Slashdot Mirror
Australia's Censored URL List Remains Hidden
kinsalis writes: "There is an article about the Electronic Frontiers Australia's failed attempt to have access to a list of sites which where deemed worth of censorship under Australian Internet censorship law. While it stands to reason that most of the sites would be child pornography, what is to stop someone slipping in any old url if no one can check the list?"
What? You don't trust your gov't?
I have been pwned because my
Are IP's blocked? Are DNS lookups merely prohibited?
/.ers, how has this affected you? If it has affected you, have you been able to conveniently side-step it?
In almost all cases, an anonymous proxy will get around these guys. (We miss you, Safeweb!) If it's just DNS lookups being probhibited, there are many, many public DNS servers as well as a growing system of alternate DNS roots.
So, to the Aussie
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
And no, it doesn't really do anything. Most of those commands won't do much without parameters.
Dyolf Knip
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.
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)
This is not america and thankfully censorship here is not all present, you also need to be aware we do not have a constitution like the US (we do have one but not like yours) and no free speach amendments.
Basically i see this as a storm in a teacup and im sure other aussies feel the same way.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
How long does something like this stay secret...serveral people must have the list, and many want it. In order to block the items on the list serveral sys admin's or similar people must have the list. Being that this is front page news on /. , it can also be said that many people would like to see the list. Hence it is only a matter of time. Correct?
Repost forgot to login.
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
... that goatse.cx is included on the list. I am sick of it.
I can imagine that a list like this can (and probably will) be misused by the Australian Government in order to block the sites of certain people or organizations that dare to question the government, especially during political campaigns like elections.
Now I live in Canada and I can see some examples of attempted censorship by our news and media because they question the ethics of the polictial party currently in power.
It would be fairly trivial for a blocking mechanism to collect the IP addresses of those requesting "dangerous" content. Instant fishing expedition. Arrest and fine anyone who tries to access illegal content. Given that porn sites are buying up expired domains, someone checking an old bookmark could be in for a nasty surprise when the police come knocking on their door. Now you've slid into a state more like Turkey or Burma, where all Internet access is monitored. All justified by "protecting the citizenry from dangerous content."
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
What if a "blacklisted" site is cached on Google?
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The Regulations explained
And here it discusses the type of information blocked...
And of course this forms part of the NON MANDATORY code of practice Found Here which states
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 ?
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Here in Canada quite a commotion has erupted over the firing of an editor of the Ottawa Citizen for having written an editorial calling for the resignation of our Prime Minister.
In question are the close ties the owner of the media chain has with the Prime Minister due to the fact that it was his very government that allowed the media chain to persue a number of controversial acquisitions that had been previously disallowed by canadian law.
What is clear here, is that politicians will meddle with the media and what they report when given the chance to do so. What is to stop, in this case, an australian Prime Minister from blocking a website whose constant criticism of his policies has aggravated him? Since the list cannot be checked the answer is probably nothing.
This government sponsored censorship raises a serious issue of precedent. The precedent of the governement having the power to block access to information, otherwise publically accessible to the citizen, for unverifiable purposes and results. It is the governement giving itself the right to restrict what a citizen could normally view without restriction in any other country-- without appeal or public review.
In my view, there is a careful balance of power that is being toyed with, both in Australia and in Canada, that needs to be stopped. I hope the Australian courts see the danger here and reverse the decision and I hope justice prevails in the case of this editor who has been wrongfully fired-- in fact it is my wish now that this media group be broken up.
See Citizen story here and here
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
So...you've not really run any web site bigger than the one you run with pictures of your cat, eh? Seriously, "ideals" are fine, but given the realities of the world, this would get you laughed out on your ass in most companies.
Just my $0.02.
ISP's are, however, required to offer their customers Netnanny-style filtering software (from an approved list of filtering software providers) which additionally checks the government's list of blocked sites. Last I heard the takeup rate on that software was approximately 0% :)
As I've said before several times here, it was just a stunt to keep a particular federal Senator on side for a vote on tax changes. It's a stupid law, but compared to the *other* stupid things this particular government has done (and their are scads of them) this one at least has the virtue of being irrelevant.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Companies' action vs. citizens' action. There really is a difference. With citizens who laugh at ideals, who needs a constitution, anyway?
>Do you want to punish me for what my government does?
Not really.
However, I wonder how quickly your government would reconsider its decision when half the internet goes offline.
Or, repharased, I wonder how quickly most all Australians would be pounding the streets outside their minister's offices to get this bill repealed when their internet becomes a shell of what it once was.
Unfortunately, I think something like this will never go away for you unless you all stand up and tell your government no.
In North America and Europe not enough of us shouted no at increasing copyright restrictions, and look where our silence has led us. Don't let 'em run you over like they're doing to us!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
"The more laws, the less justice."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero De Officiis [1195]
"...For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than
passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase
of crime in this country is closely connected with this.
--Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921
Yes, you are quite right. I believe Robert Heinlien also states something simular (or quotes Einstein).
OK you can block all these countries from accessing your server. And I will block all Amercian users from accessing info on my server.
I don't agree with the US policies on censorship (and yes the US does have them the same way OZ does). I know that alot of libraries are forced to block certain content in the US.
So when the US fixes their broken laws I will restore access. Laws like the DCMA, the coypright extension act, the death penalty, the failure to sign up to a alot on international treaties and the list goes on and on.
Acutally I find your post fairly insulting, the US is not perfect, doesn't have perfect laws and to claim that our laws are broken is just arrogance. You are trying to make democratic nation follow US laws. At least attempt to fix the problems in your country before telling other countries what laws they are and aren't allowed to have.
In other words BUTT OUT.
If you mod this as a flame you didn't read my post.
There is a very odd duality that exists here. It's the governemnt do this, don't do this. That is impossible...
In this story it talks about the government regulating what sites you can view on the net. Obvious censorship, baddd....
But, in other stories you (general users, mods) preach and praise the good of man. Using the government as a welfare distribution scheme to help the needy and take from those bad bad people.
You hate Microsoft although probably 60% of the readers here use an MS product at some point in the day.
So... You want the government to not mess with the internet but, you want them interfere with Microsoft. You want them to let software be free but, still have good software..
I agree, censorship is bad.
I agree, the government should be not interfere with the internet.
But, if you want this to happen. Don't expect them to do anything for you. I'm fine with that. I can fend for myself and produce without the help of the governement...
Make a choice..
Leave the poor American alone. S/he's quite happy believing that everyone wants to be an American (and who can blame him, especially the way Mr Howard (known to the rest of the world as the unnamed official sitting next to the IOC chairman) has been brown nosing lately) and Australia isn't likely to declared a terrorist country anytime soon (unless the US takes up cricket or rugby, then it'll become a matter of national pride).
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I suggest Mr Rod Speed, Floyd and Lazz for nomination.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Why does Slashdot always go psycho about Australia's NON EXISTANT censorship.
/. No one listens, and most of the time they get modded down.
We do NOT, I repeat DO NOT have any internet censorship in Australia.
As you may have noticed, most journalists have no idea what they are talking about with technology, and frequently get it wrong. That problem isn't exclusive to the USA.
The "censorship" in Australia is realy like this:
There is absolutely NO censorship. If you happen to be a "Concerned Parent", your ISP must provide you with software such as Net Nanny...etc if you REQUEST it.
It is completely optional. It is in no way mandatory.
The Australian authorities have a list of kiddie porn sites that they give to the makers of filtering software so that those sites can be included in the list of blocked sites for the Australian editions of their software.
This topic has come up on Slashdot numerous times, and whenever an Australian tries to explain it to the rest of
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
It seems that you just want to have a bitch about Australia, without looking into the facts.
I hope this in some way clears up the topic, but seeing as this has come up before, and everyone keeps bitching about the exact same things, I doubt you'll listen.
So in principal I am for this type of censorship. But of course the two main issues with this are:
If you publish the list, then you get the trust, but lose any effectiveness (actually making it easier for people to access these sites). So then it's a question of ensuring a reasonable level of trust without publishing the list. One way of doing this is to let an independent body (e.g. the EFA) review the list - but that would have to be done under condition of secrecy.
However, the EFA demanded access under a freedom of information law - if they'd won, then any Tom, Dick or Bruce could demand the list, thus removing all secrecy.
So, while I can understand arguments against any censorship (effectiveness & trust) this decision seems to be clearly right.
what is to stop someone slipping in any old url [slashdot.org] if no one can check the list?
WHAT IF THEY ALREADY DID?!
How are we to know if they can't see this if they can't access it. Perhaps already slashdot is being blocked around the world while innocent millions go on believing otherwise!
[no, I wasn't serious]
[this part censored by ABA] so it is very interesting to see what is the reaction of [this part censored by ABA] to this including [this part censored by ABA] and [this part censored by ABA].
I find this somewhat odd because Slashdot has run quite a few stories referencing EFA media releases and other materials. And if anyone actually went looking for us, we should be pretty easy to find - if you put "censorship Australia" into Google (as of 19 June 2002), the top six results consist of EFA pages and the personal pages of two EFA board members. Heck, even on a search as general as "internet censorship", EFA and EFA board members manage two of the top ten results!
Anyway, if you want to know what we do (and who we are), that's all on our web site.
Danny (EFA board member).
I have written over 900 book reviews
MA-rated content (from the the Office of Film and Literature Classification's own guidelines):
- can only "imply" sexual activity
- can't include "gratuious" coarse language that is "very strong, aggressive or detailed"
- can't contain depictions of violence that are "high impact" unless they are infrequent and not "prolonged or gratuitous"
- can only treat "adult themes" (such as suicide and marital difficulties) if it's done discreetly or at low intensity.
I think that's enough to give the idea. It may also be useful to think of films that are R-rated in Australia and hence would, if put online, be subject to takedown notices (if there was a complaint about them): Hannibal, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, The Godfather, Lolita, Mad Max,Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
But we actually stated in our FOI request that we weren't after details of anything that was illegal to possess, or that might compromise police investigations.
I think the real reason the ABA won't reveal the net censorship details to the public is that that would reveal what a total farce the net censorship system is.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
From the AU posts in this topic, it sounds like the "censorship" is merely a government PR gesture and doesn't represent an active attempt to block content.
I wonder if maybe the fact that they won't release the list is due to the fact that there isn't one. Think of the time and effort that would be required to actually build and maintain a halfway accurate list of proscribed content. If the postings of the Aussies are right and the censorship laws are merely a "pro-family" political gesture, then its likely they're not making the effort.
They may also just be buying a list from a censorware vendor, whose contract prohibits disclosure as a trade secret, not to mention the political implications of a law whose enforcement mechanism relies on a third party.
If I owned a site and my customers complained via other channels, like picking up the phone, sending me e-mail to some other mail-boxes, snail mail or vibes or harmonic resonance, that they couldn't reach me, I'd fix the problem.
Finding a site running DNS and and hacking it to bounce a visitor to a sub-domain host to another destination isn't exactly rocket science.
Its the basis of DynIP. In this case its screwing with the host tables without authorization. If nothing else is done to the system, it would be very hard to detect as it wouldn't really impact the site.
The legitimate site could even be an Australian government site. The IP address can be any unused address and it can be anywhere.
The ONLY way to really cold-cock the kiddy porn bastards is to switch to IPv6. Otherwise, its too spoofable an too many points.
Now THAT might spur on the adoption of IPv6. Someone should suggest it to these government bozos. "Do it for the children."
Those hypocrites might regularly sell their own mothers, wives and kids for whiskey but they couldn't publicly NOT back this.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If you're over 40, you are treated like crap on slashdot.
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." You communicate in a reasonable, polite fashion, and no one knows or cares how old you are. Yes, some opinions are prone to getting modded down, but going into any group of strongly like-minded people and expressing a contrary position isn't going to get you listened to. Even if the group is neutral, some people may be hostile to your idea. (This is true no matter what the composition of the group.) Yes, being a community with some scientific bent, Slashdot doesn't tend to accept arguments from authority or arguments from age. That's a good thing; it means everyone can get heard, and good ideas tend to rise to the top. If you don't have good ideas, or can't express them, well, then I guess all you can do is whine about it.
There's no "scientific bent" here. The majority of the folks here are undegreed kids, very few have any formal scientific training.
And you know this how? There's enough anonymity to make that claim impossible to check.
In any case, I wasn't claiming they all understood Lorentz contraction; a scientific mindset is not something picked up with your bachelor of science. A scientific mindset is rarely taught in schools, but can be easily picked up by anyone who is willing to read, learn, and think logically, including undegreed kids.
It has a geek anti-establishment pro-Apple/Linix[sic] bent.
Gee, you think? Do you go into churches and complain when they have a religious bent, too? That's what slashdot is; if you don't like it, then go somewhere else.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The law in question only covers sites hosted by ISPs in Australia. Google isn't affected by this law, just like if the Australian content provider shifted their material to a server located in Sweden.
One of the reasons why the EFA would like a list of the banned sites issued is so they can construct a list of where the sites have moved to, thus showing that the only real effect of the censorship law is to move business overseas.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The original poster stated that sysadmins should start blocking their sites out. You have deamed this a "citizen's" action. However, that's true only if they block their own personally owned sites. If say, you're a sysadmin running a corporate web site(s) and you take such actions, it is no longer a "citizen" action. If a sysadmin were to take such steps without the consent of the company, they would most likely be fired--see my "laughed out on your ass" comment.
If you are blinded by your ideals, you'll be smacked by reality every time, proving that you are a fairly ineffectual idealist. If you present balanced ideals with real world solutions, you're much likely to be taken seriously.
You probably have no concept of what I'm saying, so please put your tin foil hat back on, and rest assured that "you told me."