Australian Government Initiates Covert Internet Censorship 104
An anonymous reader writes "Remember how the Australian Government tried to enact a big bad Internet filter on the population? Well, that effort failed, but now there's a new initiative in place. At least one government agency, the country's financial regulator, has quietly started issuing legal notices to ISPs requesting them to block certain types of websites deemed illegal. There's no oversight or appeals process, and already a false positive event has resulted in some 1,200 innocent websites being blocked from Australians viewing them. Sounds ideal, right?"
Here we go -- (Score:1)
Re:Here we go -- (Score:5, Funny)
'Tis quite alright. In the future, the public internet (what's left of it) will only run encrypted data-streams. That's ultimately where this is headed. And since encryption is easier to make than decryption....well, the censors will always be on the losing side. Eternally.
The real fun part will be, of course, if / when humanity runs into other sentient lifeforms out in the universe. I'm sure that they will, of course, naturally have chosen similar schemes for controlling information within their own populations, as well as limiting reproductive choices, and implementing artificial castes. And that when they gaze upon what our great planet has invented, the very jewel of our solar system, the fruits of brightest minds and the labor bought off the backs of millions of straining peoples, they will acknowledge that we truly are just like them, and worthy to open trade negotiations / some sort of alliance. When our drones are flying over enemy territory, our borders, even our homeland itself, we are telling those with peering, but hidden eyes far up in the heavens exactly the kind of freedom America stands for. And they will know, like in all our broadcasts and films, that when they wish to pay homage to our wonderful civilization, exactly which building to visit and which leader they should strike up a conversation with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They will simply make it illegal to use "unapproved" encryption, where "approved" encryption is that for which you have provided the decryption keys to law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Except ever encryptor needs a corresponding decryption, or it is simply a deleter.
If you encrypt data, you need to give everyone you want access this decrypter. And this is not taking into account, simply censoring all encrypted data, which has already started.
But even if they do not, they win in every case where it is not between two people who have access to unbreakable encryption techniques and exchanged encryption keys in the real world, AKA they win.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I should have been clearer -> it's easier for two parties to whip up a means of encryption than it is for a third party to decrypt it.
At the end of the day, brute-forcing one-time pads with predictive heuristics still requires some time; mutate the encryption fast enough, and by the time the message is decrypted, it's worthless.
Now of course, you're going to point out, what about keyloggers, telepaths, aliens, double-agents, etc. Which mean nothing if two parties are actually honestly trying to k
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have no idea how the Internet actully works?
Re:Here we go -- (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite - for example virtually all secure internet communication is based on SSL or similar, which allows the secure creation of complementary encryption keys over an insecure data channel. That doesn't help if you can shut down the origin, but it neatly sidesteps any sort of "gatekeeper" censorship that doesn't, as you point out, simply block all encrypted traffic. Even such drastic lockdowns could conceivably be sidestepped by steganographically hiding encrypted data streams within innocuous ones. Obviously that's going to hurt your bandwidth, but we're talking about just making things possible.
Re:Here we go -- (Score:5, Funny)
we are telling those with peering, but hidden eyes far up in the heavens exactly the kind of freedom America stands for. And they will know, like in all our broadcasts and films
I, for one, welcome the chance to sue our new overlords for illegally obtaining our broadcasts and films. Goddamn space pirates.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright infringement is a threat to national security, so blindly infringing upon people's freedoms and censoring content at a random corporations request is perfectly justified.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Speaking of sites (Score:2)
Idiots... (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly I can still access the blocked site, so looks like they've undone that (I'm on Telstra at the moment... Don't ask). Also interesting is that they just dismantled the filtering scheme in the budget overnight, so with any luck it goes away altogether. The ACL are not particularly happy about it though (but who cares about them).
As is linked in TFS, the filter list that some ISPs may have implemented is the Interpol one. Certainly not as broad-reaching as the original Conroy planned one.
Re: (Score:2)
As is linked in TFS, the filter list that some ISPs may have implemented is the Interpol one. Certainly not as broad-reaching as the original Conroy planned one.
So it is a hit with a bat, not a stab with a knife? Like they say in AA, the best time to stop is before the first one.
Re: (Score:2)
try telling that to the guy with the bat...
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with telstra's network, othert than cost.
And service. But the network itself is fine :)
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing wrong with telstra's network, othert than cost.
And service. But the network itself is fine :)
And sometimes the network. But always the service. And the price, and of course the service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They were the only one who could get me onto ADSL2+, due to their want to RIM all newer developments. I'm glad to finally get the speeds I should have had years ago, but now I'm locked in for another 1.5 years. The price is not so good, though.
You have consented to large government (Score:3, Insightful)
Of-course Australian government will block your Internet access to materials it finds inappropriate, whatever that means, you have given your government enough power to do things like that. Gun control was implemented in the same way, taxing income on a graduated scale, telling people what they can and cannot do with their private property, same for people running businesses, all of this grows and emboldens the government and when governments grow and become emboldened people shrink and become scared little nothings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You have consented to large government (Score:4, Funny)
The Australian government is about to boot its people down more.
I'd say, let's get the entire Australian government and leave them on a deserted island somewhere in the middle of the ocean...
Re:You have consented to large government (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You have consented to large government (Score:5, Insightful)
telling people what they can and cannot do with their private property, same for people running businesses,
Yep. I mean, a thousand dead or so [yahoo.com] is a fair price to pay so that businesses can thrive. Not to mention that it's better being a dead factory worker than some scared little suburbanite living in the US with two cars and a 5 bedroom house.
Totally. Especially if you're one of the rich business owners who can afford to not work in their own factory and hire a private army to guard your assets.
For those who are sarcasm impaired - yes, that was sarcasm. I normally write people like roman off as just crazy, but they seem to be proliferating like cockroaches.
Re:You have consented to large government (Score:5, Insightful)
Roman's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything without it automatically becoming tyrannical. Furthermore, the slightest overreach by any apparatchik is immediately an indictment of the incompetence of all government, followed by cries to dismantle government in general. Because of the extremely low threshold that people like roman have for any sort of government activity at all, there is no way to have any sort of government regulation at all. What's more though, their threshold for what is appropriate for government allows absolutely no discussion - to paraphrase someone else, you're either with them, or against them. That's the worst aspect of their "solutions": there is no possibility for debate about it.
Furthermore, you're falling into the same logic trap that roman does: there are only two states, and if one advocates against one, one is forcibly for the other extreme. What I'm arguing is that their worldview has been tested, and it is utterly failing - and has always failed in the past as well.
Re: (Score:1)
All nations rise and fall, history is clear on this. When they fall it is almost always with violent revolution against a tyrannical oppressive government. Your nation is no different and you sir are simply grease within the gears of oppression.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All nations rise and fall, history is clear on this. When they fall it is almost always with violent revolution against a tyrannical oppressive government.
At the same time, history is clear what happens before the revolution: some of the greatest empires in history. Hate the tyrants and murderers all you will, but they got to live as kings of their time.
Being ruthless, being violent, being amoral, and generally being the biggest asshole around works. Nice guys finish last, my fellow AC.
Your nation is no different and you sir are simply grease within the gears of oppression.
Better than being on the receiving end of those gears of oppression.
See, Saturday morning cartoons are not so far from reality. The villains get all the swag, the cool toys (do
Re: (Score:1)
But Roman_Mir followed up with a couple of other things that he said were implemented in similar ways: Gun control, taxing income on a graduated scale, telling people what they can and cannot do with their private property, same for people running businesses.
Then he finished off with this diagnosis: all of this grows and emboldens the government and when governments grow and become emboldened people shrink and become scared little nothings
This is not quite enough to guarantee absolute certainty about his o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While you make a fair "feel good" argument, it's not historically accurate. If you read history, you will find that there have been no perfect Governments. Governments that are granted powers always request more and more, until the point where a revolution is required to restore a Government that people can live with.
I guess you could ignore the fact that the US had been trending toward a tyranny for a very long time. Each year, more and more power is granted to the Government. Each year we pay more and
Re:You have consented to large government (Score:4, Insightful)
Thankfully because of the lessons of history, we can hopefully change the course this time around.
For example, perhaps we could have the positive benefits of government (gun control, progressive taxation used to fund public services, telling people what they can do with their private property - 'no, you can't build a rubbish tip in suburbia, sorry') and actually intervene in the problem of creeping power (such as this).
Somehow people manage to keep bringing this back to gun control - "when we gave up our guns we lost our ability to fight". However, gun control is widely supported in Australia, and I'm pretty sure that pretending we'd be able to overthrow the government with our guns wouldn't aid the cause of social change. Clearly having a profusion of crazy (and sane) people will guns in the U.S. has stopped your problem of creeping government overreach, right?
Yes, there is a need to monitor government and work to ensure their are limits on their powers, but can we stop pretending that progressive social policies are part of an inexorable creeping towards totalitarianism? I understand that may be hard for some people who need to justify their access to guns and their anger at paying tax, but please do try.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't change human nature. This is why Socrates stated that the only people that should be representing people in a Republic are the people that don't want the job. This prevents people craving power from holding offices and abusing their offices to gain power. Remember power comes in many forms.
Socrates was also adamant that society needs to be highly educated. The people holding offices in the US have done everything they can to make the populace some of the dumbest people in history. People don'
Re: (Score:1)
History does not support that things only deteriorate except through revolutions. The twentieth century saw a tremendous improvement without violent revolutions. I tend to think that there was a couple of historical factors behind, like the combination of a world war to create a greatly enhanced sense of community, and a socialist and unionizing movement creating a previously unheard of balance of power -- until the the unions themselves became too corrupt or too dumb and static.
If the 99% find new ways of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an Australian who has played with guns recently, that's factually inaccurate. Almost all Australian adults can own a gun if they wish to. In fact many of us own entire rooms full of them. The only exceptions are the same as everywhere else - the mentally ill, felons and so on. We are perhaps a little more restricted in the types of gun we can own - you need to have a professional reason to own concealable weapons and automatics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If what you have written here bears any resemblance to what your what your friends write in the US, you are bunch of conspiracy theorists inventing rubbish and feeding off it.
However, onto your actual claims. Regarding storage - you must have an approved gun safe. Personally, I think the law is too weak. Most of out gun crime is now committed by guns stolen from domestic gun safes. A wooden cupboard with a padlock on it is nowhere near good
Re: (Score:3)
You misunderstood. I'm not arguing that there have been perfect governments. I'm arguing that when it came to contesting for resources, larger, more efficient organizations always won out. Furthermore, by standard measures of prosperity, larger, more efficient organizations always come out on top. The only exceptions are smaller organizations that can piggy-back on the services of larger, nearby organizations.
Furthermore, what's decried as tyranny is pretty damn far from what people normally have in mind wh
Re: (Score:2)
Australia kind of leapfrogged past the US and even the UK in terms of a soft tyrannical take over. I found it surprising, but as soon as they lost their ability to fight (gave up the guns) the changes have been moving very quickly.
You are making a mistake in assuming the Australian culture is the same as US culture. It's one our own commentators have actually started doing too.
Australia has never had the same views on freedom and rights that the US has. It has always been understood that there is a compromise between personal freedoms and state control. An example of this is that we don't have a Bill or Rights, we don't have a Freedom of Expression, in fact there are no "rights" in our federal law at all. (We are a signatory to
Re: (Score:2)
Roman's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything without it automatically becoming tyrannical.
NeutronCowboy's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything that isn't in the interest of the people. Furthermore, the slightest overreach by any individual or organization is immediately a call for government regulation to protect the interest of any individual or group that might be harmed in any manner , followed by cries to dismantle those organizations in favor of government controlled and regulated ones instead.
See. That work
Re: (Score:2)
Foed just because you're quoting Ayn Rand.
Re: (Score:2)
Foed just because you're quoting Ayn Rand.
Yeah, you're not narrow minded at all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Confusing individual freedoms and criminal negligence on your part I can understand, but confusing Australia and Bangladesh is something new.
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal negligence is... wait for it... a concept that requires a government and regulation that is outside of contract law. Furthermore, ENFORCEMENT of criminal negligence requires an independent government, bureaucrats to track the paperwork, jack-booted thugs to apprehend suspects and judges unbeholden to the public to make decisions of law.
Considering you cry about the abuses of government in the most unimportant, small-scale and even incorrect situations (and spare me the slippery slope argument - if
Re: (Score:3)
People don't need government, especially central gov't to carry out justice for criminal acts.
Yeah, that vigilante justice system works so well and protects the innocent just fine.
They even named the courts after an Aussie mammal: kangaroos.
Re: (Score:2)
So people cannot handle criminal cases without central gov't so is central gov't made of Martians?
You're so far out in left field as to what was said that the hot dog vendors don't even come by.
Re: (Score:3)
There is one simple fact that contradicts your argument: there hasn't been a single group of people operating without a central government (you still haven't defined where central government stops and local government starts, by the way) that has made a mark on history. The closest to them might have been the barbary coast pirates, and they were ultimately wiped out by the armed forces of a centralized government. In other words, when groups competed for resources, the ones with a larger or more effective c
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
there hasn't been a single group of people operating without a central government that has made a mark on history.
- I see, so what you are looking for is an empire, you can't just have people living without being oppressed by an empire because you are looking for "historic marks". Well, that's your idea - there should be 'historic marks' and the human cost is irrelevant.
But we know of historic marks, Stalin was historically remarkable. So was Lenin. Hitler. Mao. Pol Pot. Nixon. Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy. FDR. Hoover. Teddy Roosevelt. Bush the first. Clinton. W. Obama. Genghis Khan. Alexander. many more, I do not consi
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so what you are looking for is an empire, you can't just have people living without being oppressed by an empire because you are looking for "historic marks"
The point that you're missing is that every time there was any resource contention, any conflict whatsoever, the larger, more organized group of people won out. Every. Single. Time. For fun times, check out what happened to the Indians in the US. And ultimately, that is why people band together: for safety. You might have your ideals living out by yourself in the boonies, but they don't serve you much when you're dead because a few people thought they could use your resources and didn't take no for an answe
Re: (Score:2)
The point that you're missing is that every time there was any resource contention, any conflict whatsoever, the larger, more organized group of people won out.
- I am not missing anything, the entire point of USA Constitution is to ensure that individuals are not treated by the government in that exact manner - where the federal government exercises its power to destroy any freedoms of individuals (and when we talk about State rights, we are not automatically giving authority to State governments, we are talking about individual rights).
The point (and which you're missing again) is that there's always a power center. If government is weak - whether it is by design, or because it is too local - it is overtaken by private power
- no, you are missing the point. With local decisions being made locally (and for all I care even your street shouldn't be forc
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. You always, always amaze me with your ability to change topics, redefine commonly used words and ignore statistics to cherry-pick data. But what takes the cake is that instead of actually following up with your ideals, you move from a somewhat socialist country (Canada) to an even more socialist country (Germany). Next, I expect you to end up in Sweden or France. It's almost as if those countries offer better opportunities than the countries that fit your small-government ideals. Nah, that couldn't be.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because a central government is also a monopoly on resources, labor, and defense. Just as it's difficult for smaller companies to compete against established monopolies, so it is difficult for smaller, locally managed groups of people to compete against those who would claim the whole world as their kingdom if they had the armies to maintain it.
Re: (Score:2)
The missing ingredient is what Americans call "due process".
A government that acts secretively, capriciously and arbitrarily, without oversight, will become tyrannical.
Re: (Score:2)
You might even argue that such a government is by definition tyrannical, since it generally will only work for the benefit of its friends, and exploit everyone else. However, there are differences between, for example, some people in the tax collecting agency specifically targeting organizations that use words associated with tax revolts, and the head of the government publicly praising the incarceration of opposition members or authorizing the use of troops to force the nationalization of businesses. While
Re:Denied (Score:4, Funny)
Links doesn't work... keep getting error 403 access denied. So im just going to assume that the facts are wrong in this case.
Not down. Just filtered in your country. Try a VPN...
Old ladies tea groups should also have the power! (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of the geriatrics! What would the elderly ladies of your locality think of what you're browsing? Would it cause them a heart attack? We only want crochet patterns, recipes and pictures of cute puppies on our internet. Please delete anything controversial or too hard to understand! (This being not too far from what 100s of government agencies censoring the internet would end up with.)
NBN (Score:1)
Wait till we have the NBN firmly in place, filtering will never go away. They only put it on the back burner while they build the backbone for it.
I am part of a community wireless network which covers a whole city, good thing there is no such government control over like this for its users. I would recommend everyone join or create one to promote free networking.
they are dropping IP address's (Score:3)
ok they are not even filtering they are producing a drop list
clearly they do not understand how a IP network functions and are simply taking whatever huawei can fund...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_by_country
surveillance via huawei marketing dollars... working well...
(just ignore the fact huawei copy cisco kit and install backdoors and your fine...)
have fun
John
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that.
This shows what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ugdpbPW_k3g#t=1964s [youtube.com]
Huawei doesn't install backdoors in there equipment, because it's so badly coded that there are huge vulnerabilities all over the place. Who needs a backdoor, when good old 90's buffer overflows are everywhere.
I think it went something like this (Score:3)
"Sir, they just don't want to have their internet filtered."
"Do it anyway and don't tell them about it. They'll get used to it eventually."
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty much precisely. They'll definitely get used to it, especially if it's done slowly enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much precisely. They'll definitely get used to it, especially if it's done slowly enough.
Unfortunately, it does look that way, and it is a huge problem. Getting an politically apathetic population to get angry enough to protest about something like this is sadly very difficult.
"Legal" Notices (Score:4, Interesting)
A notice does not become "legal" simply because it was issued by a state agent.
Re: (Score:2)
A notice does not become "legal" simply because it was issued by a state agent.
No, it becomes legal when it makes legal claims. However, if they are false, it is unlawful. Lawful and legal are considered synonyms but they're not precisely the same thing. There's probably even fancier latin terms you could use in court.
That "false positive" was BS (Score:3, Interesting)
That "false positive" event was BS, and the EFF should know better. Slashdot covered the story here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/04/11/1849207/australian-networks-block-community-university-website [slashdot.org]
Basically, a community college cheaped-out on it's webhost, and it was sharing a single IP with 1,200 other sites. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities that one of those 1,200 was doing something naughty (malware, DDOS, spam, kiddie porn, who knows?), and CheapBastardWebhosting was apathetic when informed about it. Just like any harmful of blatantly illegal site, the next step is a block of the IP.
The block was lifted after the outcry, but I suspect that was more because the block got the webhosts attention and they then properly booted the naughty customer.
EFF, please don't Greenpeace or PETA yourselves with silly crap like this. (This wouldn't be the first time their press releases have stretched or misinterpreted facts more than a bit.)
Re: (Score:3)
That "false positive" event was BS, and the EFF should know better. Slashdot covered the story here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/04/11/1849207/australian-networks-block-community-university-website [slashdot.org]
Basically, a community college cheaped-out on it's webhost, and it was sharing a single IP with 1,200 other sites. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities that one of those 1,200 was doing something naughty (malware, DDOS, spam, kiddie porn, who knows?), and CheapBastardWebhosting was apathetic when informed about it. Just like any harmful of blatantly illegal site, the next step is a block of the IP.
The block was lifted after the outcry, but I suspect that was more because the block got the webhosts attention and they then properly booted the naughty customer.
EFF, please don't Greenpeace or PETA yourselves with silly crap like this. (This wouldn't be the first time their press releases have stretched or misinterpreted facts more than a bit.)
So, are you arguing then that using "an IP address does not equal a person" is not a valid defense in MAFIAA lawsuits as well? People should just not "cheap out" and get a seperate internet account, and a separate IP address, for each user in the household, including a guest account? Or maybe a better argument would be that censoring based upon IP address is ineffective and wrong because of the fact that multiple websites can use the same IP address.
Huh? (Score:2, Troll)
I am arguing nothing of the sort. Instead, I'm arguing that if you want to have multiple users share the same IP address, you need to be prepared to find, and shut, individual users if informed of wrongdoing. If you ignore such requests, you shouldn't be surprised if you get spanked for it.
Re: (Score:3)
So when the Chinese government informs a US ISP of the fact that they're hosting a "bad" Free Tibet website, they should immediately shut down that site for the sake of all the other sites hosted at the same IP that the Chinese government could care less about?
The world is a big place, allowing governments to shut down foreign websites they disagree with is a great way to get an internet populated by nothing but cute cat videos. For that matter there's probably a governement out there somewhere that conside
Re: (Score:3)
that's a false positive by unintentional association.
you can't arrest everyone on the block if someone smokes weed on the balcony...
I believe "collateral damage" would be better (Score:2)
While you can't arrest everyone on the block if somebody smokes weed, if your apartment building is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, don't be surprised if you lose your landlord permit. And yes, perfectly innocent tenants get thrown out when that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
And... that somehow justifies this? It certainly doesn't in my mind.
Re:That "false positive" was BS (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the solution to a website offering illegal material is not to shut down the website, prosecute the owners of the website but get the ISP to block it ...?
If the material is illegal then prosecute them, if it is not then don't block it ....
Re: (Score:2)
Prosecution takes time and is costly. Worse, you might lose the case. It's much easier to put a site on the double-secret block list and not have to fool around with all that pesky "due process" stuff.
We only put bad guys on the block list. Therefore, if you're on the block list you must be a bad guy. Transparency and due process hurt the community by letting bad guys slip off the lists on technicalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Err.. what are you waffling on about? If every web site had its own IP address, we'd run out of IP addresses by dinner time. There is nothing wrong with sharing IP addresses, and you shouldn't be penalised for doing so. In fact, its darnright community minded to not take one for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
False positive or not, it does make apparent the issue that blocking is happening. That itself is something which warrants consideration, particularly about who makes the decisions, what the recourse is for those affected, how appeal and review are conducted, and how public accountability is handled.
If the block list is secret, then it is difficult to know if political material, 'morally questionable' material, etc is being blocked. That should be a cause for concern.
(By the way, I'm not anti-gun-control, a
Re: (Score:2)
You sir, miss the point.
The point wasn't that government has no business blocking that site, or that there wasn't a good reason to do so, or that the web site didn't deserve to be blocked.
The point is that we are a democracy, so when our government censors something like this it must be done in a transparent and open way. What happened is that suddenly a IP address disappeared. When the ISP's were asked why it disappeared they said they were gagged. When the government departments were asked each only vo
Re: WTF Happened to Australia? (Score:2, Informative)
We sold out to America.
I am Australian and don't live there anymore (Score:1)
I'm not sure "liberalism" in the US-sense has anything to do with it. But you have the "tyrannical" part right ok. Australia has become a control-freak country, modelled after the control-freak UK/US amalgam. Government controls *everything*. You get fined if you put your rubbish out on the wrong day. You get fined if you spit on the sidewalk. Australia is no longer free because government there is just too damn efficient at control. I now choose to live in rag-tag messed up countries, like in Sout
Kangaroos running Australia (Score:2)
It always starts with "think of the children". Sad to see Australia returning to its roots as a penal colony.
why (Score:2)