Largest Aussie ISP Agrees To "Ridiculous" Net-Filter Trial 231
Klootzak writes "Michael Malone, head of Australia's largest ISP iiNet announced today that his company would sign up to the Government's live trials of the Great Firewall of Australia. In an article published by The Age, Mr Malone is quoted calling Stephen Conroy 'The worst Communications Minister we've had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed.' Despite at first giving the impression that iiNet is rolling over like a good Government puppy the article quotes Mr Malone saying that the reasons for participating in this trial is to show how unfeasible and stupid it is — Quoted from the article: 'Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we'll be publicizing it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we'll be publicizing it.' Let's hope that in typical fashion of government-instigated Internet-filtering that this stupid idea is just as useless, inefficient and ineffectual as the last one, and that the Australian Government realizes this before wasting more taxpayer dollars on it (seeing as the first attempt only cost taxpayers $84,000,000)."
What a scam (Score:4, Insightful)
Good way to get the people to accept it, ' look we are just trying to disprove it' ' its for your own good '.
I bet a buck it doesn't get shut down and seen as a success.
Re:What a scam (Score:5, Insightful)
I especially like how they seem to suggest they will be able to tell when someone breaks around it, and even more impressive who did it!
What about TPG? (Score:3, Insightful)
If TPG have ADSL2 DSLAMS in whatever exchange you are on, you should consider giving them a go. They have decent download quotas on their ADSL2 plans and VoIP service. Customer support is good too
Note that I have no relationship with TPG other than being a satisfied customer of their ADSL1 plan (there is no ADSL2 available in my area from anyone I would give any money to)
It's not a firewall, it's more like a dam (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's popular on slashdot to look at things based on its technical proficiency, but this isn't about whether or not it works. It's based on satisfying certain luddites that think that free access to information is evil because free access to information means free access to things that they disagree with. Things like abortion, religion, sexuality, human rights, protest, recipes for unhealthy food, and government/corporate oversight. And it doesn't matter whether it can be bypassed or not, what matters is whether the majority of the population cares enough to.
It's like peer to peer filesharing. Geeks like us will always be able to make it work because we know enough about the network to make a connection from any one point to another point. It's a decentralized communications network and by design and very nature it cannot be fully compromised. You can't stop the signal. But very few of us that use the internet are geeks and they use common tools like Google and Shareaza and if they don't work then they just give up. They don't have the proficiency to make it work. And so the luddites win, because the literacy is so low.
They don't care if it works... They just want to stop enough people that they don't lose their political clout. It's not a firewall, it's a dam; And while there's always water flowing through a dam, it's not all the water and that's what makes a dam useful.
Re:Oh no... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this isn't, and never has been, actually about protecting the children.
Re:Oh no... (Score:5, Insightful)
if they have a list of all the kiddie porn sites on the web, why don't they just go after the site owners? even if the sites are hosted overseas, there are very few countries in the world that tolerate that sorta thing, and with a little international pressure it shouldn't be too hard to get their own governments to shut them down.
If you're talking about shutting down sites with 5 year olds, you're probably right - Not many countries would refuse to cooperate. But if you're talking about sites featuring 13-18 year olds, the lines get a little blurry from one country to the next (I think IANAL nor a pedophile). So, like the TPB shutdown, the "best" they could do is illegally shut down the sites temporarily before they returned as strong as ever (along with some extra publicity) and possibly try and convict the site owners in absentia so that you can arrest them if they ever decide to visit your country.
And, like the other posters point out, this isn't really about shutting down kiddie porn. It's about giving the government the ability to filter the Internet as they see fit. The kids are just a convenient launching point because, as everyone knows, opposing censorship == supporting child abuse.
Re:What a scam (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us stipulate, then, that iiNet's aboveboard and that agreeing to this trial is, essentially, a demonstration of the futility of the government's proposal. Even with iiNet's principled and participatory opposition (i.e., not just sitting there pouting, but doing something about it), this may have unintended consequences.
[Comms Ministry]: The trial was a smash success; iiNet's endorsement guarantees we have good PR and can steamroll this out. All we have to do is invoke the name of our ally in the industry.
[iiNet]: "Endorsement"? WTF are you talking about! We signed up to prove just how stupid the idea was.
[Comms Ministry]: You signed up. That's endorsement. Your participation gives us all the credibility we need, and the rollout will proceed on schedule.
Trying to change stupidity from the inside has risks, one of which is that you get stupidity all over yourself.
Re:Oh no... (Score:3, Insightful)
there are very few countries in the world that tolerate that sorta thing
It depends on what you mean by 'sorta thing'. If you mean fully clothed children posing for a camera seen on the kind of site that has been frequently banned in the US then many other countries do NOT have a problem with that. The problem is with the individuals who get some kind of sexual pleasure from those sites and, even then, if they don't actually do anything then what crime has been committed? The problems with this type of filter is who gets to choose what is kiddie porn and what is not? We might have different but equally valid views both of which comply with the laws of the country under which we live. But having another country tell us we have to change because 'they' don't approve doesn't usually go down well with us. Take for example the cartoons that so offended the Muslim community. Why should my country - which is Christian and considerably more tolerant than many others - be dictated to because what we believe to be acceptable is not the same as their belief? I think that if a country tries to tell other countries how they should behave then they ought to mind their own business. By all means open a channel of discourse and debate but I don't believe that one country has more right than another to decide what is acceptable and what is not.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a firewall, it's more like a dam (Score:3, Insightful)
computational super -- It's not faith that makes me say this. It's the knowledge of human nature and statistics. No, I don't underestimate what people are willing to give up; The everyday person will sacrifice almost anything except themselves to have a little temporary safety (however illusory it is), to believe in the promise that the government, or the church, or some institution can somehow build some framework to hold back the chaos. But there will always be people either too smart, too stupid, or too "insane" to subscribe to whatever theory. Every institution, every law, advantages one group by disadvantaging another. Sometimes it's fair, sometimes it's horribly inhumane, but by the very act of disenfranchising one group to advantage another they have therein created the impetus to find the holes in the framework.
There is no such thing as a perfect institution, law, or way of living. There will always be holes. And there will always be free radicals, and so there will always be a way. It might be dangerous, illegal, and ill-advised but somebody's going to do it, and because of the social nature of people, they will eventually organize into groups and build on this, making it less dangerous, less visible, and easier. It's the eternal struggle between building better mice, and better mouse traps. And even supposing the system is morally perfect, advantaging everything, giving no reason to question it... There will still be people who will test it, by nature.
And technology is blind to morality. It is an extension of us all... And so... There will always be a way. Technology cannot solve social problems... People will always be evolving, trying to find some other way of doing things... And this fact alone guarantees that there will always be a way to live outside the system. There will always be a way for me to find others like me, and ways to find others like you. It's part of the human condition.
As long as YOU want it, there will be a way. And with over six billion other people on the planet, the odds are very good there are others who also want it, and they will find a way to find you, even if you don't believe they are there.
Re:Oh no... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. Several weeks after I sent a letter to his Australian Labour Party Cabinet Minister's office on this subject I have yet to receive even an acknowledgment.
My own Australian Labour Party representative (also a cabinet Minister) also failed to respond.
The main opposition party's Shadow Minister of Communications, Senator Nick Minchin (Australian Senate is the Australian Federal Upper House) at least responded with an acknowledgment.
Australian democracy in action, as it really is - arrogant and self serving for those who are in power at the time.
Richard
All of these mistakes play out the same way (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, decide on an ideological action. In this case, The Powers That Be don't want the internet to remain free and open, and a system is needed to control it. (Don't kid yourself that what is at stake is anything less.)
Secondly, make up an excuse that appears, at least superficially, to justify that action. It doesn't actually need to justify the action, and typically, under any degree of scrutiny, the argument will fall apart. If you need to resort to cheap appeals to "the children" and scare tactics, by all means, go for it.
Thirdly, you need to maintain that your excuse is better than anyone else's explanation to the contrary. Try not to spend too much effort replying to the experts who pick your excuse to pieces - you can't match wits with them. Don't answer their questions.
Fourthly, do whatever you wanted to do anyway. Again, ignore all the failings for now. Stick to your excuse; say it louder, if need be.
Fifthly, explain why the whole exercise has been such a success. If it has actually been a success in some way, your mistake has been justified by a successful result. However, even if it has been a terrible failure, you can still fall back on your ideological decision. For example, if your system has failed, you can campaign for the funds for a bigger and better system. Perhaps most importantly, do not acknowledge any failings significant enough to suggest that the move should be undone: leave it there at all costs, and use it as leverage as required.
I worked for an Australian government department once, and I've seen these sorts of mistakes made firsthand. I can all but guarantee that Conroy will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to keep the filter going. Everyone knows it doesn't work. The ISPs will say it doesn't work because it's broken by design. The Minister will say we just need a better one to make it work. If that's all that happens, the Minister will win.
If people don't stand up and make themselves heard, sooner rather than later, then the government is make whatever mistakes it can, using your tax dollars, and make your life worse with the consequences. Let's make them earn their keep for a change.