  ilago Premium join:2005-06-28 Australia
·Internode
1 edit | reply to Link Logger Re: Australia To Implement Mandatory Internet Censorship
said by Link Logger :said by ilago :There's a lot of resistance. Quite a lot of coverage in the mainstream media as well as forums and the blogosphere. Newspaper and radio on line polls are showing almost consistently that more than 80% of consumers do not want secret censorship introduced. I wonder how many of the 80% have taken the time to call/write/email their local elected government official and convey their opinion and perhaps how this will be a MAJOR factor next election as its funny how much influence that can have. I'm not sure how the 'state' can be such a evil thing when the citizens of the state elect it (and if you don't like your choices then run for office and be that choice). Perhaps with percentages of voting public on the decrease, they get the state they didn't bother to vote for and then ultimately perhaps deserve? Blake Not everyone will protest formally in writing. The process looks very daunting to younger people without experience in correspondence. If nothing else a number of people will have learned through this experience that the ability to contact your local representatives and government Ministers isn't as difficult as they thought.
There are many letter templates that have been made available on several websites.
One of the major issues is that the policy has changed and is no longer the policy that was published prior to the election. In the lead up to the election, any proposed "filtering" was to be fully reviewed and it was to be an opt-out filter. The issue of choosing to vote for such a policy is a not relevant where the policy has changed after the election.
The current proposal mandates that adults have no access to "illegal" material. Illegal material, as currently defined, is anything over 15+MA (Mature audience only, 15 years and older). That is absolutely ridiculous. With a further layer of censorship on top of that where opt-out it is possible to make the internet "suitable" for 5 years old and up.
EFA has put a lot of effort into reviewing the proposals and commenting. They have letter templates available for download.
There is no definition of "illegal". The blacklist restricts some terror-related newsgroups and is already exempt from Freedom of Information legislation under the previous government's legislation as it was brought into law under the anti-terrorist legislation. The blacklist could include anything a public servant is instructed to included with no appeal and no right of review even if a site is incorrectly blocked. They seem to forget the Scunthorpe problem and the Peacefire problems.
It would take years and a great deal of money to get a case to the High Court where a complainant would probably win but it will be too late.
More information is available from »www.efa.org.au/FOI/foi_aba_2000.htm Edit:spelling |
|
  Khaine
join:2003-03-03 Australia
| reply to Its a Secret said by Its a Secret :said by Khaine : Most probably think that the government would never be stupid enough to implement. Never, ever underestimate the stupidity of the government. Oh, I agree. The Rudd government has already shown its incompetence with its handling of bank deposits. However I do believe the above does indicate the feeling for the majority of people within the 80% |
|
  norwegian Premium join:2005-02-15 Outback
·WestNet Broadband
| reply to SUMware Just curious if it will affect https? This mention of it at News.com.au has me curious, one of the replies says it doesn't, just how much will affect daily use?
Filter to cause World Wide Wait
INTERNET speeds could slow by 30 per cent under the Government's proposed web filtering scheme, even though it will do little to block illegal content.
That's the warning from technical experts, who also say the plan could expose users' financial details during online banking sessions and see popular websites including Facebook and YouTube banned.
The warnings came after Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy confirmed the Federal Government planned to introduce a mandatory internet filter, shelving plans to allow Australians to opt out of the scheme.
Internet service providers, who would administer the filter, have been asked to conduct live trials of the filter before the end of the year.
But System Administrators Guild of Australia president Donna Ashelford said the plan was deeply flawed and would slow internet access down by about 30 per cent according to the Government's own laboratory trials.
Despite this, the national web filter would only censor web content, Ms Ashelford said, and could not deal with the remaining 60 per cent of internet traffic, much of which occurred over peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent and LimeWire.
"The bulk of internet traffic is over peer-to-peer networks and the bulk of illegal content is trafficked is over peer-to-peer networks," she said. "There is no choke point at which they can block that material. I do not believe this is an issue that has a technical solution."
Electronic Frontiers Australia board member Colin Jacobs warned the web filter could also unwittingly make the internet unsafe for financial transactions by breaking the secure encryption used by banks online.
Five of the six web filters tested by the Australian Media and Communications Authority this year were able to filter websites using the secure protocol HTTPS, which would leave financial details exposed to the internet service provider in charge of operating the filter.
"If they sit in the middle and get between your web browser and the bank's server it really breaks open the security and leaves the details open to attack," he said.
"Once the chain of encryption is broken you can't say it is secure any more."
Mr Jacobs said the web filter plan would also face significant challenges trying to block illegal or inappropriate material on social networking sites such as YouTube and Facebook where "one video or one dodgy Facebook profile" could see the entire website blocked from view.
The national filter would also fail to block material in online chat rooms, Mr Jacobs said, and could give parents "a false sense of security" when monitoring their child's online access.
The Courier-Mail -- The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
  nwrickert sand groper Premium,MVM join:2004-09-04 Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Just curious if it will affect https? This would depend on how it is implemented.
Blocking IP addresses affects everything. Content inspection won't touch https unless in involves some sort of "man in the middle" attack, and MITM would likely cause browser warnings.
I guess it could also be done with https if there were some cooperation between the banks and the ISPs to make the information available for inspection. I'm doubtful that banks would agree to that. And porn sites using https would be unlikely to agree either. -- AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; openSuSE 11.0; firefox 3.0.3 |
|
  norwegian Premium join:2005-02-15 Outback
·WestNet Broadband
3 edits | said by nwrickert :Just curious if it will affect https? This would depend on how it is implemented. Blocking IP addresses affects everything. Content inspection won't touch https unless in involves some sort of "man in the middle" attack, and MITM would likely cause browser warnings. And that is where the concern lies,
1. what will they block, 2. what affects will it have on usage, 3. content we are allowed to see, 4. what costs will become the users bill on a market already considered more expensive than other countries, 5. what will be blocked in the future, 6. is it hard ware or software(hardware will basically see everything I'm guessing), 7. Will they then try to hit peer to peer once it settles, 8. How will they get past proxies, VPN etc, 9. what of IM scripting bots, or IM issues full stop with users that are not of a savoury character.
said by nwrickert :I guess it could also be done with https if there were some cooperation between the banks and the ISPs to make the information available for inspection. I'm doubtful that banks would agree to that. I doubt it too, but there is no information out there I can see presently involving this.
The real concern is why it is so secretive, why aren't we involved in this on a public level to at least try to create a usable filter?
We all know too well how public servants can be tied by red tape, so how will this become an effective tool, without years of bad times. Just look at Child Support in Australia, it took 15 years for it to be turned around so both father and mother have an almost fair deal.(It still isn't fully sorted). This was forced, no questions asked when it was implemented, some dads committed suicide, taking the kids with them. I realise this is not releated to the internet/content filtering, I just can't see the future being too bright for us users who pay for the internet as a tool/hobby/learning/business infrastructure and we know this will not be implemented correctly either.
I fear what will be the real outcome of this. -- The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
  nwrickert sand groper Premium,MVM join:2004-09-04 Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| I fear what will be the real outcome of this. Short term, there is a risk of censorship. Long term, your politicians will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, when they are forced to realize that censorship does not make any sense.
In the meantime, keep up the protests. -- AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; openSuSE 11.0; firefox 3.0.3 |
|
 SUMware Premium join:2002-05-21
| reply to SUMware From The Register 5th November 2008 - quote: We spoke to CensorNet, a UK company that provides software that enables official bodies to filter out content in the UK, and which is speaking to a couple of Australian ISPs about this project. Its view is that the slow down feared by ISPs is unlikely.
However, the firm foresees two issues with any solution. Most filters tackle just the HTTP. But HTTP accounts for an average of 25 per cent of a user's bandwidth, with the rest taken up by other traffic, including email, peer-to-peer and instant messaging.
CensorNet uses the RuleSpace technology, which automatically classifies web content before filtering.
A spokesperson for Stephen Conroys office tells us that fears are misplaced and nothing has yet been finalised. Rather, they are "in the final stages of preparing an expressions of interest document for ISPs to take part in a field pilot".
They add that $128.5m has been set aside "for a comprehensive cyber-safety program that focuses on education, research, ISP filtering and law enforcement". The focus will be on material such as "child pornography, cruelty or real violence, and sexual violence" that is "already illegal".
Their plans are not unrealistic, because this sort of material "is currently being filtered by a number of ISPs in countries such as the UK, Sweden, Norway and Canada with no impact on network speeds or performance".
This is not strictly true: some minor filtering of web content goes on in these jurisdictions, but nothing on the scale envisaged by the Australian Government.
In the end, what happens in Australia will affect us all. If their filtering scheme falls flat on its face, expect to hear little more of it. If it is implemented and works in however half-arsed a fashion, look forward to proposals to filter the UK internet in a couple of years time.
|
|
  Its a Secret Whatever Premium join:2008-02-23 U B Funny
·Shaw
| reply to SUMware Perhaps what the Aussies should do is get people to cancel their Inet services, or drop to the lowest tier. It seems the only way biz and government listen is when you hit them in the pocket book.
If enough do it, ISP's will be screaming at the gov to change it. People do have a voice, sometimes you just have to yell a bit louder!  -- "In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal" |
|
  Khaine
join:2003-03-03 Australia
| said by Its a Secret :Perhaps what the Aussies should do is get people to cancel their Inet services, or drop to the lowest tier. It seems the only way biz and government listen is when you hit them in the pocket book. If enough do it, ISP's will be screaming at the gov to change it. People do have a voice, sometimes you just have to yell a bit louder! The ISPs are already screaming |
|
  norwegian Premium join:2005-02-15 Outback
·WestNet Broadband
| reply to SUMware
I have been having a chuckle to myself on this.
If we get content filtering at the ISP level will it do it's job correctly and filter out all the rubbish?
Advertisements too, which are known can be a source of malware?
I can't help thinking of the implications there!!! -- The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
 SUMware Premium join:2002-05-21
| said by norwegian :will it do it's job correctly and filter out all the rubbish? Advertisements too, which are known can be a source of malware? The filtering isn't designed to eliminate 'rubbish', advertisements, nor malware. It's designed to prevent people from accessing websites and downloading material that the government decides it doesn't want the public to see.
Malware, ads, and government approved rubbish are just fine. |
|
  norwegian Premium join:2005-02-15 Outback
·WestNet Broadband
1 edit | RFLMAO. 
You have me in stiches now.
But it seems to be what this is about, and they will call it an "effecient" system.  |
|
 SUMware Premium join:2002-05-21
| said by norwegian :But it seems to be what this is about, and they will call it an "effecient" system. For maximum efficiency I suggest that the Australian government block EVERYTHING, except for malware, ads, and government approved rubbish.  |
|
  AB Premium join:2006-04-04 Leesburg, VA
| said by SUMware :For maximum efficiency I suggest that the Australian government block EVERYTHING, except for malware, ads, and government approved rubbish. I thought that was the idea already? |
|
  Blackbird Built for Speed Premium join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to SUMware It's all so sad. This can hardly be what Al Gore envisioned when he invented the Internet.  -- If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... |
|
  Link Logger Premium,MVM join:2001-03-29 Calgary, AB
·Shaw
| said by Blackbird :It's all so sad. This can hardly be what Al Gore envisioned when he invented the Internet.  The Internet was just Gore's first act as later he went and invented the environment, is there no limit to Al's abilities, what possibly will he invent next?
Blake -- Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
  Pizz Hi
join:2000-10-27 Astoria, NY | reply to SUMware As another posted - Maybe when the 'aussie' way of life - finally gets shuttered. Common sense will prevail.
was this a worthy quote? |
|
 SUMware Premium join:2002-05-21
3 edits | reply to Link Logger said by Link Logger :said by Blackbird :It's all so sad. This can hardly be what Al Gore envisioned when he invented the Internet.  The Internet was just Gore's first act as later he went and invented the environment, is there no limit to Al's abilities, what possibly will he invent next? Al Gore may have invented the internet, but it's Republican presidential candidate John McCain we have to thank for the "miracle" of the BlackBerry.
Asked by campaign trail reporters what McCain's experience as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee does to help him to understand the economy and lead the country through its current turmoil, Douglas Holtz-Eakin waved his BlackBerry in the air, according to The Politico.
"Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committe," Holtz-Eakin said. "So you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."
The BlackBerry was developed by Research In Motion, a Canadian company.
The comment met with immediate derision across the internet.
-
The FWIW Dept.
From Snopes.com quote: Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False.
Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. Clearly, although Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign.
If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.
|
|
  AB Premium join:2006-04-04 Leesburg, VA
| said by SUMware :Al Gore may have invented the internet, but it's Republican presidential candidate John McCain we have to thank for the "miracle" of the BlackBerry.
Asked by campaign trail reporters what McCain's experience as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee does to help him to understand the economy and lead the country through its current turmoil, Douglas Holtz-Eakin waved his BlackBerry in the air, according to The Politico.
"Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committe," Holtz-Eakin said. "So you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did." I sent Douglas Holtz-Eakin an internet, but it never arrived.
ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDVoWCZa8hM |
|
 SUMware Premium join:2002-05-21
1 edit | said by AB :I sent Douglas Holtz-Eakin an internet, but it never arrived. Only one internet? Did you send it in the correct tube?
Perhaps it was re-routed through Australia... |
|