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?"

Comments

Re:How does the censorship work?

[jquirke]

Honestly, it has not affected us at all.

Basically the Government here does whatever it needs to keep itself elected.

In this case, in order to please the targetted demographics, typical families, it proposed to censor the Internet from "nasty" things.

Now, the thing is, noone has noticed a difference. No one talks about the censorship, no one even thinks about it. Because it doesn't seem to affect us.

Now the truth is, children are unprotected as ever on the Net, but the Government/parents/schools don't know that. They just trust that the millions of extra dollars they feed the ABA are working, just like we 'trust' the Government with the rest of our tax dollars...

The truth is it is clearly a waste of money attempting an impossible task, but hey, they don't know that. So the Government is happy, the parents and families are happy, the only people who are pissed off are the civil liberties people, and they're always pissed off anyway.

I of course still want this censorship removed as [a] I know it is a waste of money, and [b] The Government is not my parent, it is not responsible for deciding the material I am or am not allowed to view (I am under 18).

What about Google cache?

[tshak]

What if a "blacklisted" site is cached on Google?

Re:How does the censorship work?

[Bronster]

Are IP's blocked? Are DNS lookups merely prohibited?

Some people's slashdot memory is obviously rather short, since I'm sure the Australian law has been posted about before. Specifically, basically the same story as this, New South Wales law on end users, Censorship law passed, Even older article on the same thing.

Ok, that's just 4 of them.

There are two types of internet censorship, the more recent "ISPs must block bad stuff out there", and the "ISPs must not host bad stuff".

For the not host bad stuff, it works by issuing legal LARTs against anyone hosting anything the censors don't like.

I presume this is the list that we're discussing here, since the list of "ISPS must block bad stuff out there" would be almost impossible to hide unless every ISP must run a closed source/black box URL checker.

I don't think there's much point in having a list of sites that have been taken down anyway, of course there's nothing there, and the URL may or may not actually say something useful by itself (just knowing that http://users.bigpond.com/~foobar/ was blocked isn't going to tell you a whole lot about the subversive pictures of a naked Brian Harradine that were posted there).

On the other hand, a list of the _reasons_ that sites were issued with takedown notices (similar to a public court record) would be good. Unlikely though.

The Facts

[q-soe]

Looking past the EFA post (an organisation that i have never heard of an have never done anything that I can find) the entire information regarding this storm in a tea cup can be found on the ABA site

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 ?

Re:The Facts

[justin.warren]

Firstly, disclosure: I am a member of EFA.

That said, I'm disappointed in the quality of responses to this article here on slashdot. Had I known, I'd have posted a link to EFA's press release on this issue earlier:
http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR020613.html

Now, the problem here is that EFA attempted to get access to the blocklist being implemented by the ABA by using the Freedom of Information Act. Not the content, just the blocklist. In much the same way that censorware publishers won't allow anyone to view their blocklists, the AAT refused, but cites highly suspects reasons, to wit:

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal yesterday ruled that the Commonwealth Government's Internet censorship regime would be ineffective if it did not operate under a veil of secrecy, unlike offline censorship laws.

[...]

Therefore, the AAT ruled that the information requested by EFA was exempt from disclosure on the ground that "disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct" of the ABA's operations (s.40(1)(d) of the FOI Act) and that the public interest in disclosure (s.40(2)) was outweighed by the adverse effect on the ABA's operations they considered would result from disclosure.

So, basically, they were saying that if people were able to see what was being blocked, the system wouldn't work. Excuse me? What sort of dodgy system is that? If it can't work with disclosure of the blocklist, then I would say the system is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, that's what EFA and numerous others were saying when this system was first proposed. Now that those concerns have been borne out, will the system be scrapped? No, it will continue to operate under a veil of secrecy, wasting my tax dollars on something that is inherently broken.

That is the problem the EFA, and I, have with this thing. That is the reason we're unimpressed with this decision.

A perfect example of government meddling

[Vicegrip]

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

Re:There is NO censorship in Australia

[jamie]

"We do NOT, I repeat DO NOT have any internet censorship in Australia."

I contacted Irene Graham of Electronic Frontiers Australia about this, to see if she had any comment. She did. And she invited me to quote from her email, so I will:

Utter nonsense. Refer: The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999

Under the above Commonwealth law, "prohibited content" on Australian sites is text and images classified R18+, or X (non violent sexually explicit activity between consenting adults) and RC (refused classification). Content that has been banned/taken down from Australian sites, under that censorship law, in the past two years and half years includes material that is legally available offline - that adults can see at the cinema, rent on video and buy in magazines at the local shop.

Under that law, when the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) finds "prohibited content" hosted in Australia, the ABA issues a take-down notice to the ISP or Internet content host, who has 24 hours to take the content down. If they don't, they are subject to a fine of AU$5500 for individuals or AU$27500 for corporations, for each day during which the failure to take the content down continues. The ABA also notifies police when they consider the content is "sufficiently serious".

When the ABA finds "prohibited content" hosted on sites _outside_ Australia, they notify commercial censorware providers of the material with the intent of it being put on the censorware blacklist. (Use of censorware is *not* mandatory). This is completely different from what happens when "prohibited content" is found on Australian sites. Content on Australian sites is taken down/banned.

In addition, some Australian States and Territories have had Internet censorship laws since 1996 (e.g. Victoria, Western Australia and Northern Territory) that include jail terms or fines under criminal law applicable to Net users for making available online material that is deemed unsuitable for persons under 18 years, etc. The wording of these State/Territory laws varies, as does what is prohibited and in what circumstances. Further, in South Australia a similar Internet censorship law is before the Parliament and likely to be voted on in July.

Regards
Irene
Executive Director, EFA.
http://www.efa.org.au/

Electronic Frontiers Australia

[danny]

There are quite a surprising number of people posting saying they've never heard of EFA - and even some attacks on our activities and the composition of the board.

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).

False "Facts"

[danny]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. People have been forced by ABA take-down notices to remove R-rated content from web sites. To be "not prohibited" under the law, content on an open web site has to be MA-rated.

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, ... The IMDB lists 827 films that are R-rated in Australia.

Danny.