Australian Government Outlines Website-Blocking Scheme 58
angry tapir writes: The Australian government has revealed its (previously mooted) proposed legislation that will allow copyright holders to apply for court orders that will force ISPs to block access to pirate websites. It forms part of a broader Australian crackdown on online copyright infringement, which also includes a warning notice scheme for alleged infringers.
They're not the only ones getting on board with website blocking — a judge in Spain ruled that local ISPs must block access to The Pirate Bay.
Re:TAILS Linux WARNING v.1.3.1 (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about.
'tails-autotest-remote-shell' in /etc/init.d includes a rather obvious test for a kernel parameter:
/proc/cmdline
if grep -qw "autotest_never_use_this_option"
then
:
else
exit 0
fi
If that parameter is missing, the script aborts. I guess you do not know how to read shell-scripts or you did not bother to even look what it does.
And 'tails-autotest-remote-shell' in /usr/local/lib is different from the file in /etc/init.d and actually the python script called from there if needed. It also includes a pretty clear and accurate statement at the start: "ATTENTION: Yes, this can be used as a backdoor, but only for an adversary with access to you *physical* serial port, which means that you are screwed any way." As this very clearly says this is a serial-port connected remote shell, I guess you did not look for one second into the file. And if you had looked and looked at the code as well, you would have seen that it does indeed only open serial port.
So, in total: This script opens a remote shell on a serial port if you give a very specific kernel-parameter on startup.
Remind me again where there is _any_ security problem here? My guess is you are just an honor-less shill spreading FUD for money to keep people from trusting TAILS.
Re: (Score:2)
This is TAILS. There are no guest accounts. This is not a distribution intended to be installed at all. It is intended to run from CD or (preferably write-protected) memory stick. Without jumping through major hoops, you cannot even write persistent changes to it even if is on an unprotected memory stick.
That said, if configuration changes by a legitimate user, installing of packages by legitimate user, etc. are needed to open a backdoor, then that is not a security vulnerability. For example, it just take
You're doing it wrong (Score:1)
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you have shale gas under your nice little town, but you have decided in a democratic way that you don't want to put your little town in risk by extracting the gas? No problem, when a corporation wants that gas, they just sue your little town, and they get what they want. Do you decide in a democratic way to extract that gas for the benefit of the entire population of that little town? No problem either, when a corporation wants that gas, they just sue your little town, and they get what they want. That's how our wonderful democracy works since the nineties.
Do you live in a country that rejects this kind of free market? No problem, your country will be marked as an 'Axis of evil' and your country will be excluded from the markets and be boycotted by the countries that represent 90% of the world GDP. That's how the sovereignty of states work.
This is what the anti-globalist movements in the nineties were fighting against for example. But they have always been labelled terrorist. There is simply no opposition against the behaviour of the big business. Democracy fails against multinationals. Even free market fails against this kind of capitalism. And when people are opposing through one of the few things they have left (protests, organizing in a counter movement, passive aggression, voting for far left or far right parties,
It's all in the same 'free market' scheme like the American or European workers that have to compete in wage against child slave labourers in south east Asia, while the companies who use slave labourers are all subsidized with the cheap oil/army protected trade routes/tax shelters/....
No biggie (Score:1)
We just have to formulate a circumvention scheme.. Not sure if that's possible when all the service providers have to answer to the government, but we gotta do what we can.
Re: (Score:1)
VPN. Bleh... If you're not whitelisted, blocked. Now what?
Re:No biggie (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
https? You're kidding, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because SSH doesn't do UDP traffic, whereas a VPN makes your network endpoint definitely not anywhere near you.
Re: No biggie (Score:1)
Also, TCP over TCP is inefficient as hell. It's good enough for casual browsing, but you'll have a bad time trying to torrent through it.
Re: (Score:1)
There is plenty around that run over UDP.
Re: (Score:3)
TOR has this as one of its project-goals. And since they are in an arms-race with the "Chinese wall" firewall, I expect TOR has quite a head-start.
Of course, it is a sign how much of a problem western governments have become these days if one seriously needs to contemplate using TOR to fight back against them.
Not going to stop determined downloaders (Score:3, Interesting)
After RTFA it's pretty obvious this legislation is only meant to stop lazy downloaders or just inconvenience them, hardcore pirates will no doubt find their work-arounds and keep going on their merry way as always.
I really see this legislation as a bit of tree shaking meant to shoo away all those people who've been downloading copyrighted material because it was so damn easy to do so and there was little to no enforcement of infringement laws. In short the straight up easiness of downloading that latest episode of "A Game of Tits... opps Thrones" isn't going to be as easy as it was.
On a side note there's plenty of free culture out there that can be consumed quite easily; music, videos or whatever. Or you could just go out and make your own damn culture and put it out there for free, screw big business!
Re: (Score:3)
After RTFA it's pretty obvious this legislation is only meant to stop lazy downloaders
It won't even do that. 85% of the shows that I watch, I watch pirated versions on youtube just by typing in the episode title.
This doesn't work for newly released movies but most older movies and almost all older tv shows are available for free
on youtube. If they can't police youtube then they are fighting a battle they can't win.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me more about this "culture" you have in Australia. Where did you find it?
Re: (Score:1)
Cultured and culture are 2 very different things
Re: (Score:1)
Because so much content is made in Aus (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never understood why the Aus goverment would care given that almost all the content pirated is from overseas giving no financial benefits to the country. But I guess with the current governments relationship with media mogul Murdock who practically got them elected they must continue dance for the man (reference: image search "lets kick this mob out").
I see this only meaning the goverments popularity (24% in Feb) will continue to slide down while VPN services skyrocket. Sounds like a winning plan.
Re:Because so much content is made in Aus (Score:5, Interesting)
It does affect Australian business in a way because an Australian distributor pays for the right to sell/distribute a tv show or movie in australia. The theory being that a distributor buys the right to distribute a TV/Movie in australia and uses that money to create local content but most of the content is either sport or cooking/renovation shows, which are cheap to make anyway that's why there are so many of them, and any aussie movie made is done so in part with tax payers money. So in the end I can't help feeling that it's all just to prop up distributors who look more like lazy middle men. It's essentially the same reason DVDs have region encoding.
In short, it affect a business which is nothing more then a lazy middle man and contributes very little to Australian culture, lets face it ABC SBS, which are mostly government funded, produce more local content... Funny how the goverment wants to slash their funding
Re:Because so much content is made in Aus (Score:5, Interesting)
"Funny how the goverment wants to slash their funding" -> Sadly Rupert gets what Rupert wants. Far too much of the current policy comes from a handfull of extemely wealthy business men/women. Gina Rinehart, a close friend to Tony, is another classic example and now the current government is kicking the indigenous (aboriginals, etc) off their own land and forcedly shutting down their communities for the mining companies. It's truely shocking. It's like Australia has gone back 200 years to when it was first colonised by the Europians. Fitting since Tony Abbott is actually English!
were fucked bymurdoch abbot brandis (Score:2, Insightful)
Fucking abbot is a fucking stupid fuck.
Brandis is probably thicker than abbot and abbot is a fucking numpty.
Hockey corrman morisson are incredibly arrogant and dont see their own stupidity.
Seriously, abbot is australias equivalent of bush jnr.
Eg a clueless, unintelligent, uneducated and easily manipulated when it comes to stake holders
Fact all the meda data ret3ntion is so murdoch can make those damn australian pirates PAY. Tony got brandis onto it,.
The whole lot of them are thicker than thieves.
Corporate Sovereignty is far worse (Score:4, Informative)
The big thing coming is 'corporate sovereignty' treaties, where a corporation can sue a country and overturn national law if it interferes with the trading rights of a corporation. So even if you get a fair copyright law through Australians parliament, or UK, EU, a corporation can sue, and can then overturn that law.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150325/17151130431/corporate-sovereignty-provisions-tpp-agreement-leaked-via-wikileaks-would-massively-undermine-government-sovereignty.shtml
These corporate sovereignty provisions are used by Phillip Morris to remove warnings on cigarette packages, and other stuff that interferes with their 'fair trade'. These are being pushed by the US using all its NSA obtained surveillance leverage.
The proposal in the EU is one of the worst, it is to have a group of specially chosen lawyers judge these cases, who will take turns playing 'judge'. These will likely be 'special' lawyers. Where special means they act in US interests for unknown reasons. These treaties are being negotiated in secret and the 'special' EU Commissioners are dreaming up ways to push them through regardless of national governments veto powers:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150120/08264429758/european-commissions-clever-ruse-to-introduce-corporate-sovereignty-regardless-ratification-votes-eu.shtml
Australia has no effective opposition party, any new party that arises, has to make its way up through a net of US surveillance and black op propaganda. So its unlikely now you'll see an Australian or EU politician who will be a tough negotiator against the US, (see what they did to Dominique Kahn)*
* And anyone who thinks they wouldn't make fake rape charges, Google "jtrig fake victim" , one of the leaks covers exactly these fake victim claims as a means to destroy reputations.
Seems unlikely to work (Score:2)
Do copyright holders really think they can win the game of whack-a-mole as people bounce from domain to domain downloading whatever they please?
One has to wonder if this is really about copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes they do. They're that clueless.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They really don't give a toss about piracy. They care about maintaining control of the distribution channel. They care about maintaining control over the artists.
Re:Seems unlikely to work (Score:4, Insightful)
It also helps if at some point they decide to go after individual downloaders in court. If you can show the court that less heavy-handed tactics have been tried, and they didn't work, it is easier to get a conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why it should be easier to get a conviction, the laws were either broken and there is proof of it or there isn't. I would hate to be in a court system that decides you were warned 3 times by means outside the court so you are more likely guilty on the same evidence.
Now I can see where the modus operandi [wikipedia.org] is used to determine Mes Rea [findlaw.com] but I'm not sure the type of copyright laws being addressed need that level of detail. Displaying the willingness to subvert a blocking mechanism would show intent t
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Internet censorship fortunately does not work, but one has to wonder why are they trying so hard to establish it nonetheless. My only explanation is that those in power are extremely scared of those they are supposed to serve.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't need to whack every mole. Just enough that the average non-techie user isn't willing to get involved and will still fork over their money.
I don't get why there needs to be anything to bloc (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The classic problem with all distributed tech is the initial connection. The pirate bay is on the end of a magnet link? Then why not attempt to block all references to the magnet link.
For each distributed system you need some place to start unless you think spamming random IP addresses on the internet hoping for a bite would be a good use of time and bandwidth, something that would also effectively become impossible with IPv6 address space.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't even block the site which provided you with the link because there are so many trivial ways to hide it - e.g. writing it as an image, or inserting i
Re: (Score:2)
Not blocking the link, but blocking the initial distribution. Yes it would be far harder but it's no more difficult than the current state of blocking where you can go onto Google, type in (insert fav torrent site here) and get a list of which domain it happens to be running on today. The only difference is you're looking for the magnet link which will bounce around as the power that be continue their futile attempts to block content one web address at a time.
Cant get it here (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember that most content that is pirated in Australia is not even availiable to buy in Australia. So what happens when you stream content that is not availiable to purchase, it that still illegal. This is the most stupid irrisponsible stupid government in the history of this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. it is illegal.
Copyright law is coded specifically and framing illegal activity in any context doesn't make it any "less legal."
The problem is that copyright holders cannot afford to go after massive violations, and so they are getting ISP/governments to do that job for them.
Copyright protection of digital material is simply impossible.
Just as we individual users of the Internet have no way of absolutely protecting our private data (and have largely learned to just accept it) it's just a matter of time
Everyone wants to be China... (Score:1)
FCC Net Neutrality (Score:3)
This will start happening soon in the US, now that the FCC has passed rules that only protect "lawful" content from getting blocked...
I TOLD you to be careful what you ask for. Everything will be scanned and known. How else will ISPs determine what is "lawful" content and "lawful" protocols (yes, that's in the language, too - "lawful protocols").