Slashdot Mirror
Censoring Australian Censors' Blacklist
steveroehrs writes: "'Your access to the Web is being censored by the Government -- but it refuses to reveal exactly what it is we are not allowed to see.' Despite the attempts of Electronic Frontiers Australia in obtaining a copy of the Australian Internet black-list, the Australian government is still refusing to release the list to the public. This is in stark contrast to the situation for film classification, where the list is freely available. Article here "
The irony, the irony.
Not that this is actually happening, but this is typical of what you can expect.
I suppose that someone could do a distributed computing mapping of the australian black list space, and compare it with as database of the real DNS list from outside of AU.
This almost sounds like a version of the land of OZ where the wicked witch never died.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I mean really- if the people are allowed a glimpse at what they're missing, they'll just scream "GIVE IT TO US!!" And that's precisely what the government doesn't want.
Also, if they reveal the list, everyone will start second-guessing their judgements. Anyone can tell you that any slight lack of confidence on behalf of the people is very bad for people in the government. With some people out there, give them a slight reason, and you'll see pipe bombs coming through your front window.
If only there were a way for the government to publish the list without getting themselves deeper in the alligator pit, they would likely do it. But until then, I fear they're SOL.
I may not like our government, but I am thankful for what I have here in the US...
.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
...is that those who make them secret often won't even divulge what it is they've made secret. This is a major problem in a democratic society. In the US we are still dealing with decades of Cold-War-era documents that are difficult to get at. The Freedom of Information Act provides some help, but if you don't know a secret exists, how can you file a request to have it released to you? Also, the gov. is increasingly putting people on trial with secret evidence, that even the defendant and/or their attorney cannot see. This is the sort of thing this country was founded in reaction against.
I sympathize with our Aussie friends on this. At least the USA doesn't have this sort of regime on the Internet (yet).
Speaking of government secrets: ever wonder what the true story is about Bush and the "pretzel?"
Apart from the fact that Australians obviously aren't Free to decide what they would like to view on the Great Network, what measures can a government take?
I mean, if somebody in Australia wanted to, that person could use a proxy somewhere else in the world, where the "forbidden" content is available. Or does the Australian "government" have some really creepy way of filtering stuff out? (Can't think of how that could be possible, without secretly installing rogue software on everybody's computers which would filter content per machine)
Something like that could be attributed to evidence of filtering being a moot point. That the person who would like to view "forbidden" content could do so regardless of the "safeguards" put in by the Australian "government".
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
Think of what's on the list. :)
If I went to the US government and said give a list of the latest warez and porn sites, they'd toss me out on my ear!
This tagline is umop apisdn.
Im a Aussie [Sydney based] who has had the chance to live and work in many difference places around Europe and the US. [Seems to be an Australian cultural thing to get drunk in strange places]
/. like this alot of people who dont understand the country get on their high horses and yell "Australia = facists", "If they had guns they could defend their rights", etc etc.
Our government does some stupid things. Attempting to censor the net is one. When Australia gets mentioned on
When it comes down to it, our government is no more stupid than the next guys. We're still free down here [wish there was more free beer!], and I honestly believe Australia is one of the best places to live in the world.
The man who passed the rule will no longer hold the balance of power in 2 years in the Senate elections, and we can move forward and change policy. This is what a democracy allows us to do.
As a matter of interest for some of you US based people -- Australia has no freedom of speech legislation. This is a myth. The only freedom of speech that is mentioned in the constitution and our laws is that of Political free speech.
Does that make us a a facist state? No. Would we react well to this changing? No.
We may never know.. ;)
-- Dan
When will the conservatives in Australia learn that just because you might want your kids seeing something, doesn't mean you have the right to stop everyone in the country from seeing it? Let parents make their own decisions about censorship, instead of having the government decide what to censor and force it on everyone.
It's obvious that the reason they are keeping the blacklist secret is because they are afraid of public scrutiny and backlash against it. No doubt, like virtually all censorware, they have censored many sites that clearly oughtn't be censored. Australia is not as bad as China, but is certainly working in the same direction.
Censorship accomplishes nothing, and does so at a very high cost: your freedom. Regardless, the government can't stop you from viewing what you want on the net, and there are countless ways to circumvent any censorship. The average computer literate 10 year old could probably bypass australia's censorshp.
-Tuxinatorium
Repeal the DMCA!
My guess is that the government is too embarrassed to show how pitifully few sites have been taken down for the money expended
You need to remember that Alston et all are only really interested in pandering to the popular press, and not in actually making any real changes.
As far as I can make out, I still have unrestricted access to everything I have ever had
i saw this because:
I have NOT been forced to install blocking software
My ISP is not running blocking software (nor any others to my knowledge
If the ABA has taken down a site, I'm sure it's just popped up again overseas
It's probably just more boring pr0n anyway ..
ho , hum , back to work...
The intent of Alstons bill is to shutdown sites WITHIN Australia or by Australians that publish content which is deemed inappropriate as per australia's publishing laws. This is not always a bad thing..
They do not filter incoming content, They just shut down those sites within the countries borders that, in effect are breaking the law (Kiddy porn etc..)..
How effective that is, well, thats another debate.
But at least this way there is some accountablilty for what these people put on the net.
There has (to date) been no policlitical/anti govt. sites closed down that I am aware of.
Burma?
... is worried that displaying the URLs will show how ineffective it has been on this?
:)
The censorship laws were a joke when first proposed - a joke that could damage Australian content providers, but which could have little or no impact on Australian's access to illegal materials. At the recent ACIS 2001 conference, a paper was give (full text available as pdf) arguing that the whole thing was pointless as far as pornographic sites were concerned, as they were all offshore already (due, in part, to expansive hosting on Australian servers) and therefore outside of Australia's juristiction.
I can only think of two good reasons for not releasing this material - they fear that examination of the material will show that many of the sites should not have been blacklisted (as per peacefire's work), or that they fear it will show how ineffective the legislation is.
The lists would be identical (Network issues notwithstanding), as the Austrlian government is NOT blocking or filtering sites, that's what makes the whole thing so stupid.....
It's all just hot air...albeit very expensive hot air.....
In theory ISPs are supposed to offer filtering software at a reduced price to new subscribers, but the subscriber is not forced to use it, and I am unaware of any ISP actually doing it anyway.
Advanced users are users too!
If ISPs can't access a government-compiled list of what-is-banned, then to absolutely comply with the law they have to manually (ie. with a human) proxy every request from their customers, determine whether those requests will return <jellobiafra>HARMFUL MATTER</jellobiafra>, or expose themselves to possible prosecution.
It's a bit like keeping a secret list of banned foods, then busting a grocer for ordering in a special type of mushroom for a customer.
Much noise was made at the time against the leglisation because it's stoopid. I remember reading about six months ago (sorry, no link) that, despite all the fuss, only half a dozen complaints against ISPs had actually been received by the Aust. Broadcasting Authority. No prosecutions ever eventuated.
Although it's a Very Bad Thing, since nobody's (so far) gotten in trouble because of this legislation, the real danger of ignoring this might be that you teach politicians they can be ignorant and stupid all the time and get away with it.
"If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
However, when the government actually looked at implementing the legislation, they realised that all they could practically do was require ISPs to *offer* commercial filtering software, and for those commercial filtering providers to filter stuff that the classification board deemed offensive. It's not like the Great Firewall of China, people.
In practice, everyone's happy. The government is seen to be doing stuff (thus keeping the wowsers happy), the Bloggs family installs the filtering package on their PC, young Joeseph Bloggs gets around the filtering package, and the rest of us keep downloading porn and bomb recipes totally unencumbered by any filtering software at all :)
I agree that an unenforced bad law is still a bad thing, but it's a hell of a lot nicer than an enforced bad law.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I am only too aware of how extremely dodgy our censorship laws are here. In reply to the theme that publishing the list would make people demand what's banned, think again.
1) The government publishes a list containing URLS for child pornography, bomb making, and anti-copyright law propaganda.
2a) Someone asks for the child pornography sites to be unblocked. Police jump on them. Quite rightly.
2b) Someone uses the anti-copyright law website in a campaign for freedom of speech. Quite rightly.
The problem is a complete lack of checks and balances on the governments ability to censor what we watch. In addition, the censorship process in Australia is very dodgy indeed.
So many of our censorship laws were enacted so that the Government could buy off Senator Brian Harradine who held the balance of power in the Senate. Brian Harradine, a Tasmanian senator, has extremely conservative views - vastly different to the mainstream views in australia.
Studies have shown, time and again, that the australian population does not agree with the TV and movie censorship ratings given out. The official classification almost always condones more violence and less sex.
mick
About 20 years ago, a constitutional referendum to introduce a bill of rights was put up (by the other major party, the Australian Labor Party) and soundly defeated in a referendum.
There are reasonable (in my view, not sufficiently convincing, but credible) arguments to suggest that extensive bills of rights are unnecessary and that regular laws passed by a democratically elected parliament (whose functioning *is* constitutionally protected) are a better safeguard of human rights. Amongst others, it is argued that elected politicians are likely to interpret human rights more in keeping with the electorate's views better than unelected judges, and as views on human rights evolve laws can adapt better than constitutions can.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
great. more 'internet censorship' bull that we australians have had to go thru before. if they arent banning classic games like GTA3, they are dictating that we cant display 'adult' material for other adults on the web, because 'minors' can have access to it. its a standard govt ploy to appeal to the voters thru scare tactics ... "the net is full of evil pornographers and blah blah blah that your children need to be protected from and WE are the people to do it".
:)
for some reason it seems to work well tho (see the basis for the current australian govts recent election win; keeping out illegal immigrants) so im sure it will be a big hit with parents so lacking in parenting skills that instead of thinking that maybe they might possibly need to be the person required to guide their childs internet surfing, they can just sit back and let the govt turn into criminals anyone who wants to display anything the current govt doesnt agree with.
and who can possibly claim to properly be able to regulate what is 'suitable' and what is not? surely not some out-of-touch politicians. it all comes down to a point of view thing. i am tired of being told what to do and what to look at and what i can buy based on rules that are applicable only to 'minors' (i am 24). is there some way of getting a transfer to another planet for people who dont need to be told what to think and what they can look at and what they can do? not that it matters, im sure the site for that particular travel agency is blacklisted as well
'This site is intended for people over 18, but only because kids shoot each other if they hear the word "fuck"' (seanbaby.com)
(btw, to all you other aussies out there who missed out on GTA3, order it from a UK games site, mine only took 7 days to get here, and it all up cost about the same as it would have to get it from here. but im sure you all knew that anyway)
Number one, if you're working in illegal working conditions, you are taking a chance -- you agreed to work there. Secondly, if our employer's weren't FORCED by the government to pay for unemployment (and in some cases workman's comp), you could take out your own policy, picking what you felt you needed, rather than getting forced into your company's plan.
Money doesn't "talk" in capitalism -- very little of the U.S. is capitalized anyway, due to government's regulations, interventions, embargos, tariffs, and subsidies. End all that, and let the consumer decide. Heck, end limited corporate liability statutes, and you know product quality as well as consumer respect will go up...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The responses I have seen fall mainly into these groups:
I think we can ignore number 5. As for the others;
2. There is no filter. As several people have pointed out, this legislation is to provide for the prosecution of ISPs for hosting a site which is mentioned on the blacklist. There is no consultation. And, as the list is itself censored, there is no appeal.
1. It also means that the public who is funding these actions, and are directly affected by them are forbidden from finding out a] what is being done in their name, and b] how effective it has been in eliminating the societal bane of being able to look at nekkid ladies.
3. Kudos to these people. Sometimes, you can be paranoid and they're out to get you.
4. Yes they have. Raymond Hoser's site may not be the prettiest, but deserves to be looked at for what he is trying to say. (just try to ignore the ugly banners and flashing GIFs.)
Refer also to my reply to point 2. When we don't know what has been gone after, how the hell can we turn around and say "but they haven't gone after any political sites!" What is the evidence for this? More to the point where is the evidence? In that file, and the most likely explanations for its censorship are either a] reflexive beaurocratic obstructionist B.S. or b] the protection and hiding of potentially sensitive or incriminating evidence.
As I said before, Sometimes you are paranoid, sometimes they really are out to get you. How are we supposed to tell which is true when the official government line is "keep doing what you have been doing. If it is illegal, we (might) tell you."
"This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
...that a nation that started out as a penal colony would have some of the most conservative censorship laws?
There is Internet censorship in Australia. I know of a couple of people who run club web sites (computer related) who have received take down orders from the ABA mainly because of content uploaded by others. These orders are arbitary, and possibly capricious. There is no "due process".
Given this and the lack of transperency by federal and state governments we may not be a fascist country but we are certainly an authortarian one.
Further there are the proposed SA and NSW state laws that make uploading certain content a criminal offense. In the case of SA the body that decides what constitutes illegal content are the police (i.e. a not very bright arm of executive government). If you live in SA I suggest you hurry down to your local police station and make a donation to the next police ball.
WRT the DMCA you should read the federal Copyright Ammendment Bill - Digital Agenda Act of 2000. This bill contains within it the key elements of the DMCA.
As an aside, we do hold foriegners without due process. I'll not try and defend the US in this matter (who, IMO, are in breach of at least the spirit, if not the lettter, of their own constitution) but I will point out that any people held are not being so as a result of the Patriotic Act.
Finally I am not American. I am Australian. I would like to be able to say that Australia is one of the most free nations on earth. The question is would I be telling the truth?
Why they're keeping the black-list secret seems pretty obvious to me. As soon as that list becomes known, well-meaning non-Australians will immediately start to mirror those sites, and those mirrors will be visible to Australians until the government is able to find the mirror and update their blacklist.
While censorship in and of itself is reprehensible, at least they're not going about it in a half-assed manner.
Stories like this should alarm people who believe in government by the consent of the governed.
Granted, Australia seems much more conservative than the US when it comes to freedom of information (and other things too). However, those of us in the States shouldn't let stories like this slide off our back.
In the US it is much more difficult for the government to censor free speech, but just as in this article, our own government has grown very interested in not telling its citizens what it is up to.
In particular, the Executive Branch of the United States has been less than forthcoming on numerous occassions regarding its own activities: President Cheney won't tell us who he & others talked to while they were drafting their energy policy, they won't identify people picked up in the post-911 dragnet (nor will they tell us the standard list of questions arab looking people were asked as part of that), various federal records have been destroyed and removed from availability [as noted in earlier Slashdot story], and in general the government has exuded a contempt of those outside the administration trying to figure out what it's up to. Of course this is on top of the government's long standing infatuation with secrets -- the most recent pattern is just an escalation of the existing mindset towards secrets.
Really people, this story has a moral for those outside of Australia: it's an example of the idiocy that can take hold when people don't demand oversight of their own government!
What's being censored? Well, unless you can look at the list, you simply have to trust that the bureaucrats are doing just what they're supposed to, and that they need to be doing it. This is inherently undemocratic.
Secrets give government the opportunity to mismanage without falling under the prying eyes of the people -- you and me -- whose job it is to see to the proper maintenance of government, and whom might be upset at the revelation of any such mismanagement.
This sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated in any democratic country.
The last moderation, which took it to 5, was "funny". The other preceeding moderations were not for "funny". Of course, it has been down moderated since then. Now, as to why:
Australia, where there are aussies, sometimes pronounced "auzzies", is sometimes called the land of OZ by Australians.
You then have this line:
This almost sounds like a version of the land of OZ where the wicked witch never died.
which must have tickled someone funny bone. A bit of dry humor which requires a certain amount of familiarity with the venacular given above.
So there were several moderations done, including one for humor, and several by humorless folks who thought that the +5 meant that everyone had said it was funny. Which is a bug in the moderation system
[shrug]
and now you know.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"