Australia's Censored URL List Remains Hidden 339
kinsalis writes: "There is an article about the Electronic Frontiers Australia's failed attempt to have access to a list of sites which where deemed worth of censorship under Australian Internet censorship law. While it stands to reason that most of the sites would be child pornography, what is to stop someone slipping in any old url if no one can check the list?"
You need a list? (Score:2, Funny)
How does the censorship work? (Score:3, Interesting)
In almost all cases, an anonymous proxy will get around these guys. (We miss you, Safeweb!) If it's just DNS lookups being probhibited, there are many, many public DNS servers as well as a growing system of alternate DNS roots.
So, to the Aussie
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:3, Insightful)
As a grown man I'm really not happy with this at all.... I wish the government of australia weren't so ignorant, and so up-for-sale-to-the-loudest-whinger.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2, Redundant)
im interested in that - can you tell me where in australia you are and youre ISP and some example sites... ive never come across one that is blocked althought i have seen lots that go down...
What sort of sites are we talking about heee ?
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
hmm i wonder about this place sometimes i really do...
Re:My poor karma (Score:2)
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." You communicate in a reasonable, polite fashion, and no one knows or cares how old you are. Yes, some opinions are prone to getting modded down, but going into any group of strongly like-minded people and expressing a contrary position isn't going to get you listened to. Even if the group is neutral, some people may be hostile to your idea. (This is true no matter what the composition of the group.) Yes, being a community with some scientific bent, Slashdot doesn't tend to accept arguments from authority or arguments from age. That's a good thing; it means everyone can get heard, and good ideas tend to rise to the top. If you don't have good ideas, or can't express them, well, then I guess all you can do is whine about it.
Re:My poor karma (Score:2)
And you know this how? There's enough anonymity to make that claim impossible to check.
In any case, I wasn't claiming they all understood Lorentz contraction; a scientific mindset is not something picked up with your bachelor of science. A scientific mindset is rarely taught in schools, but can be easily picked up by anyone who is willing to read, learn, and think logically, including undegreed kids.
It has a geek anti-establishment pro-Apple/Linix[sic] bent.
Gee, you think? Do you go into churches and complain when they have a religious bent, too? That's what slashdot is; if you don't like it, then go somewhere else.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
The parent to my post was trying to make logic of the slashdot moderation system, you and I know that's pointless.
I could be dumb, but then again, I don't make a fool of myself trying to work out slashdot moderation.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2, Insightful)
Reverse-engineer the list censorship list and make it public.
-Sara
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically the Government here does whatever it needs to keep itself elected.
In this case, in order to please the targetted demographics, typical families, it proposed to censor the Internet from "nasty" things.
Now, the thing is, noone has noticed a difference. No one talks about the censorship, no one even thinks about it. Because it doesn't seem to affect us.
Now the truth is, children are unprotected as ever on the Net, but the Government/parents/schools don't know that. They just trust that the millions of extra dollars they feed the ABA are working, just like we 'trust' the Government with the rest of our tax dollars...
The truth is it is clearly a waste of money attempting an impossible task, but hey, they don't know that. So the Government is happy, the parents and families are happy, the only people who are pissed off are the civil liberties people, and they're always pissed off anyway.
I of course still want this censorship removed as [a] I know it is a waste of money, and [b] The Government is not my parent, it is not responsible for deciding the material I am or am not allowed to view (I am under 18).
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2, Informative)
For the most part, I don't really notice sites that are blocked, and it certainly doesn't do an effective job. Its most probably just lip service to "concerned parents" as usual, as is the case in Australia which the parent post suggests.
As a sidenote, all ISPs in Singapore require the use of proxy servers, except the SCV (Singapore Cable Vision) cable service, which does not block any sites.
A fuss was kicked up about it a few years ago, but after a while it died down and if I'm not wrong, sites are still not blocked through the cable service. Once the public outcry died out, so did any efforts to block those sites.
What's more, SCV is one of the most widely used broadband services, next to other ISPs that provide ADSL. Reason being, most people living in public housing, subscribe to the cable service as all public housing flats have cable access points. It was only recently that there were complaints about slow access due to the large amount of new subscribers to the SCV cable service, so its not as if SCV users make up a small percentage of net users, which would otherwise warrant the lack of censorship.
It just enforces my belief that the blocking of websites was merely just done just to please "concerned parents" because if they were really concerned, they would have made an effort to require SCV to filter out whatever sites the rest of the ISPs were filtering.
So long as the "concerned parents" (which make up the majority of voters) are happy, no one really cares. Internet censorship is one of many stupid laws that concerned parent voters have helped put in place, and this is not just in Singapore, I believe.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
How would you know if their commentary was censored?
Besides, one of the aims of censorship is that you *never* get to know about stuff. If you don't know about it how can you complain that you can't see it.
Here in the UK ISP censorship is done on a sort of gentleman's agreement. The local cops come round and say "if you drop these newsgroups we will be satisfied that you are doing what you can, we all know it's pretty pointless but it makes people happier when they can't see alt.binaries.erotica.under8 or whatever"
The main point seems to be to stop people complaining.
On a related note, one of the argument that anti-porn campaigners use is that porn denigrates women. It attacks their self esteem because they don't live up to the glamour of pron. I guess in the time of the goats.ex that these days porn denigrates the viewer cos it leaves them mentally scarred!
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
Wow. Sounds like it worked a treat.
In related news, Mrs. Montag wants a new television wall to complement the other three.
GMFTatsujin
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
I most certainly do not hate Australia, I have lived here (Melbourne) for 16 years.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2, Insightful)
You question government ergo you hate your country
I also question your good judgment, but that doesn't necessarily imply I hate you.....
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
They're a bit like the refugee crowd at the moment, no doubt you've been hearing all sorts of stuff about Australia in this respect.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people's slashdot memory is obviously rather short, since I'm sure the Australian law has been posted about before. Specifically, basically the same story as this [slashdot.org], New South Wales law on end users [slashdot.org], Censorship law passed [slashdot.org], Even older article on the same thing [slashdot.org].
Ok, that's just 4 of them.
There are two types of internet censorship, the more recent "ISPs must block bad stuff out there", and the "ISPs must not host bad stuff".
For the not host bad stuff, it works by issuing legal LARTs against anyone hosting anything the censors don't like.
I presume this is the list that we're discussing here, since the list of "ISPS must block bad stuff out there" would be almost impossible to hide unless every ISP must run a closed source/black box URL checker.
I don't think there's much point in having a list of sites that have been taken down anyway, of course there's nothing there, and the URL may or may not actually say something useful by itself (just knowing that http://users.bigpond.com/~foobar/ was blocked isn't going to tell you a whole lot about the subversive pictures of a naked Brian Harradine that were posted there).
On the other hand, a list of the _reasons_ that sites were issued with takedown notices (similar to a public court record) would be good. Unlikely though.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
I presume this is the list that we're discussing here, since the list of "ISPS must block bad stuff out there" would be almost impossible to hide unless every ISP must run a closed source/black box URL checker.
Why do they need to block sites at the ISP level? I mean .au only has several back bone links carrying IP in and out of the counrty, so why not just block them?
I'm sure it would be not to difficult to get the co-operation of the likes of Telstra and AAPT. (that covers like 70% of .au's internet traffic)
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
a) it's easier to hand out legal LARTs than implement technical solutions yourself.
b) it's much easier to do URL blocking on a proxy than to try and work out what some (possibly encrypted) port 80 traffic to a random IP is on high speed links.
c) real-time content filtering at line speed is really, _really_, expensive.
d) ISPs can get away with transparent proxies, but putting a transparent proxy on the big backbone links, I don't think so - plus the corporate customers wouldn't stand for it (wish I had enough power in a big enough company to get the transparent proxy off from upstream of me - I'm quite capable of pointing squid at the upstream and not having staleness issues if I don't want them).
Grumble stupid control-freak politicians anyway.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
Because then the politicos would be blocked from their sources of porn too. Can't have that, can we mate?
Regards, Ralph.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
Secondly ISP's must have the facility to block certain sites. This is the big one, as it means essentially ISP's would be censoring the Internet as a whole. BUT this is not how this is implemented, in fact as I understand it, there is mearly a provision in the law that ISP's must 'provide a means to censor', what that mean's in _reality_ is they bundle NetNanny with their accounts to families. No transparent proxy ip blocking, no DNS blocking, for you me and my next door neighbour, NOTHING. But when the family across the street ask's their ISP about 'protecting their kids', the sales person says yes we can provide you with this software to "protect your children".
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
Might I recommend Orangatango [orangatango.com]? They provide basically the same service as SafeWeb, but with a much better interface. And they provide anonymous e-mail, too!
(Disclosure: I work there.)
--Bruce
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2, Informative)
Have worked with ISPs in Oz for 5 years.
There is no censorship in place. In any way, shape or form.
It is not mandatory, and not followed.
Law (Score:3, Interesting)
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero De Officiis [1195]
"...For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than
passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase
of crime in this country is closely connected with this.
--Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921
Yes, you are quite right. I believe Robert Heinlien also states something simular (or quotes Einstein).
Not at all, basically (Score:2)
ISP's are, however, required to offer their customers Netnanny-style filtering software (from an approved list of filtering software providers) which additionally checks the government's list of blocked sites. Last I heard the takeup rate on that software was approximately 0% :)
As I've said before several times here, it was just a stunt to keep a particular federal Senator on side for a vote on tax changes. It's a stupid law, but compared to the *other* stupid things this particular government has done (and their are scads of them) this one at least has the virtue of being irrelevant.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2, Informative)
So basically the mythical blacklist exists but can do nothing to us. No one ever checks that the filtering software is on.
Normally ISPs are meant to use filtering software but consumers can opt out of it if they use their own filters. There are no real approved filters, none that I know of. The only filter I use is my mind. Mainly to watch out for the link traps on ./
The reason this is happening is the government is too gutless to legislate real laws. Instead it trys to appease the conservatives with laws that sound good on paper but don't work in reality. In particular this man is responsible
Brian Harradine, Senator for Tasmania [aph.gov.au]
Sen Harradine is one of those people who hold power in the senate. Because he is not with either of the major factions they need to bribe him with his legislation to get their legislation passed. Basically he is not a problem because the major political parties Labour and Liberal dance around his silly issues.
Here is some of Harradine's first speech.
I was committed to uplifting the poor, to championing the cause of the underprivileged - not only in this country but also in the developing countries to our near north - and to representing the aspirations of the workers.
And
Why was all that pressure exercised? Because almost 10 years ago I declared that the friends of the communists were attempting to silence me. The friends of the communists have never silenced me and I do not intend to be silenced by them in this chamber.
I don't live in his electorate.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
FYI, depending on locality, the wearing of seatbelts *is* mandatory in the U.S.. In some states, you have to wear seatbelts in front and back. In some states you just have to wear them in the front seat. Cops *will* pull you over and give you a $50-100 (US) ticket if they see that you're not wearing them.
That's not to say that many people don't try to get away with it anyway. The last time I went to pay a traffic ticket (80MPH on the 60MPH freeway when I was late back from lunch) *most* of the people paying tickets had been busted for seatbelt violations.
As far as I know, it's really an age thing. The seatbelt laws didn't really get passed until the mid 1980's. Everyone in the generation driving before 1985 grouses about having to wear them or conveniently 'forgets' them when they get in the car. Most of the people in the generation driving *after* 1985 don't even think about it.
Besides being considerate (You don't go flying through the window and make a nasty mess for someone to clean up if you wreck), we all buy the saftey aspect. It's like running regular backups or firewalls. You just do it to feel safer.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
Censorship in Australia is like the wearing of seatbelts in America. It is not mandatory.
Um, it is, actually. It's not always reason to pull you over, but you can be fined for it.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:2)
If we don't get a list, how do we know they are not being typical Australians and bludging around and the millions of taxpayer dollars are going nowhere.
Re:How does the censorship work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Metamod Everything! (Score:2, Funny)
Say, who does watch the watchers?
Re:Meta^H^H^H^Hmod[Esc :i]erate Everything! (Score:2)
Without the right to freely express oneself, even in an offensive manner, metamod is all you've got left. A limp, wet noodle with which to hit them with. Get the subject right next time, bud - moderating our society is a much better idea.
Soko
Go aussies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Go aussies (Score:2)
And yes, the legislations is pointless, it was a payoff to Senator Harradine (Ind, Tasmania) so he would pass our much loved GST (much loved said with strong sarcasm).
The government don't even care about it. Only dipshit harradine, the guy whose youth was back in the 1600's and has no idea what it is to be using technology.
Re:Go aussies (Score:2)
Without some third party examining this you can't tell what they are actually blocking. It could be just about anything.
actually, mostly not child porn (Score:3, Insightful)
And R-rated content (which is subject to take-down notices if hosted on an open web server in Australia) includes content which addresses "adult themes" such as suicide, drug use, and marital difficulties. Rather a lot of mainstream films are R-rated!
Danny.
Re:Go aussies (Score:2)
Seriously though once in my local paper the guy was writing about how pr0n in general shouldn't ever be allowed because it turns you into a sick, sadist, rapist, whore killer!
Best; he was inspired to write it after seeing child pr0n at the courthouse with the assistant prosecutor! He even described the setting of the room, the afternoon day.
The people who don't want pr0n (in general, and off-topic) are the people who scare me.
Speaking as an Australian (Score:3, Flamebait)
A country has a right to prohibit the import or availity of certainf thibgs, publcations, movies, pictures, magazines etc - no one will argue that the prohibition of kiddie porn mags is a bad thing (no one i wont shoot on sight will argue it anyway....) but they will argue about this mythical list that may not even exist (no one has ever actually seen it)
This is not america and thankfully censorship here is not all present, you also need to be aware we do not have a constitution like the US (we do have one but not like yours) and no free speach amendments.
Basically i see this as a storm in a teacup and im sure other aussies feel the same way.
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2)
Voltaire must be glad that guns are banned in
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2)
Semi Automatics only are banned - i can still use my shotgun.
I make no apologies - im a father of young children and i consider kiddie porn and its purveyors people not worthy of any form of respect or understanding - i cant help that.
Of course internet censorship does nothing to stop people getting access to it but hell thats another post....
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2)
You make no apologies for being willing to commit cold-blooded murder of someone, just because they disagree with you?
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2)
no one will argue that the prohibition of kiddie porn mags is a bad thing (no one i wont shoot on sight will argue it anyway....)
Shooting someone on sight is not self-defense.
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a *very* slippery slope, my friend. Let's make molestation and exploitation illegal, but speech should always be free. No exceptions. Period.
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2)
personally i dont agree - and i think its funny that in the US today i can go to jail for agreeing with Al Quade (i dont but im using it as an example) and expressing that - there is a BIG difference between censorship and prohibition - even the US has censorship rules.
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2)
If you do go to jail, your lawyer will have you out quickly and will be suing for false arrest. There's nothing in the least illegal about agreeing with Al-Qaeda. John Lindh was arrested for assisting murderers; i.e. for his actions, not his speech.
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2, Informative)
Have never heard of this group anywhere but slashdot. The URL list is indeed kept hidden but the average man in the street is not in the least bit interested in it - i have never come across a site that i cannot get to and from memory the submission is voluntary.
Never heard of EFA? You must be new to the Internet in Australia. Many of us in Australia in a number of organisations and Political parties have banged our head up against the brick wall that is Richard Alston, John Howard and Brian Harradine to get Australia's naive censorhip laws stopped/repealed/fixed. You never saw the "Global Village Idiot" Campaign? The EFA was at the forefront of this campaign. A last minute semi-sensible implimentation was nutted out with the IIA at the 11th hour(see URL ref below)
A country has a right to prohibit the import or availity of certainf thibgs, publcations, movies, pictures, magazines etc - no one will argue that the prohibition of kiddie porn mags is a bad thing (no one i wont shoot on sight will argue it anyway....) but they will argue about this mythical list that may not even exist (no one has ever actually seen it)
The IIA Code of Practice [iia.net.au] shows that Overseas URLs are not blocked but can become the subject of investigation with cooperation of the relevant overseas authorities. It is the list of sites taken down that is the subject of the secrecy. It is absolute stupidity that the names and description of the sites are not published. The URLs are immaterial. Democracy requires transparency in decision-making, not this secrecy.
The ABA can issue takedown notices to Australian-hosted sites that fail the Censorship guidelines. This just means the site often goes overseas. If the Government says that the list will direct people to disgusting sites, then that means that the takedown of Australian content just caused a relocation of the content. The Overseas Content reported list is still important, however they don't need to quote URLs here either.
Basically i see this as a storm in a teacup and im sure other aussies feel the same way.
I think you should speak on behalf of yourself and leave it up to others to express what they think and say.Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2)
I could speak volumes on the subject but the fact is that in this country despite all the noise and chest beating when it comes down to it i have NEVER seen an issue of censorship here. I saw the Global Village idiot campaign and basically ignored it - having lived and worked overseas i have seen what REAL censorship looks like and we DONT have it here. I am frankly insulted by the assumption that my not being involved in activism for the sake of it means im new at the internet - i spend 18 hours of my day running an environment and i really do not pay any attention to the sort of noise that EFA and others promote.
Why ? what reason ? so you can look at the site before it goes. This circumstance would likely require invlolvement of the foreign office and or the federal police and authorities in the other country (as was required in the Kiddie Porn case win WA where the Australians and US govt co operated) - at that stage it would be a legal issue and thus why would you need to see the name? This is nothing to do with democracy at all - there is a legal and political and legislative process that was gone thru to get to this stage and its been ratified by the elected government. Censorship is designed to protect the majority of the population and
You may not like Alston (he isnt actually doing a bad job) but thats your right. Dont however presume that you will speak for me - i am doing what you sugested and experessing what i say - as you have - now lets see others do the same thing - that is after all what free speech is about.
PS i have met 3 of the people on the EFA board in the past - 2 of these are intelligent people and im reading their website - the other one i will not mention - i do however think that this issue is a storm in a teacup.
PS your webiste appears to be down anthony..
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2)
For the minister for telecommunication and the internet, he wouldn't know the difference between a tcp/ip stack and a stack of pancakes. This is the man that introduced digital TV to
Exceptions to this rule might include (In Oz) Barrz Jones, Michael Woolridge and arguably John Hewson. I'm sure that the US numbers are similar.
As I understand it there, many senators don't use computers at all. At the risk of flamebait (not meant as such this applies to
Michael
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2, Funny)
q-soe said: "we do not have a constitution like the US (we do have one but not like yours) and no free speach amendments."
.au does have a constitution that allows free speech. It's called the GPL.
Oh, wait... that's an OSS license.
Re:Speaking as an Australian (Score:2)
John Ashcroft and Fritz Hollings would like to get a copy of that from you. They thought it would be a nice template for the changes they have been making.
How long till this gets leaked (Score:2, Interesting)
Repost forgot to login.
Re:How long till this gets leaked (Score:2)
Maybe its secret because the list is nonexistant (Score:2)
I wonder if maybe the fact that they won't release the list is due to the fact that there isn't one. Think of the time and effort that would be required to actually build and maintain a halfway accurate list of proscribed content. If the postings of the Aussies are right and the censorship laws are merely a "pro-family" political gesture, then its likely they're not making the effort.
They may also just be buying a list from a censorware vendor, whose contract prohibits disclosure as a trade secret, not to mention the political implications of a law whose enforcement mechanism relies on a third party.
my one hope... (Score:2, Funny)
I can see how this will be misused (Score:2, Informative)
I can imagine that a list like this can (and probably will) be misused by the Australian Government in order to block the sites of certain people or organizations that dare to question the government, especially during political campaigns like elections.
Now I live in Canada and I can see some examples of attempted censorship [canoe.ca] by our news and media because they question the ethics of the polictial party currently in power.
An Ominous Precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be fairly trivial for a blocking mechanism to collect the IP addresses of those requesting "dangerous" content. Instant fishing expedition. Arrest and fine anyone who tries to access illegal content. Given that porn sites are buying up expired domains, someone checking an old bookmark could be in for a nasty surprise when the police come knocking on their door. Now you've slid into a state more like Turkey or Burma, where all Internet access is monitored. All justified by "protecting the citizenry from dangerous content."
What about Google cache? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about Google cache? (Score:2)
Re:What about Google cache? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What about Google cache? (Score:2)
Ask, in obnoxious tone, the webmaster to remove [google.com] that page.
At least someone called Bernard Shifman [petemoss.com] thinks it'd work.
The Facts (Score:4, Informative)
The Regulations explained [aba.gov.au]
And here it discusses the type of information blocked...
And of course this forms part of the NON MANDATORY code of practice Found Here [iia.net.au] which states
So basically the code is only enforced when you have done something worthy of enforcement - perhaps like hosting kiddie porn sites ?
So what we have is an orginisation who is trying to make a name for itself (having no actual cases to fight in australia aside from this) by filing a freedom of information request that they no doubt knew would fail and then when it does and the press release hits the news getting one of their members to post a story here....
Maybe im cynical but there is no story here that i can see ?
Re:The Facts (Score:5, Informative)
That said, I'm disappointed in the quality of responses to this article here on slashdot. Had I known, I'd have posted a link to EFA's press release on this issue earlier:
http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR020613.html [efa.org.au]
Now, the problem here is that EFA attempted to get access to the blocklist being implemented by the ABA by using the Freedom of Information Act. Not the content, just the blocklist. In much the same way that censorware publishers won't allow anyone to view their blocklists, the AAT refused, but cites highly suspects reasons, to wit:
So, basically, they were saying that if people were able to see what was being blocked, the system wouldn't work. Excuse me? What sort of dodgy system is that? If it can't work with disclosure of the blocklist, then I would say the system is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, that's what EFA and numerous others were saying when this system was first proposed. Now that those concerns have been borne out, will the system be scrapped? No, it will continue to operate under a veil of secrecy, wasting my tax dollars on something that is inherently broken.
That is the problem the EFA, and I, have with this thing. That is the reason we're unimpressed with this decision.
Re:The Facts (Score:2)
Thus under the laws of Australia they can and have decided not to allow you access to it.
Having been legally refused you then decide to attempt to generate noise on the issue by posting it here - no doubt in the hopes that it will be picked up by other 'freedom fighters'and become a cause celebre.
" So, basically, they were saying that if people were able to see what was being blocked, the system wouldn't work. Excuse me? What sort of dodgy system is that? If it can't work with disclosure of the blocklist, then I would say the system is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, that's what EFA and numerous others were saying when this system was first proposed. Now that those concerns have been borne out, will the system be scrapped? No, it will continue to operate under a veil of secrecy, wasting my tax dollars on something that is inherently broken. "
The system was NEVER secret - it has always been there and is documented. I have no problem with it and neither does the man in the street. What reason do tyou have (aside from it's there) from needing to see the list ? is there ANY site you cant get to in Australia ? i can get to White Power sites, Porn Sites, etc etc (i just tried a few) so obviously there isnt a major issue and the fact is that it applies to AU sites only - do you not agree that say sites breaching the hate crime legislation in australia should NOT be shut down? how about kiddie porn ?
That said however i respect you for your opinions and for stating you are a member of the organisation - you at least stand up for what you believe and that shows a strong character. Now informed of who the EFA are i am reading about them and the issues. I just don't feel this one is that big an issue - censorship in AU has always been fairly relaxed in most areas.
Re:The Facts (Score:2)
People in free countries should have the power to ensure their government is working correctly and not abusing its powers.
Re:The Facts (Score:2)
But then, after actually reading the decision, it made sense to me. By publishing the list, they would be basically providing to the world a nice, comprehensive list of, among other things, child porn sites, nicely categorized.
Now granted, child porn probably does not comprise the entirety of this list, but is it really worth turning the Australian government into the world's best child porn links site just to add your own level of oversight into their blocking?
I might suggest a couple of slightly different (non-mutually-exclusive) approaches to handling this trust issue:
1. Create a separate organization specifically to act as oversight for the list. Put them in a position to have access to this list, but keep the list itself out of general circulation. If you don't trust the government, maybe you can put some people you do trust into this oversight panel.
2. In addition to categorizing links to content as safe or unsafe, categorize the link itself along with it. If the group doesn't feel that link needs to be distributed, it can be excluded from general distribution (this solving the government's concerns over release). Everything else would make a publicly-available list and can enjoy all of the public scrutiny you like. This doesn't help if you believe the censors will be abusing their power by censoring things they shouldn't (since they'd just keep the link from you as well), but it would aid in catching accidental classifications, or where the classifications are likely to be contested.
Don't get me wrong, though, I don't really approve these acts of censorship either. But if the Australian government has decided to do it, they're going to do it. We can work to help them do it right without hindering the movement to keep them from doing it at all.
In addition, it should be fairly easy to identify censorship when you see it. To date I don't think I've read anything about how their censorship program has blocked something that shouldn't be. Maybe we can give them the benefit of the doubt (for now)?
Re:The Facts (Score:2)
First up you accuse me of generating noise. I take great pains to add more signal to slashdot and any other online forum, so if I have failed, I apologise. I am simply seeking to clarify the reasons why this decision is poor. I disagree that the reasons given for the denial of the FOI request were sufficient. Of greater import is the bit towards the end of that paragraph. The AAT found that the Internet censorship regime would be ineffective if it operated under the same conditions as offline censorship, ie: books, movies etc. That is broken. It is a fatally flawed system if it can only operate in secrecy while the standard censorship process is apparently good enough for everything else.
You say the system was never secret, and yet it is the secrecy of the system that the AAT has upheld. The list of blocked sites is secret. That's the problem. If a movie or book is censored (think Lolita or Baise Moire) the Australian public are able to know that it was censored. Not so for online content. It is this discontinutity of standards that is at issue.
You also say that you don't care because nothing you want to access is blocked. Yay for you. What about everyone else? What if a site I want to get access to is blocked? How many of them are there? Specifically, which sites are blocked and why? Are those reasons good enough or was the decision purely arbitrary? Maybe dissenting opinions are being blocked and we don't know.
Your argument citing sites breaching hate crime legislation is a strawman. There are already laws in place for dealing with illegal conduct. However, just because something is against the law here doesn't mean that a site hosted offshore can't publish it. Observe the actions of China. That said, material that is illegal in the country where the site is hosted can be reported to the appropriate authorities in that country for them to deal with. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea what sites are being blocked and for what reason. That is unacceptable. The blocking may be justified, but how do we know?
The big problem I have is that the AAT themselves recommended a review of the legislation due to the very reason they gave for denying the FOI request. That's just weird logic, and I take offence to the fact that my tax dollars have to pay for this dog's breakfast when they could be paying for something more useful.
Lastly, I agree with you that Australian censorship has traditionally been relatively relaxed. We're trying to keep it that way.
Re:The Facts (Score:2)
maybe i wasnt clear as well. The thing i dont get is the importance of this issue.. No one can ever claim to have been blocked by the list and i havent seen one example of it being used.
That said i dont want you to get the impression i am for censorship - i am not i simply believe that there are moral and legal rules in society and that the government (any government) is bound by mandate to enforce them. you touched on movies (have seen both of what you speak and read the books - i doubt most people would understand lolita and i personally thought Baise Moire was an intresting movie but also one that realistically had no chance of remaining on movie screens in this country - without the censorship hype at best 5% of the population would have seen it or known what it was)
Ok you did what you felt morally compelled to do and i support that - you fought for you convictions and the decision came down against you - i can understand but the fact is i think this is a fight that is lost and i can see no good reason to bring it into a forum where people have now gotten the impression that it is some evil ban or blocklist that can be used for nefarious purposes (come on even you cannot believe that)
The Internet Censorship Debate in this country is a valuable one and there are many issues to fight it on - this list was set up to deal with sites which are not desireable but hang on - they show it to you and then what ? do you publicise it ? what if showing it to you has an effect on a criminal investigation ? or warns someone they are being watched ? what if a child pornographer escapes punishment due to this list being in the open?
I'm trying to say that i can se rational reasons why the list should remain secret - and i don't for one second see any nefarious reasons (im sure there may be but as i have never come across any site that is blocked including hate sites etc i somehow doubt that this is an issue)
Perhaps the reason they dont want anyone to see the list is that the list is in fact empty and is simply used as a deterrent measure ?
As for tax payers dollars well i pay 45 cents in every dollar i earn in tax and i have no problem with this - its not like its real money after all and i doubt the figure involved is large.
You out your point across well and i am now aware of the organisation which counts for many things - so your time has not been wasted - and even though i might not agree with you it is after all only my opinion. Thank god thats not censored (although on here the moderation system works as a form of censorship all of its own)
secret lists (Score:2)
But we actually stated in our FOI request that we weren't after details of anything that was illegal to possess, or that might compromise police investigations.
I think the real reason the ABA won't reveal the net censorship details to the public is that that would reveal what a total farce the net censorship system is.
Danny.
Re:The Facts (Score:2)
Re:The Facts (Score:2)
Yes and i disagree but this is NOT a private filter site it is a regulation and blocking system and it is monitored and regulated by the legal system and the government - it exists for a specific reason and i would suspect it has very few sites on it.
I do NOT support censorship i simply think this is an argument about semantics - there are more worthwhile issues to battle than this one and the majority of internet users in this country would not even consider it or care if it exists as it has NEVER been used that i have heard or can find mention of.
Re:The Facts (Score:2)
Ob-Disclosure: I'm a paying member of EFA.
You've never heard of EFA? They seem to mentioned in the majority of newspaper articles concerning censorship and online privacy these days.
As to the regulations you mention - you're talking about takedown notices, which are issued to people running sites under Australian jurisdiction. For sites hosted overseas, the ABA just submits the URL to a bunch of commercial blockers - NetNanny et al. Why is the government subsidising the work of these commercial companies? Don't know. Are the commercial companies at all obligated to listen to the ABA? Nope. Has this process ever gone wrong, blocking a site that shouldn't be blocked? We have no way of knowing.
Who is affected by the blocking? Potentially anyone behind a blocking utility - this includes many in public schools, libraries and various corporations across Australia. This could become much greater in the future - the government has considered options ranging from a single centralised proxy (like the great firewall of China) to requiring ISPs to enforce blocking themselves.
You don't seem to be aware of what it takes to become illegal content in Australia. You don't need kiddie porn - just actual sex is enough. A real penis entering a real vagina is not legal content. Someone with the goatse.cx picture on their site was issued a takedown notice.
This story is of interest to anyone who thinks that (a) government should be open and transparent, (b) the ABA scheme is a waste of money and/or (c) government sponsored censorship is plain wrong.
False "Facts" (Score:4, Informative)
MA-rated content (from the the Office of Film and Literature Classification's own guidelines [oflc.gov.au]):
- can only "imply" sexual activity
- can't include "gratuious" coarse language that is "very strong, aggressive or detailed"
- can't contain depictions of violence that are "high impact" unless they are infrequent and not "prolonged or gratuitous"
- can only treat "adult themes" (such as suicide and marital difficulties) if it's done discreetly or at low intensity.
I think that's enough to give the idea. It may also be useful to think of films that are R-rated in Australia and hence would, if put online, be subject to takedown notices (if there was a complaint about them): Hannibal, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, The Godfather, Lolita, Mad Max,Danny.
A perfect example of government meddling (Score:5, Insightful)
In question are the close ties the owner of the media chain has with the Prime Minister due to the fact that it was his very government that allowed the media chain to persue a number of controversial acquisitions that had been previously disallowed by canadian law.
What is clear here, is that politicians will meddle with the media and what they report when given the chance to do so. What is to stop, in this case, an australian Prime Minister from blocking a website whose constant criticism of his policies has aggravated him? Since the list cannot be checked the answer is probably nothing.
This government sponsored censorship raises a serious issue of precedent. The precedent of the governement having the power to block access to information, otherwise publically accessible to the citizen, for unverifiable purposes and results. It is the governement giving itself the right to restrict what a citizen could normally view without restriction in any other country-- without appeal or public review.
In my view, there is a careful balance of power that is being toyed with, both in Australia and in Canada, that needs to be stopped. I hope the Australian courts see the danger here and reverse the decision and I hope justice prevails in the case of this editor who has been wrongfully fired-- in fact it is my wish now that this media group be broken up.
See Citizen story here [globeandmail.com] and here [canada.com]
it works like this (Score:5, Interesting)
The law has, as far as I'm concerned, zero effect on what ISP's and people actually do. We have made zero efforts to put into place any blocking of URL's, and since we currently maintain our own satellite based link into the US, it doesn't exactly seem likely that upstream proxies are doing the blocking for us.
This is australia - we don't get all stupid about dumb laws. We just ignore them. C'mon guys, there are sites devoted to listing dumb laws that are forgotten and ignored. Just cos most of them are several decades old doesn't mean a young and fresh law can't be forgotten and ignored just as easily!
.../Nemo "that internet guy"
Ignoring bad law considered harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider: You just admitted, in a public forum, that you run an ISP in Australia (and gave its URL), and that you are ignoring the censorship laws. Now, at this point it becomes "Mind Over Matter" - those in power don't mind as long as you don't matter. But let's say you piss Somebody off - they find some law that is still on the books that you are "ignoring", and whammo - you are looking at striped sunlight, you no longer have access to give your side of the story, and you are an un-person (do remember: 1984 was set in England!)
Having a large body of laws that are ignored by the common folk gives the government an unhealthy amount of power. The best way to be is to scrupulously follow the law, making sure that everyone is as inconvinenced as possible.
You run an ISP - try to get the blacklist, and put it into place. Make sure to err to the side of "caution" - block as many pages as possible. When you block a pageview, make sure your proxy puts up a nice, big error message - "The page you just tried to view has been deemed unacceptable by the Australian Government, and attempting to view it is a violation of (link to law)." Scare the hell out of your users, and when they ask WTF, tell them to contact their representative.
Otherwise, the day will come when you (you poor prole) will hear that dreaded phrase "You papers are not in order!" and you will fear, because there is no way for your papers to BE in order, because of the conflicting laws. You will know you have been singled out to be made an example of, or to be shaken down for a bribe, or just because the person in power had a bad night.
Re:it works like this (Score:2)
However some content hosting services have been served with what are called "take-down notices" - failure to comply with which would have resulted in large fines. Perhaps we can assume that there's no abuse because only a few people have gone public about receiving take-down notices. But we can't be sure. Also, without precedents to go by, no one actually knows what is or is not "prohibited" and hence potentially subject to take-down notices... that's not an environment I'd want to be doing business as a content provider in.
Danny.
Re:it works like this (Score:3, Funny)
"And Australia, as everyone knows, is entirely peopled with criminals!"
Just can't resist the urge to throw in Princess Bride quotes occasionally.
Steven
OK Slashdot readers... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a very odd duality that exists here. It's the governemnt do this, don't do this. That is impossible...
In this story it talks about the government regulating what sites you can view on the net. Obvious censorship, baddd....
But, in other stories you (general users, mods) preach and praise the good of man. Using the government as a welfare distribution scheme to help the needy and take from those bad bad people.
You hate Microsoft although probably 60% of the readers here use an MS product at some point in the day.
So... You want the government to not mess with the internet but, you want them interfere with Microsoft. You want them to let software be free but, still have good software..
I agree, censorship is bad.
I agree, the government should be not interfere with the internet.
But, if you want this to happen. Don't expect them to do anything for you. I'm fine with that. I can fend for myself and produce without the help of the governement...
Make a choice..
Re:OK Slashdot readers... (Score:2)
Microsoft'spower is basicly based on copyright law that is enforced by the government.
So your anarchism doesnt work here.
All we are asking is that if the government insists so much on enforcing their copyright laws they should enforce their antitrust laws as well.
Re:OK Slashdot readers... (Score:2)
They produce good products.
Yes, they overcharge.
Yes, they do squash competition.
Yes, they do have more money that God...
But, what give YOU the right to say their wrong. What if 'they' say that YOU are wrong.
If you worked your whole life to build a company would you want the government to say, nah, thats not yours anymore, lets split it up. I think not. What yours is yours, whats mine is mine. I have given you no power to take it from me. Go away.
Re:OK Slashdot readers... (Score:2)
If you worked your whole life to raise a slave,
would you want the government to say, nah, that's
not yours anymore?
I have given you no power to take it from me.
If you chose to live in a law-bound society, and exercise those laws to build a legal phantasm, I don't see why you should be surprised when those laws put limits on that phantasm. A corporation is not a book or something else you can exercise personal dominion over; it is held together merely by strength of law.
The only reason you can build a limited-liability corporation is because the people let you. If they chose not to let you do things with that limited-liability corporation, well, you knew that when you signed the contract creating it or when you bought into it.
Re:OK Slashdot readers... (Score:2)
I love to see you try the argument "What yours is yours, whats mine is mine. I have given you no power to take it from me. Go away." after you were convicted of extortion for example.
-
There is NO censorship in Australia (Score:2, Troll)
We do NOT, I repeat DO NOT have any internet censorship in Australia.
As you may have noticed, most journalists have no idea what they are talking about with technology, and frequently get it wrong. That problem isn't exclusive to the USA.
The "censorship" in Australia is realy like this:
There is absolutely NO censorship. If you happen to be a "Concerned Parent", your ISP must provide you with software such as Net Nanny...etc if you REQUEST it.
It is completely optional. It is in no way mandatory.
The Australian authorities have a list of kiddie porn sites that they give to the makers of filtering software so that those sites can be included in the list of blocked sites for the Australian editions of their software.
This topic has come up on Slashdot numerous times, and whenever an Australian tries to explain it to the rest of
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
It seems that you just want to have a bitch about Australia, without looking into the facts.
I hope this in some way clears up the topic, but seeing as this has come up before, and everyone keeps bitching about the exact same things, I doubt you'll listen.
Re:There is NO censorship in Australia (Score:4, Informative)
I contacted Irene Graham of Electronic Frontiers Australia about this, to see if she had any comment. She did. And she invited me to quote from her email, so I will:
Re:There is NO censorship in Australia (Score:2, Informative)
There are two websites, hosting basically the same content: rape porn - one hosted here in Australia, another overseas. There are two sets of teenagers viewing the said sites. Both parents come home, and are horrified to see what their child is viewing. Both write in to the ABA about their disgust of the site.
The ABA reviews the site, and because rape is illegal, the sites are both classified RC - or in other words, refused classification. The ABA than can only do something about the site hosted in Australia, with a cease and desist type letter. In no way can access to sites overseas be restricted.
*If* you censor, you can't let people see the list (Score:2)
So in principal I am for this type of censorship. But of course the two main issues with this are:
If you publish the list, then you get the trust, but lose any effectiveness (actually making it easier for people to access these sites). So then it's a question of ensuring a reasonable level of trust without publishing the list. One way of doing this is to let an independent body (e.g. the EFA) review the list - but that would have to be done under condition of secrecy.
However, the EFA demanded access under a freedom of information law - if they'd won, then any Tom, Dick or Bruce could demand the list, thus removing all secrecy.
So, while I can understand arguments against any censorship (effectiveness & trust) this decision seems to be clearly right.
dear lord! (Score:2)
WHAT IF THEY ALREADY DID?!
How are we to know if they can't see this if they can't access it. Perhaps already slashdot is being blocked around the world while innocent millions go on believing otherwise!
[no, I wasn't serious]
Actually, this information must be public by law (Score:2)
Electronic Frontiers Australia (Score:4, Informative)
I find this somewhat odd because Slashdot has run quite a few stories referencing EFA media releases and other materials. And if anyone actually went looking for us, we should be pretty easy to find - if you put "censorship Australia" into Google (as of 19 June 2002), the top six results consist of EFA pages and the personal pages of two EFA board members. Heck, even on a search as general as "internet censorship", EFA and EFA board members manage two of the top ten results!
Anyway, if you want to know what we do (and who we are), that's all on our web site [efa.org.au].
Danny (EFA board member).
Why keep it secret? Doesn't make sense. (Score:2)
Finding a site running DNS and and hacking it to bounce a visitor to a sub-domain host to another destination isn't exactly rocket science.
Its the basis of DynIP. In this case its screwing with the host tables without authorization. If nothing else is done to the system, it would be very hard to detect as it wouldn't really impact the site.
The legitimate site could even be an Australian government site. The IP address can be any unused address and it can be anywhere.
The ONLY way to really cold-cock the kiddy porn bastards is to switch to IPv6. Otherwise, its too spoofable an too many points.
Now THAT might spur on the adoption of IPv6. Someone should suggest it to these government bozos. "Do it for the children."
Those hypocrites might regularly sell their own mothers, wives and kids for whiskey but they couldn't publicly NOT back this.
Re:how is anything "worth" censorship (Score:2)
And no, it doesn't really do anything. Most of those commands won't do much without parameters.
Re:Some sites blocked by the Australian govt. (Score:2)
I would even go so far as to say http://www.what'sgoodforAmerica(tm)isn'talwaysgood foramericans.com/
Re:The Fix (Score:2)
So...you've not really run any web site bigger than the one you run with pictures of your cat, eh? Seriously, "ideals" are fine, but given the realities of the world, this would get you laughed out on your ass in most companies.
Just my $0.02.
Re:The Fix (Score:2)
Re:The Fix (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't agree with the US policies on censorship (and yes the US does have them the same way OZ does). I know that alot of libraries are forced to block certain content in the US.
So when the US fixes their broken laws I will restore access. Laws like the DCMA, the coypright extension act, the death penalty, the failure to sign up to a alot on international treaties and the list goes on and on.
Acutally I find your post fairly insulting, the US is not perfect, doesn't have perfect laws and to claim that our laws are broken is just arrogance. You are trying to make democratic nation follow US laws. At least attempt to fix the problems in your country before telling other countries what laws they are and aren't allowed to have.
In other words BUTT OUT.
Re:The Fix (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really.
However, I wonder how quickly your government would reconsider its decision when half the internet goes offline.
Or, repharased, I wonder how quickly most all Australians would be pounding the streets outside their minister's offices to get this bill repealed when their internet becomes a shell of what it once was.
Unfortunately, I think something like this will never go away for you unless you all stand up and tell your government no.
In North America and Europe not enough of us shouted no at increasing copyright restrictions, and look where our silence has led us. Don't let 'em run you over like they're doing to us!
Now, now (Score:2)
Re:EFA Board Members (Score:2)