quote:

---

THE Prime Minister's website has been hacked into in protest over proposed reforms of internet censorship.

The website, www.pm.gov.au, was brought down at about 7.20pm (AEST) along with that of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, but both were back online about an hour later.

A message posted on the Inquisitor website by the hacker, identified as Anonymous, stated that the action was in response to a Federal Government proposal to introduce mandatory internet filtering

---

quote:

---

A spokesman for Senator Conroy said: "The trial is expected to be completed around September with a report to be provided to the Minister following its conclusion."

---

quote:

---

OUR politicians like to describe the internet as the Wild West, implying it's a lawless haven for pirates, pornographers and pedophiles. While a few libertarian nerds and the Russian mafia might favour such anarchy, the implication is clear that it's time a government lawman stepped in to make the place safe for decent, law-abiding, internet-using folks, in particular, vulnerable children. Apparently our Communications Minister Stephen Conroy thinks he's just the man for the job.

---

quote:

---

Now the plan is about "enforcing existing laws'' and cracking down on those who distribute violent and illegal material such as that depicting child sexual abuse. It goes without saying that we'd all like to see the trafficking of abhorrent material stopped, but the filtering plan is hardly a silver bullet for law enforcement. In fact, although some details remain unclear, it appears that the scheme will only target a small list of websites, compiled by bureaucrats in response to complaints from the public, not by specialists or police. The government knows, and the police will happily tell them, that illegal material is not distributed on public websites, but by highly secretive and well-organised groups that use technologies such as peer-to-peer file sharing to elude authorities.

---

quote:

---

One site a Year 10 student opened while searching for a type of bird contained graphic sexual material and was only barred on Monday after inquiries from The Daily Telegraph.
George Cochrane said his school-aged son and daughter, who study by distance education from their farm in Grenfell, were horrified by the sites they could access.
Other educational sites and harmless web pages for the local member of parliament - and even Education Minister Verity Firth's own site - have been blocked by the filter.
The Department of Education and Training confirmed that the filter would be used on thousands of laptops for high school students. It is also currently used on all computers in schools.
"My daughter typed in 'swallow', as in the bird, and it blocked access to a documentary on swallowing toothpaste but gave you access to a male site talking about inappropriate material," Mr Cochrane said

---

quote:

---

the government's internet censorship regime will extend to downloadable and web-based games that don't meet Australia's MA15+ rating standard.

---

quote:

---

The government's decision would mean even Australians over 15-years-old will be unable to access websites that sell downloadable or physical copies of video games as well as those that host web-based games,

---

quote:

---

"This is confirmation that the scope of the mandatory censorship scheme will keep on creeping," Colin Jacobs of the Electronic Frontiers Australia told the publication. "Far from being the ultimate weapon against child abuse, it now will officially censor content deemed too controversial for a 15-year-old. In a free country like ours, do we really need the government to step in and save us from racy web games?"

---

quote:

---

Responding to questions from shadow communications minister Nick Minchin on how the government may go about imposing the internet filtering scheme, Senator Conroy said that legislation may not be required and ISPs may adopt an industry consensus to block restricted content on a voluntary basis.
“Mandatory ISP filtering would conceivably involve legislation … voluntary is available currently to ISPs,” Senator Conroy said.
“One option is potentially legislation. One other option is that it could be (on a) voluntary basis that they (ISPs) could voluntarily agree to introduce it.”
In response Senator Minchin said he had never heard of a voluntary mandatory system.
Senator Conroy responded with “well they could agree to all introduce it”.

---

quote:

---

THE Rudd Government has indicated that it may back away from its mandatory internet filtering plan.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy today told a Senate estimates committee that the filtering scheme could be implemented by a voluntary industry code.

Senator Conroy’s statement is a departure from the internet filtering policy Labor took into the October 2007 election to make it mandatory for ISPs to block offensive and illegal content.

Responding to questions from shadow communications minister Nick Minchin on how the government may go about imposing the internet filtering scheme, Senator Conroy said that legislation may not be required and ISPs may adopt an industry consensus to block restricted content on a voluntary basis.

“Mandatory ISP filtering would conceivably involve legislation … voluntary is available currently to ISPs,” Senator Conroy said.

“One option is potentially legislation. One other option is that it could be (on a) voluntary basis that they (ISPs) could voluntarily agree to introduce it.”

In response Senator Minchin said he had never heard of a voluntary mandatory system.

Senator Conroy responded with “well they could agree to all introduce it”.

---

quote:

---

THE nation's second-largest ISP has fired the starter's gun on its live internet filtering trial, a program by the federal Government as part of its bid to censor the web.

The trial will conclude in early July after some six weeks of testing.

An Optus spokeswoman declined to reveal how many customers had agreed to participate; residential customers in Sydney and Newcastle have been selected for the pilot but they could opt-out of the exercise at any point, Optus said.

Optus is the eighth internet service provider to participate in the scheme, joining Primus, Highway 1, Nelson Bay Online, Netforce, OMNIconnect, TECH 2U and Webshield.

All ISPs have differing start and completion dates for the tests as various factors such as availability of filtering equipment have an impact on their timetables.

The Government hopes to introduce mandatory ISP-level content filtering that would automatically block "refused classification" material matched against a web page blacklist managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

---

quote:

---

On this latest evidence, the Australian Government is now light years ahead of the rest of the Western world when it comes to political censorship. Whether a less draconian regime will at some point emerge is now a hot topic for debate amongst Ozzie ISP’s.

---

quote:

---

Five things I learned from the Insight episode on filtering

He now claims his plan is to block only material which would be classified as Refused Classification (RC). Well ‘almost exclusively’ Refused Classification — In typical Conroy fashion he has left himself a backdoor with enough room to park a Hummer-sized load of as much ‘unwanted’ content as he or anyone else in government likes.

---

quote:

---

Conroy signals Net filter backflip

THE Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, has said the government’s controversial compulsory internet filtering policy would be confined to content that had been “refused classification” (RC), in a statement many are interpreting as a backtrack from previously announced policy.

Speaking on the SBS Insight program, Senator Conroy said the policy would be restricted to RC websites.

Post note: There is a clip of the show at Insight's link

Under previous leaked versions of blacklisted sites compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), R18+ and X18+ sites had also been listed, as well as other legal content such as a Queensland dentist’s site, YouTube movie clips and an astrology site.

---

quote:

---

Conroy jumps out of filter fire into iiNet ire

Senator Stephen Conroy's watch as Communications Minister seems to be going from bad to worse after publicly making comments that could land him legal hot water. The comments at a public telecoms conference about a high profile court case involving ISP iiNet have been deemed by a number of sources as inappropriate, defamatory and potentially prejudicial to the case.

iiNet, Australia's third largest ISP, is doing battle in the Federal Court of NSW with a consortium of movie studios and a TV network that have accused it of allowing its network to be used to illegally download copyright entertainment. The ISP also happens to be one of Senator Conroy's biggest critics and recently pulled out of his office's much maligned Internet filter trial.

The public slanging between the Communications Minister and iiNet is hard to find a precedent for in the ICT industry. The CEO of iiNet, Michael Malone, has told iTWire and a number of other media sources quite openly that he believes Senator Conroy is the worst Communications Minister ever and described him as incompetent.

---

quote:

---

iiNet tests legality of Conroy slur

PERTH-headquartered ISP iiNet said it has sought legal advice on Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy's public commentary on its legal defence in a high-profile copyright case before the NSW Federal Court.

IiNet managing director Michael Malone said that the comments were a form of retribution against the ISP for pulling out of the Department of Broadband Communications and Digital Economy’s controversial internet filtering trial.

“We have sought legal advice on this. It's unheard of for a crown minister to try to influence the outcome of an active case,” Mr Malone said.

IiNet’s concerns orbit comments that Senator Conroy is reported to have made at a high-profile communications forum in Sydney.

---

quote:

---

A PRANK message has appeared on the Classification Board's official website in a hacking attack.

The message, posted overnight, replaced the welcome text on the Government body's homepage.

"This site contains information about the boards that have the right to CONRTROL (sic) YOUR FREEDOMZ," it said.

"The Classification Board has the right to not just classify content (the name is an ELABORATE TRICK), but also the right to DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISNT APPROPRIATE and BAN CONTENT FROM THE PUBLIC."

It continues: “We are part of an ELABORATE DECEPTION from CHINA to CONTROL AND SHEEPIFY the NATION, to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. All opposers must HATE CHILDREN.”

The message was noticed about 8pm (AEDT) yesterday and stayed online for a few hours.

The Classification website has been inaccessible for several hours.

A spokesperson for the Classification Board confirmed the attack, and said it was being investigated. The Australian Federal Police are not currently involved.

---

quote:

---

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has admitted that Bill Henson images were added to the communications regulator's list of prohibited websites in error, while blaming the addition of a dentist's site to the blacklist on the "Russian mob".

Meanwhile, the website of the Federal Government's censorship body, the Classification Board, was hacked last night and defaced with an anti-censorship screed.

The admission by Senator Conroy on ABC television's Q&A program last night casts significant doubt on the Government's ability to filter the internet without inadvertently blocking legitimate websites.

Q&A was inundated with 2000 questions from the public about the Government's hugely unpopular policy, and the audience last night ridiculed Senator Conroy by laughing at a number of his responses.

---

quote:

---

THE Government will begin trawling blog sites as part of a new media monitoring strategy, with documents singling out a website critical of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy for special mention.

Soon after Senator Conroy praised Singapore's Government for reducing monitoring of blogs, tender documents issued by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy reveal it is looking for a "comprehensive digital monitoring service for print and electronic media".

The department later attached a clarification confirming the term "electronic media" included "blogs such as Whirlpool".

---

quote:

---

"However, the list provided to ACMA differs markedly in length and format to the ACMA blacklist. The ACMA blacklist has at no stage been 2300 URLs in length and at August 2008 consisted of 1061 URLs. It is therefore completely inaccurate to say that the list of 2300 URLs constitutes an ACMA blacklist. "

---

quote:

---

ACMA is investigating the matter and may refer it to the Australian Federal Police.

---

quote:

---

The watchdog has warned that anyone who republishes the list or attempts to access child pornography sites on it could face up to 10 years in prison.

---

quote:

---

t has also warned that linking to sites on the list could incur fines of up to $11,000 a day.

---

quote:

---

The Queensland dentist included on the Australian communications regulator's blacklist of prohibited websites has demanded that the list be cleaned up, as he is now being associated with child porn peddlers and sexual violence sites.

---

quote:

---

The Queensland dentist included on the Australian communications regulator's blacklist of prohibited websites has demanded that the list be cleaned up, as he is now being associated with child porn peddlers and sexual violence sites.

Whisleblower site Wikileaks published the top-secret ACMA list today.

Websites contained on it will be blocked for all Australians once the government implements its mandatory internet filtering scheme - originally pitched as targeting only "illegal" content - later this year.

But, as experts have long warned the government, having a top-secret blacklist of banned sites is dangerous because there is a real danger that Australian businesses could be added to the list in error, with little recourse.

---

said by Doctor Four :

And Australia seems to have jumped ahead of the others in this area. So linking is now thought crime?

quote:

---

Other Australian websites and blogs continue to display the location of the banned web page, but ACMA says no action will be taken as "ACMA has not received any other complaints about links to the content concerned".

---

quote:

---

The Australian communications regulator says it will fine people who hyperlink to sites on its blacklist, which has been further expanded to include several pages on the anonymous whistleblower site Wikileaks.

Wikileaks was added to the blacklist for publishing a leaked document containing Denmark's list of banned websites.

The move by the Australian Communications and Media Authority comes after it threatened the host of online broadband discussion forum Whirlpool last week with a $11,000-a-day fine over a link published in its forum to another page blacklisted by ACMA - an anti-abortion website.

ACMA's blacklist does not have a significant impact on web browsing by Australians today but sites contained on it will be blocked for everyone if the Federal Government implements its mandatory internet filtering censorship scheme.

But even without the mandatory censorship scheme, as is evident in the Whirlpool case, ACMA can force sites hosted in Australia to remove "prohibited" pages and even links to prohibited pages.

Online civil liberties campaigners have seized on the move by ACMA as evidence of how casually the regulator adds to its list of blacklisted sites. It also confirmed fears that the scope of the Government's censorship plan could easily be expanded to encompass sites that are not illegal.

"The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship," Wikileaks said on its website in response to the ACMA ban.

The site has also published Thailand's internet censorship list and noted that, in both the Thai and Danish cases, the scope of the blacklist had been rapidly expanded from child porn to other material including political discussions.

Already, a significant portion of the 1370-site Australian blacklist - 506 sites - would be classified R18+ and X18+, which are legal to view but would be blocked for everyone under the proposal. The Government has said it was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond.

Electronic Frontiers Australia said the leak of the Danish blacklist and ACMA's subsequent attempts to block people from viewing it showed how easy it would be for ACMA's own blacklist - which is secret - to be leaked onto the web once it is handed to ISPs for filtering.

"We note that, not only do these incidents show that the ACMA censors are more than willing to interpret their broad guidelines to include a discussion forum and document repository, it is demonstrably inevitable that the Government's own list is bound to be exposed itself at some point in the future," EFA said.

"The Government would serve the country well by sparing themselves, and us, this embarrassment."

Last week, Reporters Without Borders, in its regular report on enemies of internet freedom, placed Australia on its "watch list" of countries imposing anti-democratic internet restrictions that could open the way for abuses of power and control of information.

The main issue raised was the Government's proposed internet censorship regime.

"This report demolished the Communications Minister's contention that Australia is just following other comparable democracies," Greens communications spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam said.

"We are not. The Government is embarking on a deeply unpopular and troubling experiment to fine-tune its ability to censor the internet.

"I agree with Reporters Without Borders. If you consider this kind of net censorship in the context of Australia's anti-terror laws, it paints a disturbing picture indeed."

EFA said the Government's "spin is starting to wear thin" and it could no longer be denied that the ACMA blacklist targets a huge range of material that is legal and even uncontroversial.

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has repeatedly claimed his proposed mandatory filters would target only "illegal" content - predominantly child pornography.

"As time goes on, pressure will only mount on the Government to expand the list, while money and effort are poured into an enormous black box that will neither help kids nor stem the flow of illegal material," EFA said.

"If the minister truly believes that children are seeking out, or being bombarded with, child pornography, then there's a dearth of both common sense and proper research in the ministerial suites."

Already, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, Jim Wallace, has said he hopes the sex industry will go broke as a result of the censorship scheme.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon previous expressed his desire to have online gambling sites added to the blacklist but has since withdrawn his support for the scheme, saying it was dangerous and could be "counter-productive".

The Greens and Opposition also oppose the scheme, meaning any legislation to implement it will be blocked.

The Opposition has obtained legal advice that "legislation of some sort will almost certainly be required", but others have said it may be possible to implement the scheme without legislation.

Speaking at a telecommunications conference last week, Senator Conroy urged Australians to have faith in MPs to pass the right legislation.

Despite previously saying his scheme would be expanded to block "refused classification" content that includes sites depicting drug use, sex, crime, cruelty and violence, he said opponents of his plan were spreading "conspiracy theories".

The Government's internet censorship trials are due to begin shortly but critics have said they may not provide much useful data on the real-world implications because none of the major ISPs were chosen to take part.

---

quote:

---

If you think about it, "may contain links to other websites that may contain 'prohibited content' or 'potentially prohibited content'" covers every site that might be linking to a site on an unpublished list. With the flimsiest of excuses there can be a demand to take down just about anything.

---

quote:

---

whether one's persuasion is pro-life or pro-choice, are about as far removed as you can get from gratuitous kiddie porn. This moves OZ's censorship practices squarely into the realm of filtering social and political dialogue or debate - the very thing the program's critics have been alarmed about.

---

quote:

---

Anyone deluded enough to believe this censorship is not politically motivated after reading the content is prohibited or potential prohibited content?

---

said by Blackbird :

said by norwegian :

...ACMA issued Sydney web hosting company Bulletproof Networks with an "interim link-deletion notice" for allowing its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, to post the link to an anti-abortion web page blacklisted by the regulator. ...

And abortion issues, whether one's persuasion is pro-life or pro-choice, are about as far removed as you can get from gratuitous kiddie porn. This moves OZ's censorship practices squarely into the realm of filtering social and political dialogue or debate - the very thing the program's critics have been alarmed about.

quote:

---

Subject: Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:45:00 +1100
From: online@acma.gov.au

Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278

I refer to the complaint that you lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on 5th January 2009 about certain content made available at:

»www. URL REMOVED .htm

Following investigation of your complaint, ACMA is satisfied that the internet content is hosted outside Australia, and that the content is prohibited or potential prohibited content.

The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has a code of practice (»www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=···temid=33) for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which, among other things, set out arrangements for dealing with such content. In accordance with the code, ACMA has notified the above content to the makers of IIA approved filters, for their attention and appropriate action. The code requires ISPs to make available to customers an IIA approved filter.

Information about ACMA’s role in regulating online content (including internet and mobile content), including what is prohibited or potentially prohibited content is available at ACMA’s website at www.acma.gov.au/hotline

Thank you for bringing this matter to ACMA’s attention.

name removed to protect the guilty.

---

quote:

---

The interim notice, obtained by The Australian, stated that on February 19, ACMA received information that a Whirlpool forums page "may contain links to other websites that may contain 'prohibited content' or 'potentially prohibited content'".

---

said by fatness :

said by ilago :

The Minister reponsible for this, Senator Stephen Conroy, is almost closeted. He has refused to discuss the issue with the media or any public venue open for discussion. In the Senate he has arranged for strategies to prevent the other parties and members asking questions. Every media article, except two since last year, lists him as not available for comment.

I suppose his next step could be trying to ban media articles.

quote:

---

On Tuesday, a policy advisor for Senator Conroy, Belinda Dennett, wrote an email to Internet Industry Association (IIA) board member Carolyn Dalton in an attempt to pressure Newton into reining in his dissent.

"In your capacity as a board member of the IIA I would like to express my serious concern that a IIA member would be sending out this sort of message. I have also advised [IIA chief executive] Peter Coroneos of my disappointment in this sort of irresponsible behaviour ," the email, read.

It is understood the email was accompanied by a phone call demanding that the message be passed on to senior Internode management.

Newton said he found the bullying "outrageous" and Senator Conroy was "misusing his influence as a Commonwealth Minister to intimidate a private dissenting citizen into silencing his political views".

---

quote:

---

Web censorship plan heads towards a dead end

The Government's plan to introduce mandatory internet censorship has effectively been scuttled, following an independent senator's decision to join the Greens and Opposition in blocking any legislation required to get the scheme started.

The Opposition's communications spokesman Nick Minchin has this week obtained independent legal advice saying that if the Government is to pursue a mandatory filtering regime "legislation of some sort will almost certainly be required".

Senator Nick Xenophon previously indicated he may support a filter that blocks online gambling websites but in a phone interview today he withdrew all support, saying "the more evidence that's come out, the more questions there are on this".

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has consistently ignored advice from a host of technical experts saying the filters would slow the internet, block legitimate sites, be easily bypassed and fall short of capturing all of the nasty content available online.

Despite this, he is pushing ahead with trials of the scheme using six ISPs - Primus, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1.

But even the trials have been heavily discredited, with experts saying the lack of involvement from the three largest ISPs, Telstra, Optus and iiNet, means the trials will not provide much useful data on the effects of internet filtering in the real-world.

Senator Conroy originally pitched the filters as a way to block child porn but - as ISPs, technical experts and many web users feared - the targets have been broadened significantly since then.

ACMA's secret blacklist, which will form the basis of the mandatory censorship regime, contains 1370 sites, only 674 of which relate to depictions of children under 18. A significant portion - 506 sites - would be classified R18+ and X18+, which is legal to view but would be blocked for everyone under the proposal.

This week Senator Conroy said there was "a very strong case for blocking" other legal content that has been "refused classification". According to the classification code, this includes sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality".

And last month, ACMA added an anti-abortion website to its blacklist because it showed photographs of what appears to be aborted foetuses. The Government has said it was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond.

Xenophon said instead of implementing a blanket mandatory censorship regime the Government should instead put the money towards educating parents on how to supervise their kids online and tackling "pedophiles through cracking open those peer-to-peer groups".

Technical experts have said the filters proposed by the Government would do nothing to block child porn being transferred on encrypted peer-to-peer networks.

"I'm very skeptical that the Government is going down the best path on this," said Xenophon.

"I commend their intentions but I think the implementation of this could almost be counter-productive and I think the money could be better spent."

The policy has attracted opposition from online consumers, lobby groups, ISPs, network administrators, some children's welfare groups, the Opposition, the Greens, NSW Young Labor and even the conservative Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who famously tried to censor the chef Gordon Ramsay's swearing on television.

This week, a national telephone poll of 1100 people, conducted by Galaxy and commissioned by online activist group GetUp, found that only 5 per cent of Australians want ISPs to be responsible for protecting children online and only 4 per cent want Government to have this responsibility.

A recent survey by Netspace of 10,000 of the ISP's customers found 61 per cent strongly opposed mandatory internet filtering with only 6.3 per cent strongly agreeing with the policy.

An expert report, handed to the Government last February but kept secret until December after it was uncovered by the Herald, concluded the proposed scheme was fundamentally flawed.

Even Labor has previously opposed ISP-level internet filtering when the Howard Government raised it as a method for protecting kids online.

"Unfortunately, such a short memory regarding the debate in 1999 about internet content has led the coalition to already offer support for greater censorship by actively considering proposals for unworkable, quick fixes that involve filtering the internet at the ISP level," Labor Senator Kate Lundy said in 2003.

---

quote:

---

THE Federal Government's internet filtering plan has been compared to censorship in China by one of the participants in its blacklist trials.

Primus Telecom is the largest internet service provider of six announced to take part in the trial by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

General manager of marketing and products Andrew Sims said while web filtering services suited some families, they should not be made compulsory.

"We've got instances of that around the world, particularly in China where the government forces filtering upon their population," he said.

"My professional opinion is I don't really believe that forced filtering is a good option."

Under the Government's plan, all Australian internet providers will be forced to block a secret blacklist of websites maintained by the media watchdog.

A secondary filter will be created to block material inappropriate for children, but users will be allowed to opt-out of this tier.

---

quote:

---

The federal government proposal as it currently stands suggests two levels of filtering:

• a limited list of websites that will be mandatory for ISPs to block for all users

---

quote:

---

• a more comprehensive, optional filtering level allowing for the filtering of a greater breadth of unwanted content.

---

quote:

---

Nine Super Bloggers will argue for and against filtering and thrash out the technical problems with the project.

---

quote:

---

AUSTRALIA'S three largest internet service providers will not be included in the Federal Government's first trial of web filtering technology.

Optus and iiNet were both absent from the list of six companies to take part in the trial, announced this evening by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

Both providers had applied to take part in the tests. The country's biggest provider Telstra shunned the scheme last year.

The six providers announced to take part were:

Primus Telecommunications

Tech 2U

Webshield

OMNIconnect

Netforce

Highway 1

---

"The Government is committed to take an evidence-based approach to implementing its cyber-safety policy and these trials will provide valuable information to inform our approach," Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said."

quote:

---

For over 25 years I have worked in Australia and overseas to prevent the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. One of the most horrendous developments that we have experienced in the last 15 years is the dramatic explosion in the global trade of child sexual abuse images on the internet.

While you would say it is considered an issue and no one is arguing that, the big picture says we need more than this, a lot more if the internet is to be strong and survive.

---

quote:

---

A DEATH threat has been made against a vocal opponent of the Federal Government’s web filtering plan in a grim escalation of the already heated debate.

Online rights campaigner Geordie Guy received a threatening phone message last month after publicly disagreeing with an article supporting the filtering scheme.

"I got home from work and found a message on my answering machine telling me to keep my name out of the paper," he said.

"It said to 'cut the libertarian bullsh—' or I'd be sorry."

Under the Government's controversial plan all Australians will be served a "clean feed" by internet service providers, with websites on a secret blacklist blocked.

Mr Guy, a member of online civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia, has been an outspoken critic of the plan and has been regularly quoted in newspapers.

He said police were concerned as the threat appeared to be made from a public telephone.

"My wife was very concerned. It was very unfortunate she had to hear that," he said.

Mr Guy said it was likely the caller found his home number after his suburb was printed next to a letter responding to an opinion piece written by Australian Christian Lobby managing director Jim Wallace in January.

---

quote:

---

In a post on his department's blog, Senator Conroy today said technology that could filter data sent directly between computers would be tested as part of the upcoming live filtering trial.

"Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial," Senator Conroy said

---

quote:

---

Often these 'statistics' are promulgated without source citation. Section 2 of this paper identifies the origin/source of such 'statistics' and documents the history of same where 'information laundering' has occurred (i.e. the source or detail has been changed in the course of repetition). Section 3 provides information about estimates/statistics originating more recently, and which appear more likely to have some connection with reality. Section 4 documents some examples of Australian media misreporting about web sites and police operations which may contribute to false perceptions about the number of web sites containing child sexual abuse material.

---

quote:

---

In Ireland, that once great bastion of conservative Catholicism a recent attempt to ban pornography by an activist group with some support from a minority of ministers was laughed out of parliament, in Poland another stronghold of the church the President of the nation intervened to quash an attempt by rightists to ban the sale pornographic images. In societies generally regarded as traditional such as Turkey, Greece and Portugal one can freely sell non-violent pornography. In fact the only countries outside of Africa, Asia and the Middle East that ban the sale of pornography are Cuba, a few small Pacific nations and.............Australia.

This may surprise many readers, and rightly so. Of all places Australia would, at first glance, seem the least likely nation to be a bastion of censorship and suppression of individual rights. Australia appears to be about as ‘new world’ as any country gets, its inhabitants would be close to the least religious population on the planet. On the surface Australia appears to be modern and progressive, however this initial impression is deceiving. To date it is illegal and punishable by imprisonment to sell pornography in all Australian states. The Australian govenment also has developed an appetite for banning video games and much of X-box's biggest titles remain forbidden and out of reach for Australians. Non pornographic films have also been excluded from cinemas by Australia's much feared and notoriously heavy-handed Censorship Board

The reality is that behind Australia’s slick veneer lies a ‘redneck’ heart. The nations past as a penal colony dictates much of Australia’s democratic traditions: limited at best. Australia has no bill of rights and freedom of expression is not enshrined in any charter. The traditional apathy Australians have for politics is working to take Australia out of the modern era. It appears the only people motivated enough to get involved in politics are religious puritans: Australia’s new prime Minister Kevin Rudd included, a former Christian youth activist known for his piety. Never mind his recent visit to a New York strip club. It seems he is more than happy to deny Australians the same pleasures. Most puritans tend to work on that basis.

Sexual misdemeanours in fact are so common within the ruling Labor party that they barely raise an eyebrow. At least two senior ministers from this social justice party have recently been convicted of serious crimes of a sexual nature and there have been numerous allegations regarding other high ranking members. Yet when it comes to censorship of what in any other country would be harmless legal entertainment, the Labor party can been relied upon by small but vocal church groups to take a stand.

The slightly undemocratic nature of Australian democracy whereby isolated regional backwaters tend to have far more political power has helped the censorship junkies. Tasmania with a population of 500,000 has as many senators as New South Wales with a population of over 7,000 000. It is this anomaly that has allowed censorship to thrive. Much of Australia’s current censorship laws, particularly the ones that forbid Australians to publish pornography on the internet were pushed through by a religious extremist senator from Tasmania by the name of Brian Harradine, who used the pornography ticket to hold up important legislation: he got into parliament with less than 15,000 votes. He also had no qualms aboout forcing his beliefs on people that never would have or could have voted for him.

This flaw in Australian society whereby a fairly laid back population is governed by conservative elements with little regard for individual rights might prove Australia’s undoing. Presently the ruling Labor party is putting into place a national mandatory internet filtering program, whereby the internet will be censored at ISP level. These measures have been sponsored and promoted by minority right-wing Christian groups who have threatened to block legislation that Labor is concerned with unless their demands are met. No democracy has yet attempted to censor the internet in this way. It appears that all pornography will be blocked, to start with. Having succeeded there the religious groups that have pushed for this development might well end up insisting that any site that goes against their religious beliefs be blocked, and it is hardly out of the question that the government of the day might end up blocking sites that don't suit its agenda. Australia will be joining countries like Iran and North Korea in this latest assualt on freedom of expression.

Another cultural factor contributing to this culture of censorship harks back to Australia's early days as a colony. Populated by people that were regarded as having a low status within the British class structure Australia was said to be a hotbed of vice, sin and hedonism. Throughout the Twentieth Century the population was encouraged to forget their origins and become 'respectable'. This attitude remains and should any agenda driven religious activist dare mention the words 'family values' Australians will run for cover: no one dares be seen as not supporting Victorian era notions of family. The current swoop on the internet, we are told, is all in the name of 'protecting the children', the famous refrain of history's worst dictators.

With Australia’s apathy towards civil liberties (anyone remember the boat people who were recently carted off to prison islands?) freedom of expression can be easily sacrificed. Many are predicting the new measures will spell the end of the information age in Australia, some tests are showing that internet speeds will be affected so severely the internet will become unworkable. Australia's communications minister Mr Stephen Conroy is pushing ahead with 'mandatory filtering' nonetheless. Australia has lost touched with modern western values, perhaps partly due to its geographic isolation. It’s traditional apathy for anything beyond sport, property and digging stuff out of the ground and selling it to China may result in the nations demise. Perhaps this type of endemic 'yob culture' is what brought civilizations down in the past. Is it too late for Australia?

---

quote:

---

We are at a stand-off, at one of the critical digital infrastructure junctions in the nation's history. The bottom line is that the Government may think it knows best in terms of delivering the broadband network to rival network Terria, absent a bid by Telstra. But on Utting's account the voters say otherwise.

The Government, represented by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, and Telstra appear to be on a collision course. Telstra is intent on staring down Conroy by not bidding if the minister insists on a wholesale-retail entity break-up as result of any successful tender. Conroy for his part seems hell-bent on going through with an ultimately non-competitive bidding process that may end up with a monopolistic solution to a problem that should have been settled by less prescriptive means.

---

quote:

---

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner says the government will adopt Sir Peter's "package of targeted strategies and actions" to improve the use of ICT in public administration and service delivery.

"This decision represents the most significant change in the use and management of ICT in the Australian Government to date," Mr Tanner said. "We will act decisively in applying the recommendations.

---

said by FunnyBones :

Won't somebody think of the children?

The way this has been promoted is that it will protect your children but they still have the green light.

quote:

---

The scheme will require ISPs to offer a "clean-feed" web service to all homes, schools and public internet access points

---

said by OZO :

One of the basic principles of communism is the belief that government knows how to make people live better and therefore has intrinsic right to enforce it on them. Government is the Big Brother (or rather a Big Father here). It has needed power, resources (given by people) and a will to do whatever it takes to achieve the goal (a better life, whatever it means).

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.

Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government.

As a political movement, communism sought to overthrow capitalism through a workers’ revolution and establish a system in which property is owned by the community as a whole rather than by individuals. In theory, communism would create a classless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal social and economic status.

quote:

---

ISP boss pledges to undermine Great Aussie Firewall
Stupid plan is stupid

The Australian technology industry is starting to fight back against the government plan to force all ISPs to filter everyone's internet access.

Michael Malone, boss of iiNet, an Australian ISP with 700,000 customers, said his firm would take part in the trial, but only in order to show the government how stupid it was. Malone described communications minister Stephen Conroy as the worst minister in the internet's 15-year history.

The scheme would force ISPs to offer two types of internet access - one filtered for children and one filtered for adult Australians.

Conroy did not help his cause with a muddled performance in the Australian Senate. Conroy said the pilot would filter a blacklist from the Australian Communications and Media Authority as well as "other unwanted content". ACMA's blacklist includes 1,300 web addresses and another 10,000 would be added to this list. But he failed to answer Senator Scott Ludlam's question as to what "unwanted" meant.

The trial will test the impact on internet speeds as well as costs for providers.

Conroy said the government was aware of technical concerns and happy to have an open debate. He urged the industry to step forward and engage with government.

For his part Malone said he would join the "ridiculous" trial only in order to show the government that the filter would be simple to bypass, would not check peer-to-peer traffic and would slow network speeds.

Malone told the Sydney Morning Herald: "They're not listening to the experts, they're not listening to the industry, they're not listening to consumers, so perhaps some hard numbers will actually help.

"Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we'll be publicising it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we'll be publicising it."

The trial is due to start on Christmas Eve.

---

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. :D

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?

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.

---

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 Conroy’s 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.

---

quote:

---

Bypass Australia's internet filters for free

According to the government's own research, the filtering will degrade network performance by between 20 and 75 per cent - which makes a joke of plans for a faster national network. Civil libertarians also argue that censorship is a slippery slope, a concern heightened by the fact that those supporting the filtering are already talking about expanding it to include other stuff they don't like...

The proposed filtering [will] give a handful of right wing nutjobs the power to control what we can see online. The fact the government wants to keep the list of banned sites a secret, and has tried to censor people speaking out against the filtering plans, should be ringing alarm bells.

Any school kid will tell you that bypassing internet filtering is ridiculously easy. One simple trick is to use a free web proxy...[do a Google search]

Another trick for bypassing filters is to dig an encrypted tunnel to the United States. It sounds complicated, but it's free and ridiculously easy to do and neither the government nor your ISP can see what you're up to.

Two popular free VPN applications are HotSpot Shield (Mac and Windows) and AlwaysVPN (Mac, Windows, Linux). They add an advertising banner to your browser, which is a small price to pay.

If you're prepared to spend $5 per month for a faster connection you could look at Witopia and VPNOut. You don't need to know anything about networking and there's no messy configuration, you run the installers and they just work.

These applications give you dual citizenship as, with the click of a button, your computer looks like its in the United States. Your digital Green Card means you can access US-only content from sites such as Rhapsody, Pandora, YouTube and Hulu. It also means you're bypassing any content filtering performed by your Australian ISP, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Australia's plans for mandatory content filtering will screw up the internet and give right wing nutjobs the power censor what we see, yet it won't actually stop people who want to access banned sites.

If Australia goes through with plans to censor the internet, you can be sure civil libertarians will do everything they can to make bypass software freely available to everyone - as they've done in other totalitarian regimes.

If you're concerned about the Australian government's plans for filtering the internet, it's time to speak up before it's too late. Visit NoCleanFeed.com, run by Electronic Frontiers Australia, for information on how to voice your concerns. Do it quickly, before some holier-than-thou git decides you're not allowed to see that site either.

---

quote:

---

Support fades for Australian net censorship

The Australian government’s plans to censor all web content at the borders of the country looks in danger of coming unstuck.

"I think it's really quite misguided," Senator Ludlam of the Greens told the Sydney Morning Herald.

Calling the plan “daft” the green party has indicated it will stop the proposals going ahead by withdrawing support for the measure.

Internet service providers are also up in arms about the proposals, which they say will slow down Australia’s already slow internet speeds to a crawl.

Businesses too are protesting that the move will hamper their efforts to build an effective online marketplace for Australia’s goods.

---

quote:

---

Australia will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.

The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pornography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

---

said by Doctor Four :

The leaders of Australia's three largest ISPs, Telstra, iiNet and Internode, say that ISP based filtering will not work,
and they detailed technical, legal and ethical reasons why:

»www.zdnet.com.au/insight/communi···8,00.htm

quote:

---

Hackett says that from a technical standpoint, introducing filtering is expensive . . .

---

said by EGeezer :

said by a4nic8er :
The "Lefties" never cease to amaze me with their "We know what's best for you" agendas.

In the United States, it seems to be the "righties" that are advocating censoring... The "lefties", in the form of the ACLU and EFF, are the ones that are opposing internet control.

quote:

---

Censorship is the province of authoritarian states such as China, Cuba, Myanmar and … Australia? This week, we learned that the land down under has been working up plans to censor the Web centrally, and force Internet service providers to make sure that certain content never reaches their subscribers.

The Great Firewall of Australia, as folks are calling it, is being built for the most laudable of reasons, including stopping child pornography. But good intentions are a well-documented paving material. Now other Australian legislators are proposing that the system be expanded to block off even legal adult materials (at least for certain subscribers) or online casinos, which are illegal there.

Censoring the Internet by filtering the tubes that connect it together is tempting, whether you're trying to protect children, prevent terrorism or crack down on movie piracy. But while people must be held accountable for their words, they first need to be able to speak without restraint. That's the point of free speech. Filtering at this level prevents free expression in the first place, and if you think it can't happen in a Western democracy, then I've got a large rock in the Outback to sell you.

---

said by EGeezer :

On a related subject, Ted Stevens (R-AK) knows what's best for us. He demonstrated his amazing grasp of technology most articulately in his famous "series of tubes" speech.

You mean this guy?

Human history 101 --

Since the dawn of human history...
- Lesson #1: any power and means to enslave people, in whatever forms, will always be exercised someday by somebody in authority for some reason.
- Lesson #2: it's always easier to prevent the chains of enslavement from being created and put in place than to remove them after they're around one's wrists and lives.
- Lesson #3: mankind simply will not learn from lessons #1 and #2 taught to earlier peoples.

quote:

---

In Australia's muddy Internet waters, you don't know what's being filtered

An Australian law expert has warned that under the government's proposed mandatory Internet content filtering scheme Australians will have no way of finding out what "illegal" content has been censored and blocked online,

The warning comes as Greens party Senator Scott Ludlam voiced concern over Communications minister Stephen Conroy's ambiguity regarding exactly what content will or won't be blocked, and who will be able to opt-out of the filtering.

Conroy's mandatory Internet filtering proposal caused a stir last week when it was revealed a member of his department had tried to censor severely critical comments made on the Whirlpool broadband forum by an Internode network engineer regarding the merits of ISP level filtering.

Graham Bassett is a barrister at Byron Bar Chambers and has taught Internet Law at Queensland University of Technology. Bassett told Computerworld Australia that under current non-digital censorship laws a schedule of content that has been censored is made available to the public. However no such freedom of information will be available for public access to monitor what is censored and blocked under the government's mandatory Internet filtering scheme.

Bassett pointed to a Freedom of Information (FOI) application lodged by the Electronic Frontiers Association (EFA) in February 2000 to obtain information about Internet content that had been the subject of a complaint to the then Australian Broadcasting Authority (now ACMA) under Internet censorship laws that came into force on January 1, 2000.

EFA chair Dale Clapperton told the magazine that the government refused to provide that information and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal accepted the government's argument that making that information public would undermine its work with international law enforcement agencies.

"The government at some stage along the way actually amended the Freedom of Information Act to say that this type of information could not be FOI'd," Clapperton said, warning that the ramifications of that ruling mean the list of Web sites put on Conroy's proposed blacklist will not be accessible to the public.

"We're not permitted to know what is on it - essentially we have to take their word for it. That was bad before when the blacklist was just being provided to manufacturers of filtering software, but now that the government is proposing to block access to everything on that blacklist by every Australian, it is unspeakably bad."

Bassett confirmed that Australians will have no recourse to determine what has been blocked, once it is on the blacklist. "If you have a situation where what is being banned is never made public, then how do we know that there hasn't been an extension beyond material which infringes censorship publication, for example a political party or some people that might be defined as a terrorist organization? The content becomes based upon whatever might be the whims of the people controlling those filters and the services that report to the filters," he said.

Bassett said the EFA's unsuccessful bid to access the ABA's list of banned online content under FOI laws means that particular legal avenue to establish what falls under mandatory filtering is a no through road. Australians, he reminded, have no explicit freedom of speech within the constitution.

"There are cases under the constitution where for example there is freedom of speech in relation to political expression, and that's been held in a number of cases. For example, in the future if you did find or were able to get evidence showing that some political group has been added to these filters, particularly at the ISP level that never gets seen by people, there might be some room for challenge there. But if those filters don't get published, how will you ever know?"

Bassett said the term "illegal" in an online context is ambiguous, where child pornography, defamatory material or content that violates copyright infringement could all be considered "illegal" content.

Clapperton warned that we are already seeing special interest groups pressuring the government to add so-called "illegal" content to the blacklist. "[Independent Senator Nick] Xenophon has said he wants to block access to Internet gambling sites because they are supposedly illegal; the copyright holders will want to block access to all the Web sites on their sh** list; the Muslim lobby groups will probably want to block access to the Catch The Fire Christian Ministries because they are inciting racial hatred; the Jewish lobby groups will want to block access to Frederick Tobin, any other holocaust-denying Web sites and Hamas; and the Family First Senator [Steve] Fielding has said he wants to block access to "pro-anorexia" Web sites.

"Every organization with an axe to grind and any kind of political clout will be lobbying the government to extend the blacklist to block access to whatever it is that pisses them off. They don't even tell the operators of a site that it has been blacklisted, which as a practical matter means there is no appeal for these decisions. In the case of a false positive it is really dependent on somebody discovering it by chance," he said.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam grilled Senator Conroy during a Senate Estimates hearing last week over the details of what will be considered "illegal" under the filtering scheme, and what level of filtering users will be able to opt-out of. "I'm no clearer than I was before the conversation I had with the Minister last week. What I think they are trying to do is have two levels: One level where everything which is "illegal" would be blocked, and there would be a less restrictive list of material that would be automatically blocked and you can opt-out of that. I don't think they are all that clear themselves how that is going to be technically possible," he told Computerworld.

Ludlam questioned Conroy's comparison of Australia as following other countries such as the U.K., Canada and New Zealand where filtering of blacklist material had been introduced. "It got really muddy around the subject of what other countries were doing, and what would be considered mandatory and what would be opt-out. He really muddied the waters on the countries that they are trying to compare us to. My understanding is not a single one of them has instituted or even seriously tried to institute mandatory content blocking. As far as I am aware they are all trialling optional content blocking," he said.

"None of them are really having a proper go at mandatory filtering. When you look at the countries that are attempting mandatory filtering of "illegal" content on the Net, it's a very different set of countries: China, Burma, the UAE and other places."

One gaping chink in Conroy's filtering armor is its inability to block data transferred over peer-to-peer networks, which is estimated to account for upwards of 60 per cent of all Internet traffic.

Ludlam believes Conroy's lack of clarity over what will and won't be blocked can be attributed to the government still being at the early stage of trialling the filtering technology, which also explains why no path has yet been set for the mandatory filtering to make its way into legislation.

"My understanding is that the tests they have conducted to date weren't all that promising; I don't think they know for themselves exactly how this is going to work. My personal opinion is that it's probably going to fail, and if it doesn't fail it's going to be dangerous. In the meantime we should really be spending the money that they are putting towards this on old fashioned law enforcement, and on the education programs that we already have," he said.

"I'm all for opt-in blocking. If parents want to be able to choose the level of protection in their own homes or if people just basically don't want to run the risk of being exposed to objectionable material they should be given world-class opt-in provisions."

---

quote:

---

New internet filter imposed on all web surfers

Australian internet users will be subjected to the new nationwide World Wide Web filter, whether they want to participate in the scheme or not.

Web users will only be able to opt out of a secondary layer of internet censorship affecting adults-only material under the revised plan and both web filters will apply by default.

The admission, aired in the Senate last week, has been slammed by civil liberties and internet groups, who brand the change a "creeping" and "unprecedented" attack on personal freedom.

The Federal Government announced its ambitious web censorship plan in December 2007, committing $44.2 million and four years.

The filter was due to be implemented by internet service providers, such as Telstra BigPond and OptusNet, who would block inappropriate material as determined the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

Following the announcements, ACMA conducted a laboratory trial of six internet software filters, reporting in June that the software had improved in accuracy and speed since a 2005 survey, but still had significant problems.

The six software filters slowed the speed of internet access down by at least 2 per cent and as much as 87 per cent, the report found. Filters also unnecessarily blocked access to between 1 and 8 per cent of legitimate sites - a glitch that would significantly restrict web access.

Despite these issues, Senator Conroy told a Senate Estimates Committee last week that the Government was now pursuing "live" trials of internet filters. Large and small internet service providers will be asked to participate by testing different filtering technology - hardware and software - on web-surfing volunteers.

Conroy says the live trials will be designed to "ensure that we do not have the impact that some wild claims make", although he admits the Government has not set benchmarks for what is an acceptable level of "overblocking" or unnecessarily banning websites.

The live trials are due to begin before the end of the year, with results due early next year.

Internet Industry Association chief executive Peter Coroneos says some ISPs are keen to participate in the trials as "they want to know for themselves what the issues are and they want to provide some quality input back to the Government on what the real issues are".

Senator Conroy says the Australian internet filter will block access to some sites for all Australian internet users, canning the option to opt out.

"We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material," he says.

"We are in the early stages, but we are looking at two tiers: mandatory (blocking) of illegal material and an option for families to get a clean feed service if they wish.

"In terms of the policy, what we are investigating is whether it is possible to ensure that people can opt out of an ISP filter if they wanted to look at material that is legal, as opposed to not allowing an opt-out for material that is illegal."

Senator Conroy says guidelines for banned material in both tiers is yet to be determined, with controversial subjects such as euthanasia and pro-anorexia websites falling into grey legal areas.

Electronic Frontiers Association board member Colin Jacobs says this lack of information over which material will be banned is one of several concerns the civil liberties group has with the Government's proposal.

Mr Jacobs says the "creeping scope" of the internet filter was a serious cause for concern and would mean that any internet speed decrease as a result of the scheme would be felt by all Australian internet users.

It is a concern echoed by the System Administrators Guild of Australia, who argue that the scheme will increase the cost of internet access as ISPs pass on the cost of filtering websites.

SAGE president Donna Ashelford says the scheme will also fail to filter two-thirds of internet traffic, much of which is carried over peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent.

"Aside from the commercial and technical impact such legislation will have on a variety of sectors within the IT industry in Australia, technical Band-aids are invariably ineffective in addressing the root causes of social problems," Ashelford says.

---

quote:

---

AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.

The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".

Mr Conroy said trials were yet to be carried out, but "we are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material."

The net nanny proposal was originally going to allow Australians who wanted uncensored access to the web the option of contacting their internet service provider to be excluded from the service.

Human Rights Watch has condemned internet censorship, and argued to the US Senate "there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, (and) want to control it"

Groups including the System Administrators Guild of Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia have attacked the proposal, saying it would unfairly restrict Australians' access to the web, slow internet speeds and raise the price of internet access.

EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child pornography, as it would not cover file-sharing networks.

"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child pornography it would be a different debate," he said.

The technology companies' move, which follows criticism that the companies were assisting censorship of the internet in nations such as China, requires them to narrowly interpret government requests for information or censorship and to fight to minimise cooperation.

The initiative provides a systematic approach to "work together in resisting efforts by governments that seek to enlist companies in acts of censorship and surveillance that violate international standards", the participants said.

In a statement, Yahoo co-founder and chief executive Jerry Yang welcomed the new code of conduct.

"These principles provide a valuable roadmap for companies like Yahoo operating in markets where freedom of expression and privacy are unfairly restricted," he said.

"Yahoo was founded on the belief that promoting access to information can enrich people's lives, and the principles we unveil today reflect our determination that our actions match our values around the world."

Yahoo was thrust into the forefront of the online rights issue after the Californian company helped Chinese police identify cyber dissidents whose supposed crime was expressing their views online.

China exercises strict control over the internet, blocking sites linked to Chinese dissidents, the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement, the Tibetan government-in-exile and those with information on the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.

A number of US companies, including Microsoft, Cisco, Google and Yahoo, have been hauled before the US Congress in recent years and accused of complicity in building the "Great Firewall of China".

The Australian Christian Lobby, however, has welcomed the proposals.

Managing director Jim Wallace said the measures were needed.

"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access," Mr Wallace said.

---