Green Light for Australian Internet Filter

[arthwollipot]

Australia takes another step towards becoming a nanny state.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm

[lionking]

One can only hope the Senate blocks this, but I doubt it. Labor will lose a heap of votes among the under 30s over this.

[Puppycow]

Save the Children opposes internet filter (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2621354.htm)

Posted Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:02pm AEST
Updated Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:57pm AEST

Save the Children has urged the Federal Government to abandon its plans to censor the internet, saying it will not be effective in protecting kids from online dangers.

The child protection group is one of several organisations including Civil Liberties Australia, and the National Children's and Youth Law Centre who have today released a joint statement opposing the proposed mandatory internet service provider (ISP) filter.

The statement says the filter will neither work to shield children from explicit material nor stop child pornography from being distributed on the internet.

[gtc]

If its good enough for the Chinese Communist Party its good enough for Ruddkipz.

Wait, am I still allowed to say that?

[Damien Evans]

I am absolutely disgusted by this. I will never vote for Labor in my life.

[lionking]

It's not only the stupid intent behind the law, it's the futility (and cost).

[TragicMonkey]

It's not only the stupid intent behind the law, it's the futility (and cost).

But it's for the children!!!!!

[Arcade22]

Australia takes another step towards becoming a nanny state.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm

Becoming? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b20cc67847c1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18413)

[Southwind17]

What's the underlying concern here, though, freedom of speech per se or slippery slope (or something else)? Surely you don't all support the dissemination of the type of material referred to for its prima facie intended purpose, do you?

[lionking]

Becoming? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b20cc67847c1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18413)
Well, I suppose we don't allow people to carry automatic weapons around with them, so that would qualify as a nanny state to many.

[Darat]

Australia takes ******* **** **** *** **** state.

Link not accessible within Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm)

Sorry no idea what you are posting about - have you got a nanny filter installed or something?

[Darat]

*** its good ***** **** *** ******* *********** ****** *** **** ****** **** *******.

Wait, am I still allowed to say that?

Apparently yes.

[lionking]

What's the underlying concern here, though, freedom of speech per se or slippery slope (or something else)? Surely you don't all support the dissemination of the type of material referred to for its prima facie intended purpose, do you?
How about cost and futility, as I mentioned earlier? One of my son's is an IT professional and he is convinced that the filter will not stop anyone determined to get really nasty stuff (and there are checks and serious sanctions against this anyway), but will slow down the web enormously, and our speed is not great by international standards.

[Ove]

It is one of those senseless initiatives SO liked by politicians because it enables them to say :"..but we ARE doing something". Such a filter is USELESS as a mean of preventing young people seeing what they want to see but it is a nuicance to everybody because it will invariably block things it shouldn't have blocked.

[lionking]

Sorry no idea what you are posting about - have you got a nanny filter installed or something?

Well Darat, you can go and procreate with someone of the opposite sex. *





* Edit courtesy of the great leader and protector of children, the Ruddster.

[popscythe]

Censorship is evil.

[lionking]

Censorship is evil.
Sure, but I don't think anyone supports child porn and so on freely available over the web. Unfortunately this move is a sledgehammer against a peanut.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Not to mention a filter can be easily abused for more than it's intended purpose. Hi, scope creep.

[rickps]

One can only hope the Senate blocks this, but I doubt it. Labor will lose a heap of votes among the under 30s over this.

And at least one of the over 30s. :D

[lionking]

And at least one of the over 30s. :D
Me too, but it's the yoof who have the power now.;)

[Wildy]

Censorship is evil.

Unfortunately here in Australia the Government can legally censor pretty much anything they want. As long as it's not political communication.

[geni]

What's the underlying concern here, though, freedom of speech per se or slippery slope (or something else)? Surely you don't all support the dissemination of the type of material referred to for its prima facie intended purpose, do you?

Ever seen the list:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censors hip_blacklist%2C_11_Mar_2009


The list's UK equiv tried to block part of wikipedia at one point. The austrain list appears to actualy block three wikipedia pages (although not the actual images they are not very smart).

[Fishstick]

That's a pretty dumb list. Even if your goal was to block stuff, why are they blocking individual URL's down to the item, instead of using wildcards or regex. There's is some seriously wierd stuff being blocked though - so much for this being for children's protection only: poker and gambling sites, regular porn sites, shock sites like lemonparty, bsdforums.org, and images used in wikipedia articles (much like the UK one!)

ETA: "www.zombiesurvivalwiki.com/page/diy+plans+and+tips" is on there. Honestly.

[Wildy]

That's a pretty dumb list. Even if your goal was to block stuff, why are they blocking individual URL's down to the item, instead of using wildcards or regex.

Part of it would have to do with the sites themselves. I mean if they used wildcards or regex on Wikipedia or Youtube, both of which have certain pages that are blacklisted, then you wouldn't be able to use them at all.

[Wildy]

By the way, I just wrote this (http://wildyms.blogspot.com/2009/12/wanted-reliable-proxies-apply-in.html) on the subject.

[Fishstick]

Part of it would have to do with the sites themselves. I mean if they used wildcards or regex on Wikipedia or Youtube, both of which have certain pages that are blacklisted, then you wouldn't be able to use them at all.

I could undesrtand that, but there are occorunces where they'll blacklist the whole domain and then again blacklist a specific ?id=#### just below that.

[Wildy]

I could undesrtand that, but there are occorunces where they'll blacklist the whole domain and then again blacklist a specific ?id=#### just below that.

Are they separated by date? Because some seem to be the URLs that were added at certain dates.

Then again ACMA are not the most logical people.

By the way, the one linked by geni is not as recent as this one (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censors hip_blacklist%2C_18_Mar_2009).

[geni]

Are they separated by date? Because some seem to be the URLs that were added at certain dates.

Then again ACMA are not the most logical people.

By the way, the one linked by geni is not as recent as this one (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censors hip_blacklist%2C_18_Mar_2009).

Hey they are getting better. There's an entry there that would block a video on wikipedia.

[gtc]

Apparently yes.

Phew.

[shandyjan]

We all have the best filter for children on the internet...an adult. Nothing else can keep a child safer than parent or guardian.

[Southwind17]

We all have the best filter for children on the internet...an adult. Nothing else can keep a child safer than parent or guardian.
Are you just theorizing here, or have you shown this to be true (I assume that by "filter" you don't actually mean "stopcock"!)? I honestly cannot see how I could be sure of controlling what my eldest son, in particular, views in the internet, short of acting in a way that would relegate me slightly further in his mind to the biggest dumb-ass parent on the planet!

[arthwollipot]

We all have the best filter for children on the internet...an adult. Nothing else can keep a child safer than parent or guardian.I would have to agree, with a certain modification. A responsible parent, who is capable and prepared to educate their child, is the best filter.

[GreenLines]

Australia takes another step towards becoming a nanny state.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm

I've been calling Australia a nanny state for years. :p

Eh, Arcade22 beat me to it.

[Sideroxylon]

Welcome, Australia, to the world of Internet proxies.

ETA: There must be a business opportunity in that.

[lionking]

Welcome, Australia, to the world of Internet proxies.

ETA: There must be a business opportunity in that.
That's the point. As I said earlier, my IT professional son tells me anyone with an ounce of IT skill can get around it.

Any updates on how much slower this filter will make the internet?

[Wildy]

Are you just theorizing here, or have you shown this to be true (I assume that by "filter" you don't actually mean "stopcock"!)? I honestly cannot see how I could be sure of controlling what my eldest son, in particular, views in the internet, short of acting in a way that would relegate me slightly further in his mind to the biggest dumb-ass parent on the planet!

Well it's an ISP filter based on a few blacklists.

If the Australian Sex Party are correct up to 95% of all adult content may be blocked and this includes legal stuff as well. And if Family First have their way it will be 100%.

If groups like Save the Children are saying that the filter isn't going to help children then you really have to wonder what the reasoning behind the filter is.

[Wildy]

That's the point. As I said earlier, my IT professional son tells me anyone with an ounce of IT skill can get around it.

The latest report said that using the ACMA-only blacklist the best filter blocked 16.2% of the circumvention attempts, while the worst blocked 8%, but with the ACMA plus others the best was 94.5% while the worst was 37.8%.

The report tells us that they did stuff, but for public interest reasons they can't tell us what stuff they did. But based on the filter by the last government I'm guessing it won't take too long for a workaround to be implemented.

Any updates on how much slower this filter will make the internet?

According to an ACMA report back in 2008 the two worst filters were Alpha and Gamma which slowed the connection by 76% and 87% when actively filtering. Filter Beta slowed the connection by about 30%, Delta and Theta slowed the connection by almost nothing when actively filtering, but Theta was the only one to see a drop when passively filtering (22%).

[Syameese]

If groups like Save the Children are saying that the filter isn't going to help children then you really have to wonder what the reasoning behind the filter is.

Kevin (godbot) Rudd is the most probable answer based on his unquestioning support for anything that smacks of religion - sacred bretheren, scientology (despite initial mutterings of concern), blocking of gay marriages and his pathetic argument from ignorance explanation as to why he believes in god.

Despite his many fine qualities, I will not be voting for him again.

[lionking]

Kevin (godbot) Rudd is the most probable answer based on his unquestioning support for anything that smacks of religion - sacred bretheren, scientology (despite initial mutterings of concern), blocking of gay marriages and his pathetic argument from ignorance explanation as to why he believes in god.

Despite his many fine qualities, I will not be voting for him again.
I was just talking to my 21 year old daughter about this who told me that none of her friends plan to vote for Rudd next time. And I live in a far from previleged area.

[ScottXSI]

I just clicked on a few of the links that are being blocked, (Probably not a smart move) one was gross and should probably be blocked but the other few I tried were standard porno, some not even X-rated. While I can understand wanting to block the child porn ones, the others make no sense.Do we really need to be protected from "Black monster cocks"

[tesscaline]

Are you just theorizing here, or have you shown this to be true (I assume that by "filter" you don't actually mean "stopcock"!)? I honestly cannot see how I could be sure of controlling what my eldest son, in particular, views in the internet, short of acting in a way that would relegate me slightly further in his mind to the biggest dumb-ass parent on the planet!
There are any number of ways to limit a child's access to the internet. Sure, it might piss them off a bit, but it can be done. And it's your responsibility as a parent to do it, whether or not it pisses them off. Making what your child is exposed to the government's problem is not the answer here.

Putting a nationwide filter on the internet is especially not the answer. If such severe and broad brushed censorship is allowed, in any situation, it sets legal precedent for it to be applied to other situations as well. This is not a slippery slope argument. This is stating how law works.

The another issue, as others have stated, is one of resource consumption in regards to a resource that is already stretched rather thin. Australia's internet situation is a rather interesting one, both technologically speaking and as a matter of social/business structure. Adding more load to this already iffy network is, simply put, a very bad idea.

Then we have the financial impact. No good news there either.

And on top of all of those things... We need to look at how effective the measure is. Does China's filtering work? No... Anyone else's? Not really. Such filtering methods are circumventable by those who have half a clue what they're doing (as demonstrated by China's filtering failures).

On top of that, it doesn't even actually address the cause of the issue. It's just attempting to suppress one symptom. Anyone who's ever had anything more life threatening than a head cold knows what a stupid move that is...

[Wildy]

I just clicked on a few of the links that are being blocked, (Probably not a smart move) one was gross and should probably be blocked but the other few I tried were standard porno, some not even X-rated. While I can understand wanting to block the child porn ones, the others make no sense.Do we really need to be protected from "Black monster cocks"

Well according to religious groups and Family First, we do.

[Belz...]

I would have to agree, with a certain modification. A responsible parent, who is capable and prepared to educate their child, is the best filter.

Yes, but why would you want to go through the trouble of raising your kids when you can blame the government for your inadequacy ?

[Wildy]

Blog -> More on the Australian Internet Filter (http://wildyms.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-on-australia-internet-filter.html)

[lionking]

Opposition is strengthening:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/outcry-on-internet-censorship-20091216-kxhy.html

Unfortunately, Tony Abbott's comment We are open to proposals, provided they achieve their objective probably means that the bill, or something like it, will be passed.

[mortimer]

This is major enough that I can see a concerted worldwide effort to provide and maintain unfilterable mirrors for all or most of the censored content to Australia. There's no way Australia's filters would be able to keep up.