Australia now has Net Censorship 281
Foley writes "The Australian Senate passed legislation today that requires ISPs to block any web site in the world that is classified as offensive by an Australian film board. The law is set to go into effect January 2000.
Check out
the news and
even more news. "
Re:Mandatory proxy or packet filter? (Score:1)
GT
Austrailian Film Board (Score:1)
Maybe in the future other governments will also see the light and we can rid the net of the filth and garbage. Hopefully the Film Board will recognize that it doesnt just have to be pornographic in nature, but political as well, etc.
define "offensive" (Score:1)
- animated gifs
- MSHTML (and non-compliant HTML in general)
- JavaScript
- poor grammar, bad punctuation, and spelling errors
The sheep of Australia are no different than any other country; since they've abdicated personal and parental responsibility, they're demanding their own government do the dirty work. What a bunch of lamers.Australia is not alone in its obvious stupidity: this type of behaviour has been seen in Germany, the US, France, Singapore, and elsewhere.
Re:And I like... (Score:1)
It certainly violates some community standards. If it gets dragged into the censorship, I suspect someone would relent.
Argh, my 3rd post defending Aust (Score:1)
Notroious for our sexual content on TV? In my single teenage days I would stay up all night to watch some porn and all but 2 scenes are usually edited out.
Not much porn on our tv I'm afraid.
That's why we NEED net porn.
Australian Constitution and politics... (Score:1)
No, it has no equivalent of the American Bill of Rights (e.g. the freedom of speech for ordinary citizens is *NOT* guaranteed by the constitution).
Yes, there is a constitutional court (the High Court).
The current balance of power in the Australian Senate (upper house; due to change in about 5 weeks time, as the result of an election held *last year*) is held by Mal Colston of Queensland (formerly a backbencher of the Labor Party, who resigned from the party when he didn't get something-or-other he wanted; he's dying of cancer) and Brian Harradine of Tasmania (an independent, and well known wacko; this present bill was widely viewed as a ploy by the Coalition government to appease him in exchange for his support of a Goods and Services Tax; He witdrew support for the GST about 1.5 weeks ago, but the net.censorship bill appears to have taken on a life of its own).
U.S.Govt & Australia working together on this (Score:1)
>are working together to regulate the Internet. Ultimately, they want to
>link up with governments throughout the world in an international
>policing effort.
>On June 8 and 9, 1999, the FTC will host a workshop with the innocent
>title "U.S. Perspectives on Consumer Protection in the Global Electronic
>Marketplace."
>
>As preparation for this workshop, the DOJ has already given us a glimpse
>of its approach.
>
>To consult the full text, see
>http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/icpw/comments/index.htm
>
>A few excerpts from the DOJ report:
>
>"One approach would be to begin with small groups of similarly-minded
>countries, and ultimately expand the outreach to a larger group of
>nations. Starting with a smaller group of countries has been useful in
>other areas -- including, for example, computer crime -- because these
>countries often have a similar balance of law enforcement, privacy, and
>commercial concerns as the United States, making it easier to reach
>consensus and develop initial solutions."
>
>"Thus, in December 1997, the G8 Ministers met and agreed upon ten
>principles and ten action items in the high-tech crime area, copies of
>which are enclosed as Appendix A to these comments. Indeed, several of
>the principles -- particularly those dealing with expedited preservation
>and sharing of data -- are directly applicable to the problem of
>combating consumer fraud in the electronic marketplace."
>
>"... there is a need for further development, in multilateral fora, of
>mechanisms
>enforcement agencies."
>
>"Nations must also recognize that anonymity... may make consumer
>protection and criminal prosecution difficult or impossible, and
>encourage the market to develop solutions that satisfy the needs of both
>governments..."
>
>Interesting to note: the DOJ proposes limiting the discussion of
>internet e-commerce policies to law enforcement and a few big businesses.
>Not a single consumer group or citizens' rights group was suggested.
>
>The FTC is now the US Government's wedge-opening agency in a broad
>attempt to regulate the internet. The DOJ is providing the excuse, and
>FTC will wield the power.
Re:It's time for a pre-emptive strike! (Score:1)
Crypto? (Score:1)
1. Runs in real-time. Unless they want to
increase packet latency to hours...
2. Breaks all known codes. If the ciphertext is
published, followed a week later by the
decoding method, haven't I made offensive
material publicly available? But it's too
late to tell then.
3. Can monitor every packet and every protocol.
Data can be transmitted in any form; on the
wire, it is just 1's and 0's. Frankly, it's
easier for me to be offended by a blind, knee-
jerk response than by a binary stream.
4. Can buffer and sequence packets to detect
offensive material.
5. Even given that it can determine the TRUE
(client-view) interpretation of said 1's and
0's, it needs to decide:
Is this offensive?
_People_ disagree on that one.
Re:Revolution in Australia... (Score:1)
Tanks, surface vessels, and aircraft are all extremely poor at occupying urban areas and forcing a populace to do their bidding; for that, only infantry on the ground works. To dominate a people, without destroying the industrial base that feeds your forces, you must _be_ there. In the case of the United States, a leader would be forced to take control of the Armed Forces (many of which would not cooperate); various media outlets, such as the network studious; heavy industry; and so forth. However, conquest of a hostile, armed populace that was determined to defend its freedom cannot be done from afar; you may anger them, and you may hurt them, but you may never defeat them short of annihilating the very land around them -- and that would defeat the whole point.
Frankly, I'd die to protect my freedom, and that includes the _option_ to do so. Would you?
Re:Revolution in Australia... (Score:1)
You continue to shoot each other over footware and percieved insults on the freeway while clinging to the twisted fantasy that the proliferation of guns somehow gaurentees your freedom ignoring the multitude of examples where freedom was gained without widespread armed resistance. As you're an American you are probably only dimly aware of the existance of the rest of the world so Ill give you the hints of "India, South Africa, Eastern Europe and the Phillipenes" IN places where the resistance is armed, the oppression gets worse and the coming of freedom takes alot longer, try reading history books instead of NRA propaganda.
Guns and Censorship (Score:1)
A number of respondants have brought up the unavailability of guns in this context. What the fuck do guns have to do with it? Was it because of a well-armed populace that the CDA in the US was defeated? Duh, of course not.
Is it expected that gun-toting Australians full of righteous indignation would march upon parliment, holding the pollies hostage until the bill is repealed? Don't be silly. Leave the whole gun thing out of it.
And to those complaining about compulsory voting, can I direct them to Stewart Fist's comments in the The Australian, 25th May? He explains why it's so important much better than I could, and describes why the voting system we have is pretty damn fine.
Practical Measures Will Be Possible (Score:1)
That is not necessary. What is practical, and can be done, is to eliminate access to the high profile Porn sites. Get rid of the big money makers, make it impossible for them to collect credit-card payments, and they'll fold up the table and leave. They aren't spamming Usenet and shoving their advertising in our faces out of enlightened charity, mind you.
I'm sure there are "enforcers" in power in parts of Austrialia who would like to exterminate and eliminate each and every "objectionable" website in existence, but for the most part getting rid of most of them, and driving it underground (who in their right mind would broadcast sexually explicit spam to alert the authorities) will "protect" the people they feel need protecting. It'll be "Good Enough Censorship" and that's really all they are after.
I can't blame people who are tired of having porn shoved in their face every time they visit a newgroup or check their email from wanting some measures to cut back on the spam. Where I object will be when they actively are out there trying to eraticate each and every bit of it on the entire net.
For the people who will (obviously) object to the thoughts being expressed here, because it isn't the pure "freedom" they demand on the 'net: get real. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. If you insist on pure freedom you better log off and unplug that machine, because you're tethered to a couple of pretty big wires right now. Also you'd better start de-conditioning yourself, because all sorts of thoughts and ideas you had no freedom to resist were programmed into you as a child. The concept of "Born Free" is easily debunked just by looking at a helpless infant. We're all trapped in this web called "civilisation" no matter how many abstract concepts like "freedom" we bandy around.
How to have the law overturned (Score:1)
This page has been forbidden by the government. The politicians who voted for this law are:
Politician Name -- Politician phone number
The ones who voted for the law should get enough phone calls from irate citizens that they'll be forced to take another look at the issue.
A way around exists url->e-mail via web@glr.com (Score:2)
web? The Net Connection Radio Show is conducting a trail run on an answer... Get your web page
via email. It is simple. Send an email message (net nanny, your employer, or country doesn't
intercept outgoing email do they?) to:
web@glr.com
as the first line of the message, simple put in the url of the web page you want: ie:
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/net.html
The subject line will be ignored. By return email you will receive the web page's html code.
More info at:
http://www.glr.com/web.html
need a good on-line non-compliance reply document. (Score:2)
-----Original Message-----
From: Buddrige, David
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 11:59 AM
To: 'plug@linux.org.au'
Subject: [plug] what we need is a good (generic) document describing why the legislated ISP requirements cannot 'reasonably' be implemented...
As you are aware, our clue-challenged government has decided to pass legislation making ISP's responsible for content on their servers and (more
importantly) to take _resonable_ steps to block porn sites...
However a clause which (might) be the saviour of the internet in australia is this (as understood from article --> http://www.afr.com.au/content/990508/perspective/
"We are only requiring ISPs to take reasonable steps. We are setting up a framework that allows regulation of the internet to be tested on an ongoing basis. It will be organic. It will evolve."
Ok, so if we are required to use "reasonable" steps, if we can (corporately) produce an on-line document that explains adequately why basically there are no reasonable steps to be taken, then no steps need be taken...
I suggest that the document should be Open content licensed or somesuch to avoid any problem with maximum number of ISP's simply posting the page (modified to suit their own needs) and be done with this stupidity.... what says everyone?
cheers
David... 8-)
slightly off-topic: Aussie politics (Score:2)
the supreme ineptitude of our politicians. Don't blame me, I voted Labor.
it's the political *system* to blame. when was the last time Labor didn't vote against the Liberals on any issue?
I reckon Aussie elected representatives should be free to vote their conscience instead of along party lines all the time
hmmm
More than just that (Score:3)
Who's to say that the mining industry won't make the same move in Australia? What about the port operators (esp. after the big strikes last year)?
Before you know it, Australia will be the land of zero net usage.
Be worried. Be VERY worried. Every lobbying group you've ever heard of will be coming out of the woodwork if this legislation holds up.
Re:Legal recourse? (Bill of Rights NOT) (Score:3)
Read the technical details: how they'll do it (Score:5)
You can read a PDF transcript of the Committee minutes - the technical presentations to them are HIGHLY interesting. The most alarming is the last - or second last: the CEO of some setup called Clairview presents a new advanced "dynamic filtering" technology. Lord save us! Of course, it's supposed to be flawless like all this crap.
Anyone who can set up a service for Australians to overcome this fascism will be a hero. I suggest the url www.alston-harradine.org - that's the names of the two Senators who rammed the Bill through.
Now: the Committee PDF file you need to read is at the Australian Parliament House website at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s
This is a list of files.
The actual file you want is:
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 03/05/99 Canberra
n.b. there is an error a third of the way through the file of a lot of blank pages. Just keep scrolling.
Cheers!
I like it how they think that this will work. (Score:1)
----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
Re:What a massive shortsight... (Score:1)
Don't tell politions that! Right now their understanding of the internet is so low that they only know about censoring the WWW, I'd rather like to keep it that way. Remember, the web used to be regulation free because nobody bothered to tell the lawyors, activists ("Moral" majority), and lawmakers about it.
--
The Moral Majority is a lot like the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.
Re:Austrailian Film Board (Score:1)
I hope my following remark does not negate my intellectual standing as I am sure it will come over a little 'stunted' but never-the-less: Are you on CRACK?! GODDAMN! No wonder you posted anonymously! What the heel are you thinking?! Please tell me this was a joke or I am have to cry due to the realistation that people such as yourself are not mere myths. This whole issue is ludicrous. I would appriciate more information on the specific body which created this 'law' and their political standings.
Blocking offensive matter from the Aussies (Score:1)
Take a stand against regulation in the US (Score:1)
You may have heard of the CDA. It is a form of net censorship, which was law in the US until it was declared unconstitutional. A modified version of the CDA may soon become law. To help prevent this, I am trying to get 1,000,000 "vitrual signatures." Please sign your real name at the bottom of this list [reply to this message] if you support not regulating the internet in the US.
Note: this does not include such things as HTML tags with violence/sex/etc ratings, or copywright violations, or child pornography. "Regulation" refers to making the storing/downloading of meterial legal in book, video, audio, or spoken form illegal.
Once finals are over I will try to set up a decent web site for this list.
Thank you for your time.
Virtual signature #1:
Jesse Duke,
13554 Chaparral Tr.
Yucaipa, CA, USA.
b92399@yahoo.com.
Amen and Hellelujah brother! (Score:2)
Ok, first of, I'll admit that there is a need to provide monitoring of Internet material for young children.
As a certifiable, card carrying member of the "I love smut club!", I am well aware of the amount of adult material out there on the net. I have no objections to such material as such ( being rather partial to it myself! ).
However, I do acknolege the need to provide some kind of monitoring system that will prevent young children from viewing such material.
The problem here though is one of censorship. In all cases to date, monitoring systems have eventually abused the poweres placed in them either as a result of personal bias or reaction from pressure groups ( such as fundementalist christians ).
While it is acceptable for the legislature to define minimum standards of behaviour on the Internet ( hey, you walk up to some babe and ask her for sex, you have to take the chanch that's she is going to slap you in the face. Just the way it is, ok...), what is important is that the public is directly involved in the descision making process.
In short, what I am suggesting to all of you is that rather than regard this is a threat to our freedom of speach, let us use this as an opportunity to send to our political representatives a clear and unambiguous message.
That while we are prepared to accept certain things in the name of basic decency, there is a limit to which we will accept the tyranny of the "moral minority".
To all Australian citizens who feel that they should become involved, check out
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/may28/
and see what you can do to effect the outcome.
How to circumvent it. (Score:1)
The idiots who make this kind of software don't realize that there is nothing sacred in the use of port 80 - you don't *have* to use port 80 to be a web server, and you can't very well censor every single port number without disabling the whole net.
mass ISP shutdown (Score:1)
Think about it. It is nearly impossible to block every site with questionable materal. So every ISP could get sued. First the little guys will end up going out of business, then the larger ones will start feeling the heat. Eventually Austrailia will be without internet access because nobody can afford to block every naughty site out there.
Sounds like a case of shooting one's self in the foot. Pretty sad for country that has had a major presence on the internet for as long as I've known.
Conspiracy theory (Score:2)
Maybe it is an effort to clear out all the little ISPs. They won't be able to afford to spend the time and money blocking every offensive site, and pay for the lawsuits/fines when one slips through. Only the major ISPs will be able to withstand this.
Does Telstra (the Aussie Telco) provide ISP services? Do they have the power and money AT&T used to have in the states? Maybe they are funding this in an attempt to become the one and only Austrailian ISP.
BTW, I'm not being serious.
Re:How to Fight the law through technology (Score:1)
Won't work at all (Score:1)
What do they plan to do about things like foreign proxy servers with SSL connections? If you have to add those to the lists of banned sites, you will easily fill massive databases with vorboten addresses. I'd hate to see the size of the DB server needed to handle all of those lookups.
Of course, that assumes they can hire enough people to actually catalog dis-approved sites in the first place. Considering the dynamic nature of the web, they'll end up like Stazi, 1/3 of the population watching the other 2/3. Ironically, that 1/3 will be exposed to exactly the content that the law aims to prevent.
They should also keep in mind that there will be sites designed to make classification difficult. For example, scenes of extreme violence with bogus descriptions claiming the site is a tutorial on forensics and detective work. Or nude pictures claiming to be an effort to catalog human proportions and variations. Where there's a will, there's a way.
It is my sincere hope that the Austrailian people will manage to oust the idiots that passed that law.
Re:How this could be a good thing... (Score:1)
How often have you typed www.yahoo.com into your browser and ended up with hardcore porn?
Never directly, but search on any female name, X protocol specs, etc, etc, and you'll find plenty.
I believe that the poster was obliquely calling for a FREE list of sites that might be better to avoid if you don't want to be offended.
If the pro censorship people really believed the people wanted to block sites, they'd spend their money and time on creating such a list, and free filter software. I notice that none of these groups or lawmakers are going that route.
Re:How this could be a good thing... (Score:1)
Actually, sometimes I deliberatly DON'T use the NOT operators. It's funny to see the proportion of pr0n to other topics for any given keyword.
Others fail to see the humor. The real point is that the various 'Mothers of Prevention' should spend the lobbying funds to provide some free software and blacklists for those who are offended, and quit trying to censor the world.
laf... unworkable.. its a riot :P (Score:1)
b) as I understand it, most ISPs (like us for example) in Australia require you to be 18 to sign up. if a kids parents lets him/her browse unsupervised, its their problem.
c) as someone above mentioned, most australian ISPs use proxy servers already (bandwidth is a killer here). how is the banned list going to keep up with web site development? how is it to be updated? or is some magic image recognition meant to scan every image (and every yet to be implemented file format) for porn?
i had more to say, but pizza turned up
smash (aussie ISP tech
Re:Oh, great..... (Score:1)
It was a FUCKING STUPID idea.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Re:What a massive shortsight... (Score:1)
Cockroacho?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Re:Legal recourse? (Score:1)
The crater where the govt. used to be - was the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City.
The wackos that did this were of the attitude that they were in a civil war with the US govt. Of course the pussies turned around and denied it when they were caught, so they really weren't much in the way of revolutionaries anyway.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
What a massive shortsight... (Score:3)
I'll be checking how the people of Oz could be helped with this issue, but I hope something will be done.
Re:How this could be a good thing... (Score:1)
Don't go there.
Seems pretty easy to me. How often have you typed www.yahoo.com into your browser and ended up with hardcore porn?
Statements like the above post still make people who aren't net savvy think that all you have to do is be logged in to your ISP and then you are bombarded with porn. That's what the authors of the CDA thought actually happened and that is why they thought they needed to "protect" children.
If you can't take responsibility for yourself, your children, your businesses (and churches) then why should the government do it for you?
Chris
Re:They're not the only ones... (Score:1)
Re:Exercise in Futility (Score:1)
Anti-Censorware Proxy (Score:1)
Penalty payments - a way to get around it (Score:1)
If no company accepts this, then the ISPs, by putting out this tender without getting responses, have undertaken the reasonable means requires.
If they _do_ get a response, the company they bought it from would go broke in about two weeks.
Who wants to go searching for things to break this system (Everything from Dick Smith electronics, to pages in other languages..., SSL, etc)
How this could be a good thing... (Score:1)
Basically, right now it's very difficult to filter web content unless you want to pay out the wazoo to companies that provide site lists.
With any luck, the Aussie gov't list will be publically available. So, we would at last have a good, public list of objectionable sites.
Do I believe in censorship? No. But I do wish that there was some easy way to avoid depravity on the net for me and my children and the businesses (and churches) I serve without spending thousands a year on server side proxy software.
Hmmm... (Score:3)
But enough with that. What we need to work on are solutions to this problem. What I think would work well is what I call a "reverse proxy."
Basically it works like this. Proxies like the Anonymizer work such that all outgoing traffic from your site seems to come from the proxy, not from you. What I propose is the reverse: a person can log into the proxy, and then all Net traffic coming in to the user appears to come from that proxy server. Front it with a clearly nonoffensive Web page (for this to work, of course, the proxy aspect of the site would have to be covert), and voila: all of your Web traffic appears to be coming from a nonoffensive site, even though it does not (which would be next to impossible to prove). Since it appears to come from a nonoffensive site, none of it is blocked.
Even better would be a "meta-reverse-proxy" which juggled a user between different proxies. That would make it harder to detect, since any site caught doing this would likely be blocked. It also would lighten the load on each individual proxy, since the load could be spread between them.
Anyone know of current software that might be able to do something like this?
Re:Mandatory proxy or packet filter? (Score:1)
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
What's a dickheah??? (Score:1)
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
They'll be censoring E-mail too (Score:1)
Online censorship will collapse under its weight (Score:5)
Censoring web sites is pretty close to impossible. There are the obvious ones, I would expect that Hustler [hustler.com] and any page attached to that domain would be blocked for instance. What about individual pages though? I can set up a page on a free web server such as Tripod or GeoCities with objectionable content. GeoCities would eventually yank it, but Tripod seems to not care. Personal web pages with material they would find offensive probably numbers in the millions. For an ISP to selectively block these pages isn't feasible, so their only choice would be to block sites that have one or more user pages with objectionable material. I.e. block GeoCities, Tripod, AOL and a large number of other providers. Great, except for the small fraction of objectionable pages on these servers there is a large number of non-objectional pages. A few of these even have useful material.
Basically the end result would be that a site such as slashdot [slashdot.org] could be censored from all Australian internet users if it ever were to fail Australia's movie screening process. Oh yeah, there's a small box on slashdot which contains the latest image from JenniCam [jennicam.org] as well as links to Rotten.com [rotten.com] and so on.
Action continues! URGENT (Score:2)
Meanwhile, join in protest actions around the nation [efa.org.au] on May 28. If you can ring your local member this week to express your concerns about the Bill, that may also be effective.
Danny.
Exporting Censorship (Score:1)
This could be a clever job-creation scheme; create a world-leading Australian industry in creating Internet censorship technology, and export it. The Chinese and Saudis, to name two, will probably be eager customers. Afterwards, once the industry is established as a major Australian export earner, Australia can set up pro-censorship lobbies elsewhere (the US, Europe, Britain, Canada, &c.), funnel funds to religious-right groups, and attempt to export censorship in the same way the Soviet Union attempted to export revolution.
Re:Dear lord... (Score:1)
Re:This disturbs me.... (Score:2)
You might not believe this, but when the blocking software was removed, those naughty people started moving on to other challenges, like trolling the NRA chatrooms. I guess some people are determined to eternally rebel.
If you are worried about having access blocked, there are ways to circumvent the problem. People get creative.
Banning the Bible, etc... (Score:3)
As I understand, polititions are lawyers. Their friends are lawyers. Who benefits from stupid laws passed by polititions? Polititions! Even these bad ones are the experts in the field and will refer cases to friends.
When the internet exploded here in the USA, porn became controversial. A once tame internet with a few juicy pictures tucked away in the newsgroups were brought to public attention. The next thing I knew, porn was everywhere. It was popular. Every spectator trying to make a buck had to test the laws and put up a porno webpage. Porn was spammed. It was no longer hidden, but it would find you, and on a daily basis even if you just had email. All thanks to the religious and political nuts who brought this "evil" to our attention.
So, Australia is going to get a lot of porn. Most of it will be coming from within. Brace for it! You asked for it!
Re: (Score:1)
Legal recourse? (Score:3)
Can someone provide details on Australia's legal system? I.e. does Australia have a constitution (I know England hasn't) and a constitutional court which might provide a means of getting this law killed?
Well said (Score:1)
The failure of the government to see the correct path has nothing to do with guns.
The next time you feel like your precious gun is protecting you from your government, try this little test. Get as many of your friends that have weapons together and march on city hall, take it over, and make your own country. I think you'll find that you won't last long against the government. You'd need to have as big a budget as the Pentagon to compete, and I don't think anyone but Gates has it.
The right to bear arms is a hold over from Militia America, back in the early days of the country, when an army was just as much a bunch of men with guns as anything else. The Americans even succeeded because their militia tactics were new to the british. But the days of the need or the effectiveness of militia are long over. Now all that guns provide is an easy way to kill someone on the street or to hold up a liquor store. How many more kids are killed each year than militia men? Think about it.
ÐÆ? (Score:1)
--
Re:Mandatory proxy or packet filter? (Score:1)
Trick is, the Govt controls the Radio Spectrum as well.
I can't believe I voted for these dickheads. Labor want to run people's lives too. ARRGGH
I'm not coherant but I am really annoyed.
Re:How to circumvent it. (Score:1)
There was an attempt to have a "National offline Day" to demonstrate the
impact of this stupid legislation. While there was some initial support, most of them wilted under the fear of being seen as siding with the pornographers...
The X-rated industry here in Canberra must be overjoyed now that a major threat to their business is going to be nullified.
Grrrr
PS
My main beef about this is that we have "leaders" who are so duped by saleman and are highly adept at ignoring expert reports contrary to their aims.
Contact page for Senator Alston (Score:1)
Polite but firm works best.
Funny thing is... (Score:1)
Ho ho!
What a ridiculous idea!!! (Score:1)
There has already been said enough about the Free Speech implications of this law, so I will not repeat it here.
I feel guilty... (Score:1)
I'm going to turn my webpage black, even though it's not my home country. To our
How to Fight the law through technology (Score:2)
I'm thinking of something along the lines of mailing lists with listings of redirectors for web traffic. Surely the censors couldn't keep up if these change every day.
How about some sort of client that, once connected to an ISP, connects through another protocol to a site abroad, which will somehow reroute their network connection through there and allow web surfing?
Maybe make postings on newsgroups for the Australian folks with redirectors for web traffic.
Are there enough people out there who would try and circumvent the laws somehow? I don't see how any of it could be illegal, at least the way the law stands.
Does anyone have any other ideas on how Australians could circumvent these laws?
Also, another question I have that I couldn't really answer right now is whether or not this would hurt the cause. I certainly would want a way to bypass these draconian laws if the U.S. were to pass laws like that.
What kind of approaches do we have in case governments try to regulate sites like that? Will the Internet just shrivel up and die if enough countries censor content?
I think these are questions we need to start looking at if we want the Internet to remain free. So we can at least have these 'solutions' available as a last resort.
Losing the freedom of the Internet would be one of the worst things that could happen in the information age.
Re:Unworkable (Score:2)
"unworkable". I'd go so far as to say impossible.
I dont think that it is impossible.. Isn't it the Chinese who do something simular to this already? I've heard that its pie to bypass their proxies though.. dunno
Sites that are possibly "offensive" can popup faster than an ISP, even using all their resources and time, can block it out.
What stops them from blocking entire domains, ip classes? *.geocities.com
I feel for the Australia ISPs, they have their work cut out for them.
As for the government, they will need to patrol full time simply to check if all "naughty" sites are blocked or not (which would be quite an interesting job).
Seems to me, the Australian government has just created the biggest national waste of time and energy with one vote. Why do I have the feeling the US government will try to follow suit?
Kinda pathetic if you ask me.. obviously the people don't want this, how can they claim its a democracy.. and all with one vote..
Im assuming the proxy will have set domains etc.. that it will filter out.. what stops people from using something like WinGate or another proxy on a machine in say, the united states and getting stuff unfiltered?
Stan "Myconid" Brinkerhoff
Re:Legal recourse? (Score:2)
Can someone provide details on Australia's legal system? I.e. does Australia have a constitution (I know England hasn't) and a constitutional court which might provide a means of getting this law killed?
Australia does have a constitution [aph.gov.au], but it doesn't guarantee freedom of speech (it just sets down the structure of government), although the High Court has ruled that there is an implied right of freedom of political speech.
AustLII has information about Australian Courts [austlii.edu.au] if you're interested in looking. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know of anything that would make this law invalid.
Sheep? No, just politics. (Score:2)
The sheep of Australia are no different than any other country; since they've abdicated personal and parental responsibility, they're demanding their own government do the dirty work. What a bunch of lamers.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what we want. This survey [efa.org.au] shows that less than 3% of Australian net users are worried about indecent content. What this is really about is the government trying to get the support of a single senator who happens to be very morally conservative.
Re:Mandatory proxy or packet filter? (Score:5)
So does this mean that all .au ISPs will have to implement either a mandatory proxy server or packet filters?
Probably. The government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to remain "technology neutral" - in other words, to ignore that their proposal is unworkable and expect the ISPs to implement it anyway.
If you have a look at the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts [dcita.gov.au] web site and follow to the "Newsroom" link, you find such brilliant statements as:
This, of course, conveniently ignores that most Australian citizens don't want to be protected.
Filter tunnels? SSL? Ahuk, ahuk, ahuk... (Score:2)
You can't scan SSL and friends for content! Picture this:
This web page is being checked.
Please click on this link [disney.com] in approximately fifteen years after our server farm has broken your SSL key to ensure that what you're trying to fetch isn't naughty. We apologise for the inconvenience.
Re:What a massive shortsight... (Score:2)
YES, thats what they have said will have to happen. A private email is okay, however an email to a mailing list or unsolicited email will have to be filtered. Off course its up to the industry to work out how to differentiate between these. This is what the Minister for Communications said in the hearings last night!
And I thought Australia was a pretty cool place... (Score:2)
What recourse do our Aussie friends have to fight this law? In the US, we fought the CDA in the courts with the First Amendment to our Constitution. And with phone calls to our local Congressmoron and ribbons on web pages, of course.
--JT
Embarrass my Government. (Score:3)
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/stop.html
http://usrwww.mpx.com.au/~gths/freespeech/auban
http://usrwww.mpx.com.au/~gths/freespeech/auban
P.S. John Pilger is a moron.
Re:Oh, NOT so great..... (Score:2)
It's time for a pre-emptive strike! (Score:4)
The reason why the EFF et al. were so succesful in defeating the CDA was because it was a grassroots effort to protect free speech. The problem was though was that it only happened when that free speech was already threatened.
We need to send the message to Washington now about the way we stand. We need to tell them about the true merits of the Internet that outweigh the 1% or so that consists of Anarchists' Cookbook and porno. Don't wait until some bill has been already passed, let's raise hell right now. If we don't tell them the truth, they'll get their ideas from the media.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Human rights (Score:2)
How it happened - political horse-trading (Score:3)
One independent politician holds the balance of power in Australia. The governing party recently wanted a (totally different) piece of legislation passed, and this guy's vote was the decider. To keep him sweet, they promised that they'd vote for his Internet ban later on. (Sorry the names are missing, but I just couldn't find them.) Stepping out of character for a while, these other politicians kept their word. So there you have it. It had nothing to do with the Internet; it was just politicians being what they are - evil old men so arrogant they honestly believe they know what's best for us.
Time to Turn the Web Black. Again. (Score:4)
Some useful Links:
Global Internet Liberty Campaign www.gilc.org [gilc.org]
Electonic Frontiers Australia, www.efa.org.au [efa.org.au]
and of course
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, www.eff.org [eff.org]
The Electronic Privacy Information Center [epic.org]
And here's an idea: this sounds like a PERFECT reason to boycott the Sydney 2000 Olympics. After all, it always works best to get a country by the short-and-curlies if you REALLY want its' attention. . . .
Pathetic Personal Agendas (Score:5)
Current balance of power in the Australian government is held by an independant politician, Senator Harradine. The government is currently pushing to sell of Telstra, a national telco, the sale of which is worth very large amounts of money.
Opposition to the sale of Telstra (who do ISP service stuff like Big Pond) is everywhere, and without Harradine's vote, the sale would be abandoned.
Harradine is a vocal opponent of the internet, a defender of traditional Christian values, and in many ways opposed to the principles of free speech. He has tried on many occasions to propose legislation to either prevent public access to "questionable" material, or to make it an offense to view it. Until now, his proposed legislation has always been thrown out.
Basically, it looks a whole lot like Harradine and the government got together and said "you pass my legislation and I'll pass yours."
The consultation for the feasibility of content blocking was carried out in 1 week, which is on the narrow side of legal, and could be stumbling block if the law is appealed. The legislation was passed against a national outcry from ISPs and internet users.
The law can be appealed, and I would imagine that this is pretty much underway right now. Although the law states that ISPs must block the illegal content, no suggestion is made of how to do so. It is quite possible that an ISP appealing the law could very easily say they carried out a 1 week feasibility study exceeding the government's efforts, and have found that implementing filtering would put them out of business.
One final point is that the law is effective as of 1 Jan 2000, and subject to a review that could last until 2003. Combined with the fact that it bans material that is legitimately available through other sources (video and print for example), it is more than likely to be trashed in the near future.
Re:Technology lag (Score:2)
I sense the groundroots of a campaign here. It would be nice also if the ISP's could realise what thsi means to them and call for a one day net strike (hell, even 1 hour would be bad enough).
Actually, I wonder. What effect would a one day net strike have with our increased reliance on the internet? Anyway, I digress - some of you Aussie folks need to get a campaign to have as many sites submitted to the Film Board as possible. Creative protest has always been the most effective way of ridding dumb laws like this.
It all starts with censorship... (Score:2)
Proactive Voices? (Score:2)
I do know that there were people trying to prevent this Australian bill from happening, and now I'm wondering if there could have been more done to help before this came to pass. And if we can prevent this from happening elsewhere.
Re:Mandatory proxy or packet filter? (Score:2)
because of the high bandwidth costs they have to endure.. (or so I'm
told - been a few years since I've been there..)
This just looks to me as if the Australian government doesn't want
thier populace connected to the rest of the world..
Two things leap to mind; the first is that the government has no idea
what the internet is or how it works, (in which case they shouldn't be
making laws about it.) the second is that they DO know how much work
this will be and they're trying to make jobs for more beauracrats (in
which case they shouldn't be making laws about it.)
For all you
Legitimate site blocked; censorship routed around (Score:2)
What is interesting is that a modern western nation of a significant size is doing this. It looks like it is going to be the experiment for the rest of the governments in the western world to witness. Here's hoping for miserable failure.
Oh, great..... (Score:2)
Re: mate ??? (Score:2)
All English people are on a Red Dwarf sized startship and all Americans are yellow and animated.
Re:Revolution in Australia... (Score:3)
Yes, we banned semi and automatic guns after a very bad gun masacre, and since semi automatics should have no place in hunting or protection, ban them.
On the other hand, I want my damn net porn!
Re:Mandatory proxy or packet filter? (Score:2)
The Government actually formed a Senate committee, getting advice from organisations such as the CSIRO about the feasibility of blocking undesirable content. And they got back a resounding answer that it was completely unworkable. This is worse than ignorance - to do the research, get an answer, and still make a contrary decision, presumably for political reasons.
I just hope this law can be repealed quickly, but I simply cannot see it happening. I don't think there's much in the way of constitutional rights on free speech here in Australia, like was used to defeat the CDA in the US. The only hope I guess is that the government realises how stupid they've been - but when was the last time you saw a politican admit to being wrong?
Re:How to Fight the law through technology (Score:2)
What about if everyone had encrypted connections - i.e. every http request, every email, every packet of traffic between a server and a surfer was encrypted? Then it would no longer be even remotely feasible to filter traffic. The sooner that everyone can have their online privacy guaranteed, the better. It seems we not only need privacy from malicious parties watching what we do online - we now need privacy from our own government's protection!
The problem is what protocol(s) to use to do all this, I'm not sure what existing protocols, if any, could be used?
The other major impediment to this idea is the US encryption export law. But I don't think I need to explain all that to slashdot readers :)
Of course, packets coming from domains such as Hustler could still be blocked simply on the basis of IP address - but if another site is mirroring (e.g. something along the lines of anonymizer [anonymizer.com]), and traffic from the mirror is encrypted, then who could say if it had porn or not?
In the meantime, I can only hope enough of an outcry can be raised to convince the Australian Government that this was a bad idea. After all, I have a strong suspicion that Senator Brian Harradine (who's independent vote was crucial to the passing of this Bill) has never really used the internet, let alone has any real understanding of what it actually is, and has the potential to be.
I know that the intent of this regulation isn't to ban sites like slashdot, but the fact that it becomes even a remote possibility is a very disturbing thought indeed.
Some words from an Aussie... (Score:3)
We have an idiot for a prime minister who thinks that he has a "mandate from the people" for a GST purely because he got re-elected by our stupid preferential voting system, by people who thought they were voting for indepents, when in fact most of those votes were going to one of the two major political parties. This fool now has assisted in supporting this Draconian legislation in order to gain favour with some unreasonable moral crusader whose cause it was to try to force his view of moral standards on us, simply to garner his support for the GST - which backfired because Mr Morality told him in not so many words to shove the GST up his backside.
These are the same kneejerk idiots who took away all the rights of the people to bear arms, not just for self protection, but genuine sporting purposes too. I used to do a bit of hunting now and again, but these bastards took that away from me, now they are taking away my right to see the Internet through my own eyes, not just what they want me to see, I'm sorry - but that's not good enough!
They are real heroes when it comes to bullying the average man in the street, but look how spineless they are in the world stage, they fully intend to let 2 aussies fry in Belgrade, bloody aid workers for goodness sake, on some trumped up charge of spying for the US government. We might have a fairly weak defence budget - but I would spend a couple of bucks on a bomb or two to drop on those yugo pricks for this!
And on that subject, this is the same government who is doing nothing about the filthy kosovar refugee that tried to rape a bloody aussie girl who was doing volunteer work with the refugees *we* are sheltering, feeding and clothing. That sucks, something should be done, send that filthy prick back, the others may be ok, but that mongrel doesn't deserve to be here.
Australia sucks, I fully intend to get the hell out of here ASAP, time to start looking for that elusive greencard I suspect.
The Act Itself (Link Provided) (Score:2)
-Purpose of the amendments to the Broadcast Services act is to enable regulation and control of the internet as it pertains to the
Amendment 5:
The first component of the proposed scheme is proposed Schedule 5 to the BSA contained in the Bill as proposed to be amended. Under this component, the Commonwealth will be responsible for regulating Internet content service providers and Internet content hosts. This component does not impose any obligations on producers of content on the Internet or persons who upload or access such content.
-It aims to go after the HOSTS of the content, rather than the PRODUCERS (I think that is totally wrong) or consumers.
The next line of the summary causes a mindpuck
The second component of the proposed scheme is proposed uniform State and Territory laws that will create offences for the publication and transmission of proscribed material by producers of content on the Internet or persons who upload or access such content. It is intended under the national scheme that the States and Territories will be primarily responsible for regulating the activities of persons who create, upload or access content.
-Does this mean they say the govt goes after the hosts while the local and "state" go after everybody else?
I will try to do a little more digging on this.
Enjoy
RB
Infectious regulations (Score:3)
...from a father of 2, who doesn't *want* anyone removing his children's freedom in the name of "protecting" them.
Re:Amen and Hellelujah brother! (Score:3)
Yeah. It's called parental guidance and involvement.
Technology lag (Score:3)
Of course, I'd like to know how a web site will be nominated for review, and exactly how much time the censo--I mean, film board will have to make their decision. If they're planning on reviewing the entire Web, they'd better get started now. And the manpower requirements would pretty much deplete the entire Australian legislature, including aides, security guards, secretaries and janitors.
Re:How it happened - political horse-trading (Score:5)
In the end, the balance of power was with two independent senators, the abovementioned, and another who left a major party due to fraud charges (but who was deemed to ill to face these, but somehow competent to vote for the legislation).
The situation is pretty fucked up. I think part of the problem is that most of the population simply don't understand the issues that are at stake, and the government is playing on this naivety.
The legislation was tabled very quickly with only a month for public input into a senate enquiry. There were around 104 submissions from industry and community groups, all but one coming out against the legislation. The government even ignored it's own research from the CSRIO on the issue.
It was then raced into the senate with a few ammendments, and voted in with no understanding or regard for the impact on civil liberties, or the long term economic and social implications.
As an Australian, I find this embarassing and disgusting. Depressing even.
Worse however, will be explaining to my grandkids that I was part of the generation that failed to stop this.
This is a very dark day in Australian history.
- James.
Re:censorship on the internet (Score:2)
In this case, the legislation is apparently requiring the use of systems that will block from a list of URLs (or IPs). That is very easy to do.
Basic human rights are, by definition, not tied to one's nationality. Different philosophies have different ideas of what basic human rights are. In America, people discussing basic human rights refer to those laid down in the Declaration of Independence [loc.gov]. These are enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The interpretation of these has been hashed over by greater scholars than I.
The rights concerning privacy and censorship are laid down for Americans in the Bill of Rights [loc.gov]. This is why the CDA could be shot down: because what it attempted was forbidden by the US Constitution. The US government has provisions for the judicial branch to declare laws as unconstitutional.
I am not familiar with the Australian laws and legal system, but would be keen to hear from somebody who does.
It is worth noting that this is not a privacy issue, but rather a censorship issue, unless blocked URLs are logged.
The software is trivial to write. Some parts have been written, and the rest combine programs that are already availible. Look at your ISP's home page; they have a link to that sort of software.
Clearly, lots of people feel strongly about this. This means that there will be funding to hire people to maintain the lists.
The issue isn't a technical one. There are no technical impediments to implementing this. It's easy. The issue is one of censorship and of law.
--
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi
Re:Legal recourse? (Oz==democracy) (Score:4)
This bill has basically been rammed home by two politicians, the two that control the balance of power in the senate (upper house), one of these two recently brought the proposed Goods & services tax to its knees (we are all waiting to see if it gets up or finally dies or what...
It will be interseting to see how it goes...
Re:define "offensive" (Score:2)
Another poster made reference to "knee-jerk reactions" by politicians and how dangerous they are, and I think that there is a bad epidemic of that raging around the globe. Look at what's happening here in the US:
Some kids build some bombs, plant them in a school and then go nuts, killing their classmates. There were two knee-jerk reactions to that:
First, we started to push new gun legislation. And no matter what your position on gun control, I think that it doesn't take a member of the Jedi counsel to tell you that this is a fear- and shock - induced reaction that we should probably step back and think about a little bit after we get our emotional repsonse to such a story in check.
Second, there's a lot of rumblings saying that 'the internet has bomb building instructions, ergo , we must ban the internet, or ban kid's access to the internet,' etc. etc. etc. Another fear-induced reaction that, so far, has been resisted.
It's not a logical jump, really, to say that if we can use fear to cause the abridgement of some constitutional rights, we can have more rights that flow from the same source trampled on. The lesson from .au is that we need to remain vigilant , lest the same thing happen here. And it could.
People, I think, forget how precious freedom is, and what we all sacrifice for it. Security comes at the price of liberty, and I think that is too high of a price to pay. Just ask the folks that died in Tiennemen Square.
Porn ISP's (Score:2)
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Impart information through any media regardless of frontiers.
And I thought the CRTC was going overboard... (-;