Technical Specs Released For Aussie Net Filtering 231
smallkathryn writes "Technical specifications have just been released for the Australian net filtering trial. The trial, which aims to prove that ISP-level filtering is a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users, will go live on 24 December. The trial will involve ISPs choosing a commercially available hardware filter from an internet content filter (ICF) vendor, adding it to their networks, then loading the blacklist of unwanted sites. Still no indication of how peer-to-peer information will be addressed."
Voluntary (Score:1, Insightful)
Only the ISPs are against voluntary filtering at the ISP level.. because it will cost them money to implement. It's a bit sad that my country seems to be populated by people who are afraid of seeing "the wrong thing" on the Internet, and it's even more sad that our government panders to them. But, so long as it remains voluntary, this is just typical overreaching government regulation. I'm sure there will be no "trial" of non-voluntary enforcement.
Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the time to invest in and bring to market an encryption product to the masses in Australia. What would stop a US company from selling cheap VPN tunnels to end users down under?
Unwanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
then loading the blacklist of unwanted sites.
Obviously someone wants these sites, else there would be no need to blacklist them.
Re:Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
What would stop a US company from selling cheap VPN tunnels to end users down under?
Not a damn thing. Which is one of the primary reasons why this whole thing is such a stupid pointless waste of time and money.
blacklist (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unwanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually. The government's assumption is that reasonable Australians don't want to see hard core porn and other "offensive" material. You disagree? Oh, you're just being unreasonable.
This is what decades of tolerating film and media classification has done to us.
"Unwanted Content" (Score:2, Insightful)
ISP-level filtering is a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users
Unwanted by whom?
While this is potentially bad (Score:2, Insightful)
What good could come from it?
There could be some new and interesting ways to get around such filtering?
Gains the attention of more people to find against such stupidity?
THE INTERNET SHOULD BE FREE, FOREVER.
Filtering should only ever be done on the client end!
Re:Unethical (Score:4, Insightful)
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Re:Unwanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that it is illegal to sell a film in Australia without a classification, and that the Classification Board has the right, which it exercises often, to refuse classification. This effectively bans films which are considered "offensive".
My solution would be to make all films immediately R18+. You must be 18 years of age or older to purchase them. If the distributor wants to apply for a lesser rating, they can do so. Now all the "think of the children" morons are placated and the rest of us can watch a movie revolving around the abusive home lives of teenage skateboarders without the government getting involved.
Re:Voluntary (Score:3, Insightful)
The government panders to them only for a single reason, namely that it is in the interest of the government to pander to them. More precisely, they're the excuse because "see, at least SOME want that!"
Else it would have been easy. You want filtering? No problem, we make a law that your ISP has to provide it at your request, for free (i.e. everyone has to pay for it, because no provider will ever sit on expenses and not brush it off to its clients). If you're concerned that you don't want to see OMGWTF content, here's an easy solution. That would have been pandering to those people if the government wasn't interested in filtering.
Since they are, the solution is to make filters mandatory.
So I wouldn't just say it's the fault of the OMFGPR0N! crowd. They're just the excuse to do what has quite different reasons but can somehow not really be "sold" that way.
Re:Voluntary (Score:4, Insightful)
Rest assured there will be a law that absolves them. Else the lights will go out pretty fast in the fiberoptic cables of Aussieland.
Because, as everyone here knows, there WILL be downloads and there WILL be illegal content, and you can filter however and whatever you like, it will get through. Now, ISPs are usually international companies, few are still single country. And when I am in constant danger of a lawsuit that threatens my very business in some country, I'll pull out. Providing internet services is a lossy business in Australia? Ok. Shut down the branch, we move the resources to some other country. It's done everywhere? Most ISPs are either also in telco or cable TV, so let's shut down the ISP biz and concentrate on the rest.
If ISPs become the new scapegoat of the sue happy industries, they will close their doors. Unlike real people, corporations can easily move, and they can easily "die" without anyone being hurt.
Re:Encryption (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who watches the success of botnets despite widespread efforts to blacklist trojan servers (by URL, IP, subnets...), I'd say when a group of zealous, dedicated and passionate people fighting malware can't even gain a foot, a group of underpaid, usually underfunded and undermotivated public officials won't really succeed either.
Umm "The trial, which aims to prove..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't trials test a hypothesis or design? If you set out to prove something with a trial, I'm fairly certain that you will carefully design it so that it does, indeed, prove it; as you have already decided you will do it and are now cynically producing evidence.
Trials should be neutral, investigating or testing or gathering data. The *RESULTS* of a trial will support or disprove a concept.
Ultimately, you cant really "prove" anything; just gain sufficient confidence that despite your best efforts, you cannot disprove it.
Perhaps the trial aims to check "the feasibility of" rather than "prove"... well, we can hope.
err!
jak.
Re:Dangerous (Score:1, Insightful)
You can see their list of RC (Refused Classification, ie illegal in Aus) content tho. The clean-feed blacklist will not be publicly reviewed.
Re:Unwanted? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there will be mandatory filtering on ILLEGAL material only. Child pornography, bestiality etc. And while, yes, X rated material is only available in the ACT and NT by law... that law is in NO way enforced. I can almost guarantee this mandatory blacklist will NOT block all hardcore sex.
They haven't actually stated what's in the list, but I would say it'll be:
Child Pornography
Rape (Or any non-consensual sexual stuff I would imagine)
Bestiality
I'm basing this on past Australian government things, and just the line they have taken in the past.
There will be lobby groups who will try and get all and sundry included in the mandatory list, and it will be fascinating to see how it plays out.
And scary.
And crap.
But still fascinating.
Sorry to go off topic (Score:3, Insightful)
A picture is information. A video is information. Sound is information. QED
Since no one could possibly believe that CP is just "information" (and I have a very low opinion of the intelligence of most people), the most likely explanation for your position on this is that you are a consumer and/or producer of child pornography yourself.
Just to be sure I'm understanding you, you claim that classification of "product" as not different from "information" proves me to be a consumer or producer of child porn?
Never a legitimate reason to stop information? That's so ridiculous it's beneath discussion.No, no it's not. And while we're throwing around ad hominems you, sir or madam, are an idiot.
Re:Voluntary (Score:3, Insightful)
Australia has classification and censorship (aka banning) of film, tv, radio, video games, newspapers, magazines, advertisements.. why wouldn't we want classification and censorship of the Internet too? I, personally, think classification is a good thing, but it should be voluntary and banning/censorship is just draconian. But are my views in the majority? Who knows. The current policies of my government would not seem to indicate so.
Re:Sorry to go off topic (Score:4, Insightful)
You say a picture or a video is just information. Ok, fair enough.
But just because information can be freely duplicted doesn't mean it isn't affected by the laws of supply and demand.
Some people will pay for this "information" (kiddie porn). Therefore other people will create child porn, for money.
The creation of child porn (your definition may vary)should be punished, in my opinion, by death. Commissioning of child porn is accessory to the crime and should also be punished. On the other hand those who have not commissioned the deed should not be punished even if they buy child porn because they did not have a hand in the act. Would you make it a crime to sell the 9/11 videos? Surely billions of dollars have been made from those crimes. Where is the divide between the newscaster hawking scenes of death (if it bleeds it leads) and the exploitive pornographer hawking his wares? Surely either both should be illegal or neither.
Unfortunately those people do unspeakable awful things to innocent children in order to create the information, in order to satisfy that demand.
Punish them! punish them harshly! You will have all the evidence you need.
By your logic I have done nothing wrong if I say I will provide $10,000,000 for a video of someone shooting you in the head, and someone follows through and I pay them. Or your children. Heck, your whole family. If all of you died horribly, simply because I paid for some "information" have I done anything wrong? By your logic, no.
By my logic you have done something horrible, in commissioning the crime. The newscaster who puts it on for the 8:00 news hour in return for commercial profits has not. If you had specified a computer-generated video of such then nothing wrong would have been done at all.
Two possible outcomes (Score:3, Insightful)
This of course means that the blacklist will only impede a small, acceptable percentage of people and therefore should be implemented.
This of course means that there is a raging epidemic of accessing undesirable material is going on and the blacklist is therefore urgently required.
Why does no one ever demand scientific accountability? Let the government state its case, make testable claims and see if reality bears them out - and and scrap it if it does not even work out on paper!
Re:Encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering how many governments appear to want to be able to spy on Internet traffic why wouldn't they want encryption?
The upstream block against hard-core porn is an easy sell to most parents.
If you ask N people on what should be blocked you will get at least N different answers.