Internet Filtering Plan
Adam,
I dont know if other site users are interested in this topic. But the Australian Govt is continuing ahead with its plans to implement a compulsory internet filter using a blacklist of Refused Classification Material. There are websites all over the net that are changing their color schemes to black to protest against censorship.
The basic principal is that we are not smart enough to think for ourselves, or police our own children while they are active on the internet. So basically the christian right have decided to look after our interests for us. They will do this by using a tool called the ACMA Blacklist. This is a list currently comprising over 10000 websites that have been "Refused Classification". The list does contain Websites that children should not have access too like pornography, but it also contains websites about: safe sex, drug use and euthenasia. Also on the list is a dentist in QLD who had their website hacked by the russian mafia years back, and although they have changed service providers and removed any innappropriate material they are still on the list.
Refused Classification is also a sticking point. Who is to say they wont expand the list of material that qualifies as refused classification? Also if the filter is about stopping children seeing porn, then R18+ And X Rated films dont qualify for refused classification, as theyhave been dealt a rating.
The filter will also not stop the use of P2P file sharing software. I would say the chance of a child "stumbling" across a porno website and getting past the Credit Card age checks and into the content is far less likely than someone downloading a porno(possibly child porn or bestiality) and burning it to cd and passing it around at school.
Now when you have a blacklist with all this dangerous material, its pretty important to keep it confidential, because if not, it is a roadmap for the crazies to see all the damaging material. How do we know what is on the list? Because it has already leaked once in Australia, and the lists have leaked out in just about every country that has tried to develop filtering system.
The filtering system has already been trialled at some ISP's in Australia, but most notably the top three ISP's refused to participate, and the ISP's that did have a mainly business orientated clientele as opposed to home accounts, so not many children using the internet in the workplace, and not many staff likely looking at dodgy stuff. There has been several hundred thousand dollars spent on this testing and the Government recently touted it as a success. However the filter was tested on our current Internet speeds, and the Government is going to roll out a National Broadband Network which will be many times faster than our currant system, so really the trial is not indicative of future internet activity and as such its results are questionable, but the Government is using it to push on.
Below are the main reasons why we should be against this form of censorship:
-
It won’t protect children: The filter isn’t a “cyber safety” measure to stop kids seeing inappropriate content such as R and X rated websites. It is not even designed to prevent the spread of illegal material where it is most often found (chat rooms, peer-to-peer file sharing).
-
We will all pay for this ineffective solution: Under this policy, ISPs will be forced to charge more for consumer and business broadband. Several hundred thousand dollars has already been spent to test the filter – without considering high-speed services such as the National Broadband Network!
-
A dangerous precedent: We stand to join a small club of countries which impose centralised Internet censorship such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The secret blacklist may be limited to “Refused Classification” content for now, but what might a future Australian Government choose to block?
Any chance Fishwrecked might be able to join the protest if other site users agree?
Some reference material:
http://www.internetblackout.com.au/
http://stephen-conroy.com/news.php
Will you punish Labor at the next Federal Election if they persist with mandatory internet filtering?
Yes Votes: 10095 | 96.34%
No Votes: 381 | 3.64%
Help make the internet all that it can be, by not letting someone else decide what you can or cannot see!
Bryan
7739ian
Posts: 948
Date Joined: 25/06/08
Right Sarcasmo!
Your name is now on the list with all the other dissidents- how dare you question Obergruppenfuhrer Rudd! I could not agree more, when you compare the bloody laws and regulations we live with now to 30 years ago it's frightening. It is always for OUR good. If i want to have a quiet drink at the fireworks, why shouldn't i? The yobbos who can't drink responsibly should be dye marked on the forehead and ejected. I can't camp responsibly on the beaches, i can't drive responsibly off road to get to a lot of them anyway. I can't remove trees on my own property and i pay taxes so a load of bludging parasites in 3 tiers of government can blow the money on junkets overseas. You can see why the loony fringe in the US load up the AK47 and hunker down to shoot a few Feds.
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
The problem with this whole
The problem with this whole thing is Conroy is doing a Mrs. Lovejoy "Wont somebody please think of the children" and saying we need this to protect children online. However, its just a thinly veiled farce to cover up the real reason they want this - to control what information adults see on the internet. By saying "its for the children" they can just basically say that anyone against it must be against children too. Unfortunately if the majority believe this, then it doesnt matter if its a thinly veiled cover (in terms of getting voted in/off and majority support for/against).
Conroy is pretty vague about how it will actually help children. First, it doesnt prevent children from accessing inappropriate material. Its not overly hard to find adult material on the internet that is not suitable for children, but is completely legal for adults to view (you dont need a credit card or anything either). The filter wont block any of this, so it doesnt stop children from accessing adult material. The other way its supposed to help children is to stop access to child porn sites. Fair enough on this one, I doubt most people would be against the scheme if all it blocked was illegal things like child porn.
However, the problem is that the blacklist is almost half is completely legal websites. The government can pretty much add any site it wants to the list, even if its completely legal to view. At the moment, theres only a few questionable things on the list, but it will be very easy for it to 'scope creep'. So it might be stuff that pretty much anyone doesnt want at the moment, but over time it could include stuff that is legal, but the government doesnt want you to see (maybe stuff disparaging them, informative and legal websites, etc).
Conroy calls it "Measures to improve safety of the internet for families" but it doesnt do this at all.
Theres hardly any information on how the blacklist is compiled. Its illegal to view anything on the blacklist, but the blacklist itself is supposed to be hidden and illegal to view. So, theres no direct way to tell if a site is even on the blacklist. Could you imagine what it would be like if you could get traffic fines, while the rules are completely hidden from you?
Theres no real mechanism to remove a site from the blacklist if you somehow found out your site was on it. E.g. say your site was accidently added, or hacked at one point, then good luck trying to get it off (even if its perfectly safe, fine and legal).
They did a test of some filters and found them "100% effective" which is completely impossible from a technical and practical point of view. Explaining why the tests were stupid (e.g. by choice of unknown and allready filterered/slowed ISPs) gets a little complicated, but this analogy explains it well.
Conroy plans to install speed humps every 100m on freeways.
This also sums it up a bit:
talking horse
Posts: 183
Date Joined: 08/07/08
lol
lol
Lamby
Posts: 3145
Date Joined: 04/08/09
Well said Matt, heard the
Well said Matt, heard the dudes at the recent Linux Conference went mad over this! There is not enough media coverage on this subject in the public arena. Why oh why do we keep following the USA and their ideals
Stev0
Posts: 113
Date Joined: 19/12/07
It's such a load of crap and
It's such a load of crap and is just another one of Conroys projects that proves how much of a retard he actually is. The fact that child rights groups are also rejecting the filter says it all:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/330087/child_groups_slam_conroy_isp_filtering_plans/
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/censorsdyne-launched-as-childrens-groups-oppose-filter-but-conroy-says-theyre-wrong/
synthos
Posts: 522
Date Joined: 23/06/07
it will depedn on how they implement it tho
if needed we can use overseas vpn tunnels/proxies as long as trhey are not blacklisted and heck if its porn & movies go old school Newsgroups ;)
they will use the system to block more then just apprant porn its a good excuse sighhh otherwise why blacklist the list
Stev0
Posts: 113
Date Joined: 19/12/07
Synthos, thats pretty much
Synthos, thats pretty much what Hlokks image portrays, they are going to filter content on http/https but none of the other ports, its ridiculous. All the child porn rings will just operate under another secure protocol and get around everything that the govt are trying to accomplish, if they dont already. There are so many flaws in it it's not funny.
Check out this, I dont know how good the source of the article is but if its true its a joke:
http://www.inquisitr.com/59472/millions-of-extra-sites-to-be-censorsed-as-australian-gov-bans-small-breasts-female-ejaculation/
ody
Posts: 581
Date Joined: 30/12/06
Hi Ya, Whether we need a
Hi Ya,
Whether we need a filter or not is question that will be debated for a long time.
The big problem with such a filter is that it is too easy to get a site on the black list for malicious reasons and too hard to get it unlisted again.
It has already been reported that quite a number of innocent sites have been blacklisted because someone got p!ssed off with the site for personal reasons.
I remember years ago we had a commercial filter at work and quite a number of the legitimate businesses I dealt with found them selves barred.
Not a good move in my opinion.
On a similar but different topic, I fully support the current alliance between the various bikie clubs to act against the anti association laws proposed for WA. Again, it will be far to easy for the govt of the day to blacklist associations simply because they disagree with the govt. In my opinion, this is an even greater threat to our freedoms.
Cheers.