Australian plan to block websites sparks anger

[Praxius]

CTV.ca | Australian plan to block websites sparks anger

SYDNEY, Australia -- A proposed Internet filter dubbed the "Great Aussie Firewall" is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 websites prohibited by the government - mostly child pornography, excessive violence, instructions in crime or drug use and advocacy of terrorism.

Hundreds protested in state capitals earlier this month.

"This is obviously censorship," said Justin Smith, 29, organizer of protests in Melbourne.

The list of prohibited sites, which the government isn't making public, is arbitrary and not subject to legal scrutiny, Smith said, leaving it to the government or legislators to pursue their own online agendas.

"I think the money would be better spent in investing in law enforcement and targeting producers of child porn," he said.

Internet providers say a filter could slow browsing speeds, and many question whether it would achieve its intended goals. Illegal material such as child pornography is often traded on peer-to-peer networks or chats, which would not be covered by the filter.

"People don't openly post child porn, the same way you can't walk into a store in Sydney and buy a machine-gun," said Geordie Guy, spokesman for Electronic Frontiers Australia, an Internet advocacy organization. "A filter of this nature only blocks material on public websites. But illicit material ... is traded on the black market, through secret channels."

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy proposed the filter earlier this year, following up on a promise of the year-old Labour party government to make the Internet cleaner and safer.

"This is not an argument about free speech," he said in an email to The Associated Press. "We have laws about the sort of material that is acceptable across all mediums and the Internet is no different. Currently, some material is banned and we are simply seeking to use technology to ensure those bans are working."

Jim Wallace, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, welcomed the proposed filter as "an important safeguard for families worried about their children inadvertently coming across this material on the Net."

What?

You're own computer comes with a plithora of programs and features to block this sort of stuff in the first place.

That's a poor excuse.

Conroy's office said a peer-to-peer filter could be considered. Most of today's filters are unable to do that, though companies are developing the technology.

The plan, which would have to be approved by parliament, has two tiers. A mandatory filter would block sites on an existing blacklist determined by the Australian Communications Media Authority. An optional filter would block adult content.

The latter could use keywords to determine which sites to block, a technology that critics say is problematic.

"Filtering technology is not capable of realizing that when we say breasts we're talking about breast cancer, or when we type in sex we may be looking for sexual education," Guy said. "The filter will accidentally block things it's not meant to block."

A laboratory test of six filters for the Australian Communications Media Authority found they missed three per cent to 12 per cent of material they should have barred and wrongly blocked access to one per cent to eight per cent of websites. The most accurate filters slowed browsing speeds up to 86 per cent.

The government has invited Internet providers to participate in a live test expected to be completed by the end of June.

The country's largest Internet provider, Telstra BigPond, has declined, but others will take part. Provider iiNet signed on to prove the filter won't work. Managing director Michael Malone said he would collect data to show the government "how stupid it is."

Ah..... nice to hear people say what they really think from time to time.

The government has allocated about $31 million US for the filter, the largest part of a four-year, $89 million cybersafety plan, which also includes funding for investigating online child abuse, education and research.

One of the world's largest child-advocacy groups questions such an allocation of money.

"The filter may not be able to in fact protect children from the core elements of the Internet that they are actually experiencing danger in," said Holly Doel-Mackaway, an adviser with Save the Children. "The filter should be one small part of an overall comprehensive program to educate children and families about using the Internet."

Exactly, all the while using the rest of the money to actually hunt down the perves who seek this stuff out, rather then trying to blanket the whole situation and everybody else with a faulty system.

Australia's proposal is less severe than controls in Egypt and Iran, where bloggers have been imprisoned; in North Korea, where there is virtually no Internet access; or in China, which has a pervasive filtering system.

Internet providers in the West have blocked content at times. In early December, several British providers blocked a Wikipedia entry about heavy metal band Scorpion. The entry included its 1976 "Virgin Killer" album cover, which has an image of a naked underage girl. The Internet Watch Foundation warned providers the image might be illegal.

Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom have filters, but they are voluntary.

In the United States, Pennsylvania briefly imposed requirements for service providers to block child-pornography sites, but a federal court struck down the law because the filters also blocked legitimate sites.

In Australia, a political party named the Australian Sex Party was launched last month in large part to fight the filter, which it believes could block legal pornography, sex education, abortion information and off-colour language.

But ethics professor Clive Hamilton, in a column on the popular Australian website Crikey.com, scoffed at what he called "Net libertarians," who believe freedom of speech is more important than limiting what children can access online.

The problem is you're not just limiting what children can access online, you're limiting everybody.

And what children actually look for child porn on the internet in the first place?

When I was growing up, I looked for regular porn..... jeez.

"The Internet has dramatically changed what children can see," said the professor at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, noting that "a few extra clicks of a mouse" could open sites with photos or videos of extreme or violent sex. "Opponents of ISP filters simply refuse to acknowledge or trivialize the extent of the social problem."

Really?

By all means, I would seriously love to see this guy actually provide an example by typing out something on the internet that a child would commonly search for and prove that porn would show up......

Oh and don't forget to put on the parental controld on the computer he is using to.

Then again, I suppose the guy doesn't even know about those.... in fact, he sounds like he doesn't know much about the subject in the first place.

If you're a parent and you don't put in the proper procedures to prevent your children from accidentally or purposely stumbling onto these sorts of things, then that's your own stupidity and perhaps you shouldn't have a computer until you learn.

But my jebus.... this guys' excuse for this super firewall is so shotty..... He's talking about children accessing child pornography, when as far as I am aware, it's adults who seek that sort of crap out.

When I was a kid, I wanted to see boobs..... kids ain't got boobs, so what's the point? :roll:

 

[DurkaDurka]

The whole concept of Net censoring is retarded. So many ways around it and then there is the fact that this censor only filters http traffic... what about torrents, gnutella, encrypted traffic etc? It's a ham fisted response to problem that requires a solution a little more delicate if one exists at all. Politicians need to stick with what they are good at... taxes etc.

 

[Praxius]

The whole concept of Net censoring is retarded. So many ways around it and then there is the fact that this censor only filters http traffic... what about torrents, gnutella, encrypted traffic etc? It's a ham fisted response to problem that requires a solution a little more delicate if one exists at all. Politicians need to stick with what they are good at... taxes etc.

Indeed.... half of those types of http sites are already blocked, or easily found by police officials and shut down anyways, so there's no real need for this.

And yeah, they did point out that P2P's, Torrents and the sort are not affected by this firewall...... which the greater majority of these types of media are found and shared......

Which in other words, makes the whole thing pointless, it slows down the internet traffic overall and is a simple ploy to make people think they're doing their jobs and fulfilling their election promises with a shoddy and useless process.

 

[shadowshiv]

It also said in the article that these scumwads(paraphrasing that word) don't operate in the open anyhow. They have secret sites to get their trash, and this "blockade" will do nothing at all to curtail it. What a knee-jerk reaction.:roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Do they have a Supreme Court in Australia, similar to USA or Canada? If they do, I don’t see this law seeing the light of day. It will be struck down by the courts.

If Australia still has the old system, where Parliament is supreme and courts cannot overturn the laws passed by the Parliament (they can only make sure that the laws are properly applied), then they could possibly pass such a law.

So it all depends upon what type of democracy they have in Australia. If they have the holdover from Britain whereby the Parliament is supreme (even Britain does not have that system any more, British Parliament can be overruled by the European Court pf Human Rights), then I suppose they could pass such a repressive law.

 

[Francis2004]

If you all recall, the US tried to impose limits and the right to track everyones patterns on the Internet recently. I can assure you the blocks are in place to stop any "software" be peer to peer or proxy that you maybe will allow you to hide..

The infrastructure is not software but rather hardware based and has been in place for a little while, just not utilized..

Think of it as just flicking on the switch and having instant access to following you just as they do with your cell phone.. Every wonder how Google Map knows exactly where you are even tough you have no GPS in your phone ?

 

[Stretch]

Its got nothing to do with child porn!
I good friend of mine is a senior sargent in the Qld police force and was sent to a 3 day conference on ped a fil ia and came home livid. He was more pissed off than I had ever seen him before. He thort he was going down to sydney to learn more on how to catch pedos, but it turned out that it was all about getting the term out there and getting the public used to it.
Aus is basicly the first country to disarm its citizens now its censoring the only real source of undoctored news items.....consider that almost all of australias media is owned by one guy...and we all know who that is.......... it would seem that the people are once again being "setup"

 

[DurkaDurka]

Australia has been on a censorship kick as of late, not just in regards to the www. I recall them banning certain video games freely available here because they are too violent or depraved, same thing with movies.

 

[DurkaDurka]

If you all recall, the US tried to impose limits and the right to track everyones patterns on the Internet recently. I can assure you the blocks are in place to stop any "software" be peer to peer or proxy that you maybe will allow you to hide..

The infrastructure is not software but rather hardware based and has been in place for a little while, just not utilized..

Think of it as just flicking on the switch and having instant access to following you just as they do with your cell phone.. Every wonder how Google Map knows exactly where you are even tough you have no GPS in your phone ?

It's not the government that builds this infrastructure, it's the ISP's. The government basically tells the ISP that you have to block this domain and and accompanying IP address, which is done via access control lists on enterprise routers. To block peer to peer software is a total different thing, that is usually down by the use of packet shaping devices which will send out "reset packets" which causes your file transmission to be constantly requesting the same data over and over. This is already in use by Sympatico/Rogers.

Google Maps knows where you are as it does an IP lookup, which will somewhat accurately determine your location if not behind a corporate proxy etc.

Geotool

 

[Praxius]

Australia has been on a censorship kick as of late, not just in regards to the www. I recall them banning certain video games freely available here because they are too violent or depraved, same thing with movies.

Remember what happened here in North America when Mortal Kombat came out?

Nintendo had to change some of the game around just to be allowed to have it ported to their Super Nintendo E. System, while Sega had coded it so you don't get the blood and such right off the bat.....

I still remember the code too..... ABACABB Start.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Remember what happened here in North America when Mortal Kombat came out?

Nintendo had to change some of the game around just to be allowed to have it ported to their Super Nintendo E. System, while Sega had coded it so you don't get the blood and such right off the bat.....

I still remember the code too..... ABACABB Start.

I don't think I ever played it on console, I remember dumping lots of coins into it at the arcade though.

 

[Praxius]

I don't think I ever played it on console, I remember dumping lots of coins into it at the arcade though.

Bah, I hated those stupid knobby control sticks, as I could never get the moves to work properly..... I'd slide down to forward and low punch to shoot some ice and what happens?

I jumped in the air and punched and then my ass was beaten. On the consoles, it was so much easier to control..... in fact those stupid joystick controls drove me crazy on a number of arcade games.

Maybe I had a defective game or something at the arcade.

But MKII was my weakness..... loads of fun.

But then again, I suppose I should get back on topic.

 

[Machjo]

I'm neither for nor against this law; it would depend on the details.

But as for censorship per se, it's not necessarily bad. What about, for example, censoring phishing scams, etc. Believe it or not, some people have already died from phishing scams. Some of these scammers are murderers, and in the event that they can con the person to meet them somewhere, after the money transfer, they kill the guy. Others have lost large sums of money through spyware, etc., sometimes amounting into the millions of dollars.

So no, I'm not against censorship per se, but some kind of checks and balances would be needed. One possible scenario could involve the following:

1. A legitimate reason is needed to censor the site. For instance, after trying to trace the origin of the site or shut it down and failing owing to jurisdictional conflicts, etc., a site could be blocked in the country as a matter of last resort (after all, if we can prosecute the perpetrator, then we needn't censor the site since we can simply shut it down completely).

2. The site must be proven to be a danger to public safety, such as physhing scams can be.

3. The site legally defames character but is outside the country or jurisdiction and no international law can stop it. Examples might be unprovable smear campaigns, pornography, etc. If pornography is on the internet without the consent of the mature parties concerned, then it must be taken off, and if that's not possible, then censored.

4. A court or parliamentary order would be needed to block the site, with an explanation for its reasons, and the report must be available to members of the public upon request.

There could be other examples, but certainly the internet might need censorship on occasion to protect the rights of the person.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Machjo, ISP's/hosts will usually remove phishing sites instantly if they become aware of them. That's not something we need the government to fix, the government would only make the process slower and cumbersome.

What's a danger to public safety?

A lot of what you suggest makes sense but it's not something the government can do efficiently. Most of what you write about can be rectified by contacting the web host hosting said material.

 

[Machjo]

Machjo, ISP's/hosts will usually remove phishing sites instantly if they become aware of them. That's not something we need the government to fix, the government would only make the process slower and cumbersome.

What's a danger to public safety?

A lot of what you suggest makes sense but it's not something the government can do efficiently. Most of what you write about can be rectified by contacting the web host hosting said material.

I agree. All I'm saying is that I'm not opposed to censorship per se. Certainly if the law can be enforced without censorship, so much the better.

As to the question about public safety, some internet scammers have killed people on occasion after having convinced them to meet somewhere after money or whatever is exchanged. I remember one anti-scamming site a few years ago warning against vigilantes trying to play with scammers or trying to catch them or scam them back, etc. It could backfire, and we never know what kind of person we're dealing with; he might appear safe on-line, but in reality could be quite capable of killing to achieve his ends.

Then again, I wouldn't be too surprised if we have enough laws to deal with this issue already anyway, maybe just a matter of re-interpreting the law. But if I'm wrong, and there is some legal loophole that could compromise public safety, then by all means make the law, but it would need to be clearly and simply defined so all can understand exactly what its purpose is. After all, in a democracy we all have a right to understand the laws that affect us.

 

[Stretch]

I agree. All I'm saying is that I'm not opposed to censorship per se. Certainly if the law can be enforced without censorship, so much the better.

As to the question about public safety, some internet scammers have killed people on occasion after having convinced them to meet somewhere after money or whatever is exchanged. I remember one anti-scamming site a few years ago warning against vigilantes trying to play with scammers or trying to catch them or scam them back, etc. It could backfire, and we never know what kind of person we're dealing with; he might appear safe on-line, but in reality could be quite capable of killing to achieve his ends.

Then again, I wouldn't be too surprised if we have enough laws to deal with this issue already anyway, maybe just a matter of re-interpreting the law. But if I'm wrong, and there is some legal loophole that could compromise public safety, then by all means make the law, but it would need to be clearly and simply defined so all can understand exactly what its purpose is. After all, in a democracy we all have a right to understand the laws that affect us.

Why not make jail unappealing for a start, take away a crims rights, rights are forfeited as soon as the crime is committed. No early release for "good behaviour"....good behaviour starts b4 the crime is committed. "Commit a crime, do a 100% of the time"!

 

[Francis2004]

It's not the government that builds this infrastructure, it's the ISP's.

Its not the ISPs that build the infrastructrure but rather the big system operators like Sun Micro, Microsoft, and so one..

The government basically tells the ISP that you have to block this domain and and accompanying IP address, which is done via access control lists on enterprise routers.

The Governemnt tells doesn't do anything but get sucked in by lobbyiest. They play on the big guys above to get this in place and it have been going on for years.. Now all they need is the Ear of a sympathetic Washtington Pocket..

To block peer to peer software is a total different thing, that is usually down by the use of packet shaping devices which will send out "reset packets" which causes your file transmission to be constantly requesting the same data over and over. This is already in use by Sympatico/Rogers.

You did not read my post did you.. The blocking is done by the HARDWARE hence the Framer and Mappers in the system. A simple command will block all peer to peer programs and that would be done by a Firmware update.

Google Maps knows where you are as it does an IP lookup, which will somewhat accurately determine your location if not behind a corporate proxy etc.
Geotool

Geotool might work on a PC but you cannot explain how it can work on a Cell Phone as I was saying.

The Cell Phone is a mobile yet Mobile Google maps can always tell you within a certain distance where you are without a GPS. The point I was making is that your Cell Phone is always telling your location. This is done by triangulation and is as precise a GPS as that is exactly how GPS systems works with satellites instead of Cell towers.

The point is simple.. Its already in place..

 

[DurkaDurka]

The ISP's build the infrastructure using off the shelf equipment from Cisco & Nortal and the likes. Sun & Microsoft doesn't make networking equipment.

SirFrancis, there isn't a device where you can just switch flip a switch and block all peer to peer traffic. You realize that peer to peer spans many different protocols and ports? You can't shut it down without crippling VPN's, VOIP and various other services.

Fair enough in regards to the triangulation.

 

[Francis2004]

The ISP's build the infrastructure using off the shelf equipment from Cisco & Nortal and the likes. Sun & Microsoft doesn't make networking equipment.

SirFrancis, there isn't a device where you can just switch flip a switch and block all peer to peer traffic. You realize that peer to peer spans many different protocols and ports? You can't shut it down without crippling VPN's, VOIP and various other services.

Fair enough in regards to the triangulation.

Yes I understand the Internet very well.. Seeing I have worked with such companies as Broadcom, Silicon Labs, Vitess, Intel, AMD, Cypress, Marvell and so on.. Do you want more credentials or have I proven my point..

Obviously you have not lived in BC and tried to use Vonage on Shaw. They have been successful at blocking or QoS and making Vonage calls unbareable by using the technology I speak of. All the while promoting their own service of VOIP..

Vonage says Shaw breaching net neutrality

By: Mark Els - Network World Canada (14 Mar 2006)



A shift from broader bandwidth to higher quality of service for voice over the Internet is being watched closely by the Canadian telecom industry, with most analysts expressing concern that the move may jeopardize advances in technology.
Calgary-based Shaw Communications Inc. recommends its high-speed Internet users pay an additional $10 monthly fee to ensure voice packets travel first-class on its network, giving priority to VoIP software ahead of other Web-enabled applications.
Vonage Canada has asked for a full investigation by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), calling the fee a VoIP tax and accusing the telco of limiting net neutrality.


Shaw says the fee will pay for network multimedia management technology — traffic shaping tools such as PacketCable 2.0, DOCSIS and Ellacoya’s IP Service Control — that will ensure quality of service for common VoIP software such as Skype, Vonage and MSN Messenger.


Asking for a QoS enhancement fee is one way of changing the model from offering faster and faster speeds, says Brian Sharwood, a principal analyst at SeaBoard Group Inc. in Toronto. “I’m not sure there’s anything particularly inherently wrong with that,” he says.


Sharwood says market forces in Western Canada allow Shaw to operate off a different model for quality of service on its Internet network. Toronto-based Rogers Communications Inc., for example, has gone the other way, he says.


“Rogers feels it’s important that Vonage works on its Internet connections at an acceptable quality level. But the market dynamics are different: Rogers has 50 per cent of the high-speed market and want to win more, whereas Shaw has about 80 per cent of the market out West.”



Sharwood stresses the Internet should not be prioritized for the owner of the pipe and says Shaw’s QoS fee does present some questions. “The customer is buying something that’s quite ethereal. There’s no visibility and there’s no way the end-user can measure QoS.”


Shaw’s concerns about voice quality are quite valid, but a lot depends on how the company implements the services associated with the $10 fee, says George Goodall, a research analyst with London, Ont.-based Info-Tech Research Group Inc.
Goodall says Shaw is justified in levelling the QoS fee. “These are genuine concerns around prioritization for voice packets, and it makes a lot of sense because they’re looking at differentiating network traffic. On a commercial level, these issues are top of mind and businesses pay extra in hardware and service to ensure voice quality,” he says.

Subscription Services

Need I say more...

 

[DurkaDurka]

Yes I understand the Internet very well.. Seeing I have worked with such companies as Broadcom, Silicon Labs, Vitess, Intel, AMD, Cypress, Marvell and so on.. Do you want more credentials or have I proven my point..

Obviously you have not lived in BC and tried to use Vonage on Shaw. They have been successful at blocking or QoS and making Vonage calls unbareable by using the technology I speak of. All the while promoting their own service of VOIP..



Subscription Services

Need I say more...

You haven't proven anything. First, it's the magical switch that can shut down peer to peer with a click and now you have morped it into net neutrality and packet shaping, which I already stated was the route most ISP's go with in order to filter unwanted traffic.


No QOS fee's are charged here in Rogers land, they only traffic they shape is P2P at this point.