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."
Dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not believe any government should censor speech. This sort of technology is ripe for abuse. There will probably be sites which "accidently" are filtered, maybe sites with unpopular political views, or legal material, such as adult pornography. As well, this sets dangerous precedents as well, that government has a right to censor things. It could set a dangerous precedent for censoring things we all agree should not be censored, like pornography of consenting adults and unpopular (communist, marxist, etc) political views.
And then of course... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then all we need to do is wait until the Aussies load so many obfuscated hosts into their border boxen that they all fry themselves and the silly idea it is will be really quite clear to anyone with opposable thumbs.
Re:Voluntary (Score:5, Interesting)
Did Bob Aussieman pirate a movie? Well, the ISP should have filtered that out. Did Steve Kiddyporn upload/download illegal pictures of children? The ISP should have stopped it.
By even doing token filtering, they're taking responsibility for everything that happens on their network.
Re:URL based to start with (Score:3, Interesting)
That'll work fine unless they're using Name Based Virtual Hosts. [apache.org]
Regardless, as (almost) all of us know there's a number of ways to bypass this bloody stupid [dbcde.gov.au] filter.
Disclaimer: I don't think Child Pornography should be legal. However, I very strongly disagree that the Government has the right to put in access-Level filtering, regardless of their case.
The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Re:Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Unwanted Content" (Score:4, Interesting)
Which after a little searching one finds completely untrue. He has been questioned by other members of parliament and skirted around the issue by feeding the "Unwanted Material" line.
Re:Unwanted? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm fine with them having blacklists... but I want it to be OPT IN.
This making it mandatory, and the default starting point is TERRIBLE.
Allow households to opt in to blocking sites and at a number of different levels
[ ] Pornography
[ ] Hate literature
[ ] whatever...
That would be fine.
But making it the default, and you having to OPT OUT means that the vast majority will let this slide, the apathy will allow it to become the norm.
AND then the government is going to have to wear the shitstorm that will occur when parents have their kids accessing 'objectionable' material even though it was supposed to be blocked.
I used to work for FreeOnline, the largest free internet provider that ever was in Australia. We had a 'freezone' that had sites that didn't eat into your free time each month, and then everything else did.
The WORK to keep that thing maintained was horrendous... the government just doesn't understand how unworkable this is.
Blacklists (Score:2, Interesting)
If I were the ISP, I would add a few extra domains to the blacklist. Block some things that I as an ISP find objectionable, such as the web sites of candidates that support filtering. Media outlets that carry advertising for candidates that I don't like. Etc.
Re:Unwanted? (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't care how unworkable it is, as long as they have the power to censor things on demand.
Steve Fielding wants a monopoly on kiddie porn (Score:2, Interesting)
As mentioned in my blog [homelinux.org], I think if politicians are so keen to 'clean up the internet', they should start closer to home, in their own PCs. How many times have we seen Australian politicians in various compromising positions ... 'chair-sniffing', kiddie-porn scandals, and of course Prime Minister Rudd can't even remember his night out in Vagas where he had lap dances etc paid for by the Aussie taxpayer.
Of course this is less Labor's fault than fucking Family First, that bunch of ultra-conservative freaks who openly admit they want to turn Australia into a fundamentalist hell-hole, dissolving the separation between religion and state, and enforce their own sexually perverted vision on 'the right way' down everyone else's throats. Their backers include the Assembly of God [blogspot.com] nut-cases, who are outright hostile to democracy, prevent their own members from reading any non-God-related material, force their children into slave labour for the church, spread vicious lies about progressive political candidates, and support terrorist attacks on abortion clinics. They're a real piece of work! But on the other hand, it's enlightening to see Labor - the so-called 'alternative' party ( inside the 2-party system of course ) backing this lunacy.
Re:Unwanted? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the classification board does a great job but I disagree with outright bans on philosophical grounds. The current push for filtering is a storm in a tea-cup and is driven by the governments need to placate senator Fielding. After KRuddy has got what he wants out of Fielding the mandatory filtering legislation will fail to pass the senate and the political fallout will land directly on Fielding at the next election.
How to Stop .torrents (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm fairly sure one of the first things added to the list will be torrent indexes. No more TPB or ISOHunt for Australians. This is exactly what Australian media companies want: they used to have it good, they would hold over US shows and movies for rating windows and screw over viewers that just wanted to watch stuff current.
The big problem is, Australian media holds a lot of sway with the scum that is an Australian politician.
Of course you'll be able to access them in a round-about fashion. Maybe it will eventually become illegal to bypass the filter, call it hacking. Aussie freedom will go, china style.
Re:Dangerous (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Voluntary (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm confused: as far as I can see, about the only people who want this implemented are Stephen Conroy and Family First. The Liberals don't want it, the Greens don't want it, citizens don't want it, child protection groups don't want it, and ISPs are only doing it to prove to the government that they're lying about the speed impact.
Re:Encryption (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Saying it won't do anything is missing the point, and selling out your own beliefs. It's the inverse of 'If you have nothing to hide, being searched shouldn't bother you.
You are correct. The people who want to get through it will always be able to. But that does not in ANY way make it a pointless waste. I will explain...
There will be new laws. Now if you access any blocked content, you broke a law about circumventing government filters. Just because you can still do something even if it's illegal, doesn't mean it's ok for it to be illegal.
Secondly, it may be easy for YOU to get around the filters, but your average person doesn't have a clue. And since selling services to get around it will be illegal, they won't be able to buy it either. They'll have to find it underground, which implies they even know that an underground exists in the first place, or how to get there for that matter. They are effectively controlled. And that's a bad thing.
Saying it's pointless is really shortsighted. You fail to understand the full ramifications of an action like this. The fact you can easily get around it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue itself. At best, it's stupid thinking. At worst, it's pure selfishness. (As long as YOU can still access the internet, you don't care)
Re:Unwanted? (Score:4, Interesting)
That link doesn't actually clarify anything they merely state 'It could be any number of things' and then go on to mention things that might be banned.
It's all conjecture.
Which is part of the problem, it should be completely transparent. Actually, it just shouldn't exist in the first place, but if it did it should be transparent.
we can have fun here (Score:1, Interesting)
Reading the article, yes I did read it, says the system is complaints based. :)
how about we get together and have family first & scientology added to the list
Re:While this is potentially bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? No new and interesting way to get around such filtering is needed. Any VPN, proxy, anonymiser, tunnel etc will do it in moments. High school kids bypassed it in less than 2 minutes when it was demo'd at a local school.
Although you could have been sarcastic and I missed it.
"They have painted a yellow line around the doorway. We must now try to investigate new methods to bypass this yellow barrier. Perhaps we will step over it and see how that goes."
Sadly, the mandatory filtering is bypassed in moments, simply doesn't work, and adds a layer of overhead to our already woeful internet connectivity.