iiNet Pulls Out of Australian Censorship Trial 77
taucross writes "ISP iiNet today confirmed its exit from the Australian government's Internet filtering trials. iiNet had originally taken part in the plan in order to prove the filter was flawed. Citing a number of concerns, their withdrawal leaves only five Australian ISPs continuing to test the filter."
Re:Still 5 too many! (Score:5, Informative)
Stephen Conroy, Australia's Minister for Censorship to appear on ABC's Q&A on Thursday March 26 [abc.net.au].
Submit your questions people, Thrust
Re:Still 5 too many! (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to know why he continues lying saying that the list published on wikileaks is not the actual list when it has been proven several times that it is infact the real list.
Re:Still 5 too many! (Score:5, Informative)
That might appear to be the case because initially it wasn't: [smh.com.au]
Senator Conroy and ACMA initially tried to discredit Wikileaks by saying the leaked blacklist was about double the size of ACMA's list. However, they admitted that both lists shared "some common URLs".
Wikileaks said the disparity was due to the fact that the leaked list was from August last year and contained a number of older URLs that had since been removed by ACMA.
It quickly followed up by leaking a second version of the blacklist, dated March 18 this year, that is approximately the same size as the ACMA list and contains many of the same seemingly innocuous websites.
And the clever part about how they got the list?
The list was obtained by Wikileaks from internet filtering software that parents can opt to install on their computers. ACMA provides its list of prohibited sites to these software developers for inclusion in their products.
Re: (Score:1)
The list was obtained by Wikileaks from internet filtering software that parents can opt to install on their computers. ACMA provides its list of prohibited sites to these software developers for inclusion in their products.
There is the clinching detail. It was obtained from filtering software. As such I suspect that its actually a super set. Containing everything that the official list contains and then some other stuff which isn't on the official list but has been added by the software vendor, perhaps based on reports from their users.
Re: (Score:2)
The list was obtained by Wikileaks from internet filtering software that parents can opt to install on their computers. ACMA provides its list of prohibited sites to these software developers for inclusion in their products.
There is the clinching detail. It was obtained from filtering software. As such I suspect that its actually a super set. Containing everything that the official list contains and then some other stuff which isn't on the official list but has been added by the software vendor, perhaps based on reports from their users.
Conroy admitted himself that some of the more controversial items (the dentist, the canteen, the anti-abortion site, the euthanasia site) were on the ACMA list in any case. No-one's saying that the list is completely whacked, just that it contains some items which should be there, with no recourse to getting it lifted.
Furthermore, one point I've thought of afterwards - the problem with the blacklist is that it's got to be distributed to ISPs in order for them to block it - which invariably means future leak
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (Score:4, Informative)
I've heard of Primus... and that's it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only 5 Aussie ISPs left? (Score:4, Funny)
According to TFA, it leaves Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1. Not exactly what you'd call heavily-populated ISPs.
Careful there. You're citing highly relevant, factually correct, widely available but politically undesirable material. Next thing you know you'll be threatened with an $11,000 fine and slashdot will be added to the list!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Only Primus has a page on Wikipedia, and apparently they filed for bankruptcy on March 16th.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmm... (Score:1)
Parent NOT "Insightful" (Score:5, Informative)
They never took part in the trial anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
iiNet had registered interest in participating in the trial, but they were not selected for first round of testing. Now it appears as if they've pulled out of the whole process completely.
It seems the major reason for the backout is because wikileaks published the ACMA blacklist. There were many URLs on the list which were not associated with illegal sites, but instead, politically undesirable sites.
Hooray for wikileaks! They've proven how easy it is to abuse compulsory censorship, even in a democracy of elected officials.
Re: (Score:1)
Would it be possible that iiNet deliberately leaked that list to Wikileaks....?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for them if they did.
This whole censorship scheme is deeply flawed and morally bankrupt. Any society that feel the need to implement censorship in order to 'function' is already badly broken and censorship will only prolong the suffering and delay the inevitable, making it unavoidable. If there really is a need to prevent access to something, use sound advice and education so the need to access 'the forbidden' goes away. It is this need to will be the downfall of any society that use censorship because the human spirit can never be kept in a cage, no matter how many bars and locks you add to it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Any society that feel the need to implement censorship in order to 'function' is already badly broken and censorship will only prolong the suffering and delay the inevitable, making it unavoidable.
Whilst I completely agree with you, you've just given me an insight into what it must be like to be an Iranian or a citizen of Oklahoma.
I doubt that most Australians agree with this legislation. Actually, I think that most haven't thought about it enough to see the seriousness of it. But that's really the point. The filter in its current form has not been put to the electorate for a vote.
Re: (Score:1)
Things here in Australia are rarely put to the people, as the pollies don't want the unwashed masses disturbing their plans.
Instead there is the concept of a 'mandate', ie. a party is voted in, and can do whatever the hell it wants, until they get voted out.
Politics here is far less robust than in the USA. We have the massive paradox of compulsory voting, and astounding voter apathy.
Re:They never took part in the trial anyway (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give some examples of "politically undesirable sites"? What sort of thing are we talking about here?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1166343&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=27253063 [slashdot.org] -- mirrored here, please ignore the lameness filter workarounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Article correction (Score:5, Informative)
"their withdrawal leaves only five Australian ISPs continuing to test the filter."
Correction; There were, and remain, six participating ISP's in the trial; Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1
Iinet have only withdrawn their application to participate in the trial.
To put it in perspective, Optus, the second largest ISP still has an (as yet unaccepted) application to participate. iiNet is the third largest ISP. Primus is possibly in the top 20 ISP's in the country, and the other 5 might sneak into the top 200. There are no other notable publicly known applications from other ISP's
Re: (Score:2)
So this has been a very very limited trial. I wonder what they were actually testing then: the technical part of filtering should be trivial, or the public reaction?
By the way what is there in it for the ISPs to sign up for the trial? Publicity?
Something I want to clear up (Score:4, Informative)
Before I start I want to make it absolutely clear that I am completely opposed to filtering, and I am an Australian.
What I want to point out is that there is a pretty solid chance that the list on wikileaks isn't the ACMA list. If this was leaked from a vendor (eg. Websense) then they may have incorporated the ACMA blacklist into their own blacklist and then a staff member leaked _that_ list.
This would still mean that the entire ACMA list is in the leaked list, but it means that a lot of the sites that are questionable (not illegal but listed) may not be anywhere to be seen on the ACMA list and were added by the third party (the sites everyone is complaining about).
This also means that Conroy stating that "that isn't the ACMA list" is actually true, the fact that it contains the ACMA list is a point that was skimmed over.
Now that wikileaks have some new 'leaked lists' that apparently show a great drop in the number of banned URL's and suggesting a government 'clean up' could easily be attributed to the fact that their new leaked lists are the genuine article, and not a list leaked from a third party with additional URL's.
Just want to put it out there. If the government are trying to ban non-illegal content they should be strung up.. but I just don't want to jump to the conclusion that everyone seems to be jumping to.
Re:Something I want to clear up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC it was ripped using the same WebSense autoupdate mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
Any /.er on one of the ISPs involved in the filtering?
If so, a simple shell script could show whether sites are blocked. I suspect a DNS lookup for those domains will either not resolve or resolve to a common "domain parking" address or so provided by the ISP in question. Then way we can see soon enough which sites of the list are accessible from the filtered ISPs and which not. The inaccessible ones that are accessible from other ISPs are on the list for sure. There may be more URLs on the ACMA list of co
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt it. Anyone who has enough of a clue to be on /. would run screaming from the plans offered by the ISPs included in this trial. I don't actually know of anyone, let alone a /. member who is using these ISPs. The trial is a farce...
Re: (Score:1)
The list was pulled from filtering software, set to "block illegal material only".
I would be far more concerned if the list is a superset of the ACMA list than if Stephen Conroy was flat out lying, since that would mean that a product vendor is taking the opportunity to tell me what I'm not allowed to read, on top of the Government giving themselves that right.
Hate to say I told ya so (Score:4, Interesting)
Thankfully I'm entirely too lazy to go trolling through my comments on Slashdot from months ago where I said that the Government was primarily interested in blocking "hard core" porn sites.. otherwise I think some "nya, nya, told ya so" would be in order for the slashtards who disagreed with me. The kind of porn people regularly access on the Internet has been "illegal" in every state of Australia (but not the territories) for a long time now. Why do people find it so surprising that those-who-like-to-censor would apply the same standard to Internet porn that they do to video tape porn? It just makes sense that they would. People failed to object to film censorship. They failed to object to video censorship. They failed to object to videogame censorship. Now, finally, when they do try to object, the established censorship mechanism of government is too strong.
Re:Hate to say I told ya so (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hate to say I told ya so (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh, the uproar over Internet censorship is much greater than the uproar over film censorship.. this is true.. but it's still just a fringe issue that has no leadership. There's no orator stepping up to take the message to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
It isn't illegal to own the porn or view it in the Australian states. It is just illegal or businesses to sell it in most Australian states. One can still legally buy it from the territories or overseas.
Re: (Score:2)
The kind of porn people regularly access on the Internet has been "illegal" in every state of Australia (but not the territories) for a long time now. Why do people find it so surprising that those-who-like-to-censor would apply the same standard to Internet porn that they do to video tape porn?
I agree with your point, but this is a Federal matter, not a State one. The states have happily censored everything for a long time now, but the Feds have stayed right out of it, even when they have the power to stop the Territories selling porn.
Still, your point is a good one. I know far too many people who see the parallel with TV and video and wonder what the problem is with a bit of censorship.
I do find it odd that SBS---which goes to great lengths to explore the pale blue area between porn and erotica
Herpes (Score:2)
I can't understand why any ISP at all (even a tiny one) is signing up for these trials. I mean, it's like the government saying that they're going to inject the ISP and their customers with herpes as a trial run for injecting the whole of Australia with herpes. Herpes brings no value to your business and causes a lot of headaches for you and your clients.
The moral of this story is: Practice safe browsing, and don't let the government stab you with herpes infected needles. If a needlestick happens accidently
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
This isn't a technical problem for the government (Score:5, Insightful)
However, given that a) they do not have the numbers in the senate on their own to ram it through, b) there is no way the Greens will support it from the cross-benches, and c) the Lib-Nat coalition seems bent on opposing the crap out of everything the government does out of, well, who knows why those clowns do anything at the moment, I cannot see the return they're getting on the investment of political capital in this scheme. Independent Senator Nick Xenophon seems to have lost interest in the filter lately, so that leaves only Senator Steve Fielding of Family First. This filter would naturally appeal to Fielding, but what on earth does the ALP think they can gain by courting him this way? He's shown that he isn't that interested in dealing with the ALP but is instead prepared to scuttle legislation unless he gets his way.
So what's this really all about? Is it really just some bloody-minded insistence upon seeing the program through to its bitter end regardless of its seemingly inevitable failure on both technical and political fronts? Surely, they'd look less daft just admitting it's a failure now than seeing it through to an end of certain failure? I don't see why they're pressing on with it.
Re:This isn't a technical problem for the governme (Score:5, Informative)
Nick Xenophon has gone a little bit past having "lost interest" previously stating his opposition to the filter. He has also stated he isn't convinced the trial should go ahead in its current form:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/27/2503830.htm?site=local [abc.net.au]
"But I think the means of doing it really are very problematic and when ISP after ISP [are] saying that this won't work, it will slow down the internet for everyone, and it won't deal with the issue of the peer to peer networks that paedophiles use, then I think we really need to rethink this."
More importantly though, you seem to be under the impression that Conroy doesn't understand the political problem here. The last sentence from the above article states it quite nicely:
"A spokesman for Senator Conroy says the Minister is still looking into whether the filter would require legislation, or could be implemented through another means."
He's very aware that this isn't going to get through the legislative process. There are obviously other agendas involved that prevent common sense prevailing.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps the presence of anti-abortion sites on the list will change his mind.
Isn't this a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure the Aus government are sobbing their little black hearts out over the loss.
Think of the CHILDREN! (Score:2)
Re:Think of the CHILDREN! (Score:5, Interesting)
My first brush with this came when I tried to email myself a copy of a text analysis program I had written in a previous job (I had a copy at home). It got stopped, due to "potentially offensive content". After several rounds of emails back & forth, including an approval from my boss, I finally managed to get it released (the means of doing so was by no means easy or transparent). What was the sticking point? Well, the program included some samples of text I had tested it on. What was the oh-so-potentially-offensive text? One of the plays of William Shakespeare...
I confirmed this by sending a copy of the full play (Shakespeare's "All's well that Ends Well") - sorry, it got stopped as "potentially offensive". I leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out just why. (OK, I'll tell if anybody asks).
Since then I have experimented from time to time. The latest "offensive" text I found was the text of the novel "Anne of Green Gables" (yes, the classic story for girls). At least, I think it was classified as offensive, and I think I know why - but all I know for certain is that I sent three different copies of the text, and all three have disappeared without trace, without even a notice of "potentially offensive content". Some things, it seems, are too potentially offensive for government employees even to know about.
I don't think my Grandmother would approve.
Blacklist this man! (Score:1)
"Stephen Conroy yesterday attempted to hose down concerns ..."