Slashdot Mirror

Seems like another argument to take responsibility away from individual users. I'm sure it involves filtering domains that "may be virus vectors and may contain illegal content that the user is being protected from". Little "Great Firewalls" for each ISP? Considering that this is coming from Australia, it might be a part of yet another attempt to push for the creation of a Great Firewall at the ISP level, using "industry standards" to enforce it instead of a law that has to be approved and might be struck down.

Odd considering this man's stance on filtering (pretty similar to the stance of the entire ISP industry and most Aussies)

Q: Why do you oppose it?

For a number of reasons, the first is that we think that in terms of the way that the model is constructed, that it is not going to pick up the kind of content that people really do have issues with online. The volume of content that it is likely to pick up by virtue of the design of the filtering systems is really a drop in the ocean compared to the unsuitable content that is on the internet. And so the fear is that we will be creating a system where people believe that they are safer online, whereas in fact it will only be that content that people complain to the regulator about that is classified, combined perhaps with international input onto lists - but only a few thousand sites at best.

In other words the best you could say about the filter is that it will prevent inadvertent, accidental, access to a very limited number of sites, in the absence of any evidence whether anecdotal or empirical the people are accidentally coming across child pornography, bestiality, rape sites - the kind of sites that the government is seeking to dramatise here. Not in our experience, people are routinely bumping into.

A lot of the content that families really are concerned about for their children - things like violent material, racial hatred material, material which promotes race hate, maybe even just adult content that you wouldn't want your children to see, none of that will be picked up by this filtering solution.

Time to admit you dont know what you're on about.

The author of this little piece cites Peter Coroneos, one who is not in favor of internet censorship. So stop being so paranoid.

Well here is the code of practice http://www.iia.net.au/index.php/section-blog/90-esecurity-code-for-isps/757-esecurity-code-to-protect-australians-online.html

Monitoring is fairly simple, rather than your ISP monitoring your traffic going out in can monitor incoming traffic much the same as your fire wall does and report traffic that you fire wall would reject. Mail server can simply be monitored for the number of email sent per minute/hour/day for spam suspects on residential services.

Typically you would expect you ISP to contact you by phone to notify you of worrisome traffic originating from your connection and politely help you resolve the issue. Should you refuse they could report your connection for more serious investigation and use either throttling or disconnection in the interim dependent upon the nature of traffic that exceeds their terms of service.

The large ISPs disliked the idea because of penny pinching ie. the cost of making the call and informing the customer and helping them resolve the issue (they also the liked the extra traffic charges for zombie machines tough luck for the customer), so reputable mid sized ISPs who were already doing it with their customers were the ones pushing it together with government and consumer organisations.

They call this icode?

I mean, sure, I know the fad, but? ... but ... but ...

Well, we used to call intermediate or interpreted codes i-codes in school. I guess I was living in a different branch of reality or something. I mean byte code is so, well, architecture specific.

BASIC09. Wow. Blast from the past. First loves. Things that might/should have been.

The Australian government was recently considering making it a *criminal* offence http://www.abc.net.au/centralvic/stories/s1787809. htm, http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content &task=view&id=517&Itemid=32:

"Picture the scene: you're holding a birthday party for your child in a public place - say, a park. You sing 'Happy Birthday' - and you're promptly given a $1320 fine."

Hrmm, not sure how reliable i take a report from a company who recommends telstra and optus as good "friendly" ISPs.

Internode? Netspace? TPG?

Ahh, it is becoming clear when you dig a little...

http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content &task=view&id=481&Itemid=52 Showing pricing to become a "member" and have some input and get them to lobby on your behalf.

Just another corporate player :/

I did not invent that. And the laws are not yet there, but they are _pushing_ to get them. I expect to exist in a moment in future some public debate.

I mean, who takes time to develop this crap, and not being noticed???

PS. i'm not australian, but i wouldn't like my grandkids to grow in a such society. Would you?
PPS. i have no idea who kdawson is in reality, i don't know him.
PPPS. you're posting AC, and you accuse of trolling? ha!

According to the PDFs on the site, "Happy Birthday" is copy protected until at least 2030.

I doubt it.

Have never heard of this group anywhere but slashdot. The URL list is indeed kept hidden but the average man in the street is not in the least bit interested in it - i have never come across a site that i cannot get to and from memory the submission is voluntary.

Never heard of EFA? You must be new to the Internet in Australia. Many of us in Australia in a number of organisations and Political parties have banged our head up against the brick wall that is Richard Alston, John Howard and Brian Harradine to get Australia's naive censorhip laws stopped/repealed/fixed. You never saw the "Global Village Idiot" Campaign? The EFA was at the forefront of this campaign. A last minute semi-sensible implimentation was nutted out with the IIA at the 11th hour(see URL ref below)

A country has a right to prohibit the import or availity of certainf thibgs, publcations, movies, pictures, magazines etc - no one will argue that the prohibition of kiddie porn mags is a bad thing (no one i wont shoot on sight will argue it anyway....) but they will argue about this mythical list that may not even exist (no one has ever actually seen it)

The IIA Code of Practice shows that Overseas URLs are not blocked but can become the subject of investigation with cooperation of the relevant overseas authorities. It is the list of sites taken down that is the subject of the secrecy. It is absolute stupidity that the names and description of the sites are not published. The URLs are immaterial. Democracy requires transparency in decision-making, not this secrecy.

The ABA can issue takedown notices to Australian-hosted sites that fail the Censorship guidelines. This just means the site often goes overseas. If the Government says that the list will direct people to disgusting sites, then that means that the takedown of Australian content just caused a relocation of the content. The Overseas Content reported list is still important, however they don't need to quote URLs here either.

Basically i see this as a storm in a teacup and im sure other aussies feel the same way.

The Regulations explained

And here it discusses the type of information blocked...

What is prohibited Internet content? The co-regulatory scheme covers content on World Wide Web sites, Usenet newsgroups and other types of stored information that can be accessed over the Internet. Ordinary email, chat and other content that is accessed in real time (for example, some types of streamed audiovisual content) are not covered by the scheme. Under the Act, the following categories of Internet content are prohibited: * Any Internet content that is classified RC or X by the OFL Classification Board (PDF file - 65k). This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality and material containing excessive violence or sexual violence. * Content hosted in Australia which is classified R (PDF file - 65k) and not subject to a restricted access system. This includes depictions of simulated sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes. Further information about the types of content covered by the scheme is in our complaints section. Internet content that has not been classified but which, if classified, would be prohibited content is regarded as potential prohibited content and is dealt with in a similar to prohibited content. Unless the content is in one of the above categories, the ABA cannot take action over Internet content that you simply don't like or do not agree with. In such cases, you should raise your concerns directly with the operators of the site in question.

And of course this forms part of the NON MANDATORY code of practice Found Here which states

While these Codes are not mandatory, the Broadcasting Services Act provides that once the ABA directs an ISP or content host to comply with a registered code, they must then do so. This is similar to other codes currently operating in the telecommunications industry and forms the practical operation of what is known as 'co-regulation'.

So basically the code is only enforced when you have done something worthy of enforcement - perhaps like hosting kiddie porn sites ?

So what we have is an orginisation who is trying to make a name for itself (having no actual cases to fight in australia aside from this) by filing a freedom of information request that they no doubt knew would fail and then when it does and the press release hits the news getting one of their members to post a story here....

Maybe im cynical but there is no story here that i can see ?

In the last half of 1998, We had a similar case. Here is an extract that is available on the IIA (Internet Industry Association)

In summary, the Australian Performing Rights Association took OzEmail to court because OzEmail refused to pay for a license fee to APRA, at the rate of $1 per subscriber per annum, for allowing the downloading of music over the Internet. APRA represents the interest of artists and is responsible for the collection and distribution of royalties to them for 'performances' of their works. They hold that an ISP is allowing the transmission of a work and therefore should pay a license fee for such.

This case was settled out of court with Ozemail not accepting liability. Here is the settlement.
APRA agreed to cease the action in the Federal Court on the following terms:
A payment by OzEmail on behalf of the industry to be made on 30 June 1998. Each party agreed to meet their own costs
There was no admission of liability by OzEmail Limited
APRA would not sue any other ISP in Australia, which joins in the settlement agreement.
OzEmail, the Internet Industry Association and APRA would work together to advise the government on the appropriate form of new legislation covering their copyright which recognises that those who make available content through the Internet are responsible for the copyright liability of any material they make available. The parties agree that it be clearly enshrined in the legislation that ISPs are not liable for material they host or which passes through their services.
OzEmail makes available on a regular basis information regarding the hosting of sound files, which may assist APRA, with due regard to the privacy of customers and obligations under the IIA Code and the Telecommunications Act. OzEmail will use their best endeavours to have other IIA members provide information to assist APRA in protecting the intellectual property of their members.
OzEmail's terms and conditions reflect the responsibility of content providers to ensure they do not make available material for which they do not have authorisation from the copyright holder.
Should no legislation be enacted by 30 June 1999 the parties agree to renegotiate in good faith

The full offer to Australian ISP's is at http://www.iia.net.au/news/apra.html

In the last half of 1998, We had a similar case. Here is an extract that is available on the IIA (Internet Industry Association)

In summary, the Australian Performing Rights Association took OzEmail to court because OzEmail refused to pay for a license fee to APRA, at the rate of $1 per subscriber per annum, for allowing the downloading of music over the Internet. APRA represents the interest of artists and is responsible for the collection and distribution of royalties to them for 'performances' of their works. They hold that an ISP is allowing the transmission of a work and therefore should pay a license fee for such.

This case was settled out of court with Ozemail not accepting liability. Here is the settlement.
APRA agreed to cease the action in the Federal Court on the following terms:
A payment by OzEmail on behalf of the industry to be made on 30 June 1998. Each party agreed to meet their own costs
There was no admission of liability by OzEmail Limited
APRA would not sue any other ISP in Australia, which joins in the settlement agreement.
OzEmail, the Internet Industry Association and APRA would work together to advise the government on the appropriate form of new legislation covering their copyright which recognises that those who make available content through the Internet are responsible for the copyright liability of any material they make available. The parties agree that it be clearly enshrined in the legislation that ISPs are not liable for material they host or which passes through their services.
OzEmail makes available on a regular basis information regarding the hosting of sound files, which may assist APRA, with due regard to the privacy of customers and obligations under the IIA Code and the Telecommunications Act. OzEmail will use their best endeavours to have other IIA members provide information to assist APRA in protecting the intellectual property of their members.
OzEmail's terms and conditions reflect the responsibility of content providers to ensure they do not make available material for which they do not have authorisation from the copyright holder.
Should no legislation be enacted by 30 June 1999 the parties agree to renegotiate in good faith

The full offer to Australian ISP's is at http://www.iia.net.au/news/apra.html

At an IIA meeting in Sydney Australia around March or April, there were a couple of speakers from the NS W Police Service - Child Protection Enforcement Agency.

The obligations outlined to ISP's in that meeting were that once a valid warrant had been issued, ISP's were obligated to Nb>capture all the packets entering and leaving a users account. Those packets would then be turned over to the Police force whose responsibility it would be to decode them. The ISP would not have to decrypt or de-encode them only capture them as they went from the router to the modem.

These cases were in the prosecuting of Child Porn offenders.

Just some food for thought

Looking at section 12B, all that an ISP is required to do is to "make available to those subscribers, whether for a charge or otherwise, at least one of the facilities, products or services as set out in Schedule 1 of this Code."

[Schedule to be entitled "SCHEDULE 1: Content Control Options". This schedule will include a list of alternative content control measures including client side filtering, optional differentiated services, password controlled limited access systems and other like products or services, provided that those measures are capable of periodical updates so as to cause the exclusion, where practicable, of Prohibited Content, according to information provided in confidence to the suppliers of such measures by the ABA.]

You do *not* have to promise to use it, and there is *no* legal requirement to use it. You are not committing a criminal offence if you don't use the filtering software.

Your ISP doesn't even need to include using the software in your terms of service.

ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO YOU!

If you tell your ISP (truthfully or otherwise) that you already have and use a filter then they don't have to make it available to you.

So the worst case is that you get charged a few dollars for a bit of software you don't use. I think that most ISPs will either absorb the cost or find a free filter. Remember that the filter doesn't have to be sophisticated. It doesn't look for keywords or use rating protocols, it just blocks a list of URLs supplied by the ABA.

Sorry to make this seem less exciting, but I think that the IIA has done a good job -- as long as the ABA agrees to register the code.

And if it discourages seppos from settling here, perhaps we have something to thank Alston for too! :-)

Looking at section 12B, all that an ISP is required to do is to "make available to those subscribers, whether for a charge or otherwise, at least one of the facilities, products or services as set out in Schedule 1 of this Code."

[Schedule to be entitled "SCHEDULE 1: Content Control Options". This schedule will include a list of alternative content control measures including client side filtering, optional differentiated services, password controlled limited access systems and other like products or services, provided that those measures are capable of periodical updates so as to cause the exclusion, where practicable, of Prohibited Content, according to information provided in confidence to the suppliers of such measures by the ABA.]

You do *not* have to promise to use it, and there is *no* legal requirement to use it. You are not committing a criminal offence if you don't use the filtering software.

Your ISP doesn't even need to include using the software in your terms of service.

ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO YOU!

If you tell your ISP (truthfully or otherwise) that you already have and use a filter then they don't have to make it available to you.

So the worst case is that you get charged a few dollars for a bit of software you don't use. I think that most ISPs will either absorb the cost or find a free filter. Remember that the filter doesn't have to be sophisticated. It doesn't look for keywords or use rating protocols, it just blocks a list of URLs supplied by the ABA.

Sorry to make this seem less exciting, but I think that the IIA has done a good job -- as long as the ABA agrees to register the code.

And if it discourages seppos from settling here, perhaps we have something to thank Alston for too! :-)

The reason for this piece of government bullcrap is because the government in Australia decieded that they must appear to do something about the amount of porn freely flowing onto the internet. The people in our government (the Australian Government) even ignored the findings of our government run research organization (CSIRO) who told them that it could not be done.

Thankfully, Peter Coroneos and the IIA have made this law something that can be worked on. A lot of ISP's in Australia thought they where doomed until someone came up with a code that can keep ISP's more or less, government legislation free.

That code is at http://www.iia.net.au/code.html for all of those interested