Filter Vendor Agrees Aussie Censorship Can't Work As Promised 143
Acidspew writes "The Australian Government's plan to filter the Internet has caused furore and has been met with vehement objection. Many people have put their opinions forward regarding this matter, but this time around, M86 Security — the vendor that provided many ISPs equipment during the initial filter trials — has finally weighed in on the discussion. Six of the nine ISP participants in the URL-based Internet filter trial last year used M86's R3000 filtering kit. According to ARN: 'Internet filtering won't prevent people deliberately looking for inappropriate material from accessing blocked content, according to security vendor M86 Security.' The company continues by saying its filter gear was designed to be implemented into schools and enterprise businesses, not for an entire country. The article also touches on M86's views on censorship."
Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it seems that even if God almighty would have stepped down and told Mr. Conroy that filtering of this sort is a bad idea i wouldn't have helped much. However, keep up the pressure and they will relent (do not look at NZ!).
Pull the plug... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check?
Ban the use of the software that way in the TOS, and the Aussie government can go jump in a lake!
Better yet, send out a rogue update to their servers where it disables the whole internet for the whole country... pirate software users don't have any reason to expect the software is going to behave honestly.
If you do something that tweaks a software vendor, there's no telling that they're not going to tweak you back.
Copyright has no requirement for publishing... there's some works done just to put it in a box and make sure nobody else can do the same.
Bags not being the scapegoat (Score:2, Insightful)
Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the mere fact that the article then goes on to say that criminals already have ways around it that are not prevented by this kind of filtering suggests to me that you're not going to just enter keywords somewhere and have it show up.
The whole premise of the network filter - stopping kids from accidentally finding kiddy pron - is utter baloney. If it was so easy for a kid to find it accidentally, law enforcement wouldn't need to go to such measures to shut it down.
'Think of the children' is, as always, an excuse. Given that's not the real goal of the filter, one can imagine what the actual purpose might be.
highly unusual (Score:4, Insightful)
a. Either their involvement in Australia has cost them other more valuable contracts.
b. They mis-stepped and are being forced to maintain the system beyond their expectations.
Either way, I suspect this contract is now a ball & chain around their ankle. They want out.
Re:Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
Another example is text relating to the formulation of explosive materials: should that be considered "illegal information" too? From this we return to the concept of illegal numbers, then it all starts getting ridiculous.
I believe it's easier to hold the position that no information or data is inherently illegal, neither should possession (which becomes a strict-liability offence, a can of worms) than to get stuck in the debate of what is and isn't illegal. Besides, if you're really after a piece of information or data then you're eventually going to be able get it.
Re:Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that illegal material should be blocked (it usually is, by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers).
I don't. Slippery slope, and all that. Once the system is in place to remove anything unwanted from the internet, it takes a whole lot of public oversight to prevent from abuse. Remember, politicians are people you know are lying for a living.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I watched "The Boat That Rocked" again the other night, and It reminded me that history seems to have a way of repeating itself. It may not be rock 'n roll this time, but it is certainly something the powers at be don't fully understand and cannot control. This scares them.
Re:Pull the plug... (Score:3, Insightful)
As in, they're putting in a bid, they HOPE to be the one to provide it still, they just want to be on record that it won't work as a miracle cure, just a good first step towards protecting the children.
Re:Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with blocking "illegal material" is the definition of "illegal material".
Indeed! The point of passing legislation through parliament is to make law. The material being blocked will be "illegal material" by definition.
Or at least it should be. We won't be able to tell, of course, because the list of what is being blocked is secret. And that is the very worst aspect of the whole scheme.
For example, at what point is a medical textbook photo of a paediatric condition considered "indecent"?
To solve this "problem" we have courts. Judges deal with these sorts of marginal cases every day. It's not a big problem. (One doubts that a bona fide medical textbook of paediatric medicine would ever be judged indecent. As the Henson debacle shows, however, the question of 'art' is more vexed). But again, if the list is secret, how will it be subject to curial oversight?
The real problem is that some random public servant (Sen Fielding's cousin maybe?), will be deciding which site does and which site does not fulfil the legal requirements for being placed on the list AND they will be doing so without the requisite transparency.
Compare this to how classification is done now. When the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board decide to refuse classification for a film (effectively censoring it), we all know which film has be refused. We can also read the reasons for the decision. We, as a public, can then debate the question of whether the particular item ought, or ought not be refused, and possibly get the decision overturned.
As the people are the ultimate sovereign in Australia (ACTV v C'th), it is to us that the censors must be answerable. Yet Sen. Conroy proposes not to answer to us. What to do with a servant like that?
While secrecy might be an operational necessity in matters of national security (as courts recognise), it can hardly be argued that the threat from online information is so serious as to require the abrogation of normal democratic process. We've survived, relatively unscathed, for a decade or so.
What is ridiculous about illegal numbers? If the parliament says a number is illegal, (and that parliament has the power to legislate with respect to the legality of numbers), then that number is illegal. It's all terribly straightforward. ;)
Re:Keep up the pressure (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that illegal material should be blocked (it usually is, by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers). On the other hand, blocking refused classification material is censorship.
Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between "blocking illegal material", blocking material that is "refused classification" and "censorship"? From where I sit, if I can't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference, well ... that material has been censored. What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant: I cannot get to it. Governments like to play games with words in order to make their sanctimonious crap more palatable to their respective publics. It sounds to me like that's exactly what's happening in Australia, and you personally seem to be buying into it.
Re:Our internet filter (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a dangerous door that you're opening here. Let's take your assertion at face value. Let's say that the firewall is indeed defective by design; that Australians are meant to be able to bypass it should they have the desire; and there is no law punishing you for bypassing it. What makes you so sure that it will stay that way?
Do you really believe that no one will notice that the firewall doesn't work? When they do, do you think they'll a) say "whoops, this was a mistake" and tear it down, b) say "eh, shucks, leave it be," or c) say "GOOD HEAVENS THE CHILDREN" and try to "fix" it? If you said b), then you've just stalled. What will they do next year? Lather, rinse, repeat until they take one of the more conclusive options. It'll be a) or c), and once you have that damn firewall in place, a) will be political suicide. That leaves c).
On a technical level, secure Internet filtering for censorship does not work, and never will work. When the technical consultants come back and say this time and again, moralizing politicians will stop looking for technical solutions, and start looking to more traditional ones: fines and jail sentences. It will be a crime to visit certain websites, and the infrastructure will be in place for the government to find out that you did it. It won't be perfect. It will still be perfectly evil.
This seems like a mighty steep price tag for fast Internet and laptops for school kids.
Re:Keep up the pressure (Score:4, Insightful)
So if the majority of the population think censorship is okay, it becomes okay? Sorry, but individuals should NOT be subjected to a tyranny of the majority. If someone wants to look at something that 99% of the population find offensive, he should still have that right. A censorship system controlled by the people would be subject to personal and public tastes and prejudices and not in the public's best interest. As for gray area cases, so far all the judges can come up with to define obscenity is "I know it when I see it." How are people who want to create borderline art supposed to work with that?
What is obscene and censorable is something that humans are simply incapable of handling, which is why we need a system of hard, bright lines. No censorship at all, no illegal numbers and no illegal works is a good place to start.
Re:Keep up the pressure (Score:4, Insightful)
So if the majority of the population think censorship is okay, it becomes okay?
As a matter of law, since the public have decided not to restrict the legislature with regard to rights such as freedom of speech, the Australian public is free to have their parliament enact a regime of censorship. You'll note that I wrote that I cannot object "on democratic grounds alone." Those words did not accidentally slip from my keyboard.
Sorry, but individuals should NOT be subjected to a tyranny of the majority.
I agree, democracy is the worst from of government! Except, as Churchill pointed out, for all the other systems that have been tried. The choice (well it isn't) is to be subject to the will of the majority (at least in theory), or to be subject to the will of a minority, or a single man or book. In fact you are constantly subject to the will of the (theoretical) majority. But perhaps you live somewhere where a right has been conceded in relation to freedom of speech.
If someone wants to look at something that 99% of the population find offensive, he should still have that right.
Where does he get that right from? Remember rights aren't god given or natural, they are historically a concession from those who hold power. Where a People is sovereign, if the people does not give a person a particular right, that person does not have it. What an individual does have, under our legal system is the right (a concession originally from the King), to have their individual case heard based on laws of universal application, not based on their personal popularity of that person or the majority's disposition towards them. Outside that any right you think you have that protects you from the sovereign (whether this be the majority of the public or a dictator) is a mere fantasy.
A censorship system controlled by the people would be subject to personal and public tastes and prejudices and not in the public's best interest.
What is in the public's best interest is for the majority constituted as a public to decide. Which is not to say they decide well. As Spike Milligan put it so aptly, "in a democracy the people get the government they deserve, and I get the government they deserve too!"
As for gray area cases, so far all the judges can come up with to define obscenity is "I know it when I see it."
That's American law for you. But I don't believe it's relevant here. It is my understanding (and I'm open to correction) that in reviewing classification what judges, or administrative tribunal members, are deciding is not whether an item is "obscene," per se, but whether it depicts violent sexuality, promotes drug use etc etc.
How are people who want to create borderline art supposed to work with that?
If anyone wants to create boderline art, surely they absolutely require there to be a censorship regime? It's a of a waste of time working in that area if your work doesn't get banned. But look, actually I agree with you here, artists have an unfairly tough time of it when some morals crusader along with the Murdoch press sets their sights on them.
[W]e need a system of hard, bright lines. No censorship at all, no illegal numbers and no illegal works is a good place to start.
Unfortunately the great "We," don't want those particular lines (as much as the simple do like "hard and bright"). In my experience even people who argue against censorship balk at the idea of child porn openly for sale at the local supermarket.
Re:Our internet filter (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually agree with this approach.
I disagree. The Liberals released the NetAlert opt-in, downloadable filter back when they were in power. It fell flat on it's face - nobody downloaded it, and it was broken within two days by a teenager. But at least it kept to the principles of democracy. Repeat after me:
There are better ways to deal with "protecting the children" then creating a police state
There are better ways to deal with "protecting the children" then creating a police state
There are better ways to deal with "protecting the children" then creating a police state