spokesman for Senator Xenophon said, should the filtering plan go ahead, he would look to use it to block Australians from accessing overseas online casino sites, which are illegal to run in Australia.

In a Senate Estimates hearing last week, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, confirmed that his proposal would force ISPs to implement a two-tiered filtering system.

The proposed censorship is more advanced than that in any liberal democracy and would put Australia on a par with oppressive regimes such as Iran, the internet industry says.
Story continued.... (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/27/1224955916155.html)

[Macs.]

Senator Nick Xenophon.

What a disadvantaged name.

[Pille1234]

Aussies without ****? I could laugh my ass off











if this filter wouldn't look like a shinning example to other governments.

[oldsoak]

:lol: I must invest in a *** shop and a TAB in Oz, - the two things that ride out any economic downturn.
Surely theres enough laws to ping the b*ggers who download the real dodgy stuff ? Or incite religious hatred or violence on the net ?

[Kilgor]

This is exactly what was going to happen. Once net filtering was "available" other minority wack job politicians start to demand more and more to be filtered.

"ill vote with you on this key legislation passage if you introduce XYZ filtering on the internet"

Its happened before in Australia with the religious right nut job Brian Harradine and it will happen again.