Slashdot Mirror


Nation-Wide Internet Censorship Proposed For Australia

sparky1240 writes "While Americans are currently fighting the net-neutrality wars, spare a thought for the poor Australians — The Australian government wants to implement a nation-wide 'filtering' scheme to keep everyone safe from the nasties on the internet, with no way of opting out: 'Under the government's $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety, users can switch between two blacklists which block content inappropriate for children, and a separate list which blocks illegal material. ... According to preliminary trials, the best Internet content filters would incorrectly block about 10,000 Web pages from one million."

424 comments

  1. Always remember: by cosmocain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your local government knows best.

    This bill was brought to you by your local censors.

    1. Re:Always remember: by bugeaterr · · Score: 2

      best Internet content filters would incorrectly block about 10,000 Web pages from one million

      Or 1% of web pages

    2. Re:Always remember: by Lachlan+Hunt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's sad that this is happening. As an Australian, I'm appalled that this is happening. Although I'm glad for many reasons that we finally got rid of little Bush Jr. (John Howard) and replaced him Kevin Rudd, it's a disaster that they now want to impose this crap on everyone.

      Personally, I think the whole idea of content filtering to protect the children, as they claim, is bogus. Regardless of whether the filtering is done by the parents on their own computer or by the ISPs on the whole internet, I think it's bullshit.

      Kids don't need overly restrictive blocks in place to prevent them getting access to porn, bomb making instructions or whatever else is deem inappropriate; nor do they need any kind of punishment if they do get access. Rather, they need good parental guidence to let them know what they should and should not look at, and be taught to be responsible with whatever they do get access to.

      Besides, if some 13 or 14 year old boy looks up some porn, good for him. I did when I was that age, as did almost everyone else I knew back then, and it did me no harm at all. (Also, letting kids get porn for free from the internet is better then letting them resort to stealing porno mags that they're not allowed to buy legally)

      --
      By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
    3. Re:Always remember: by crispi · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Your local government knows best.

      Or the State Govt.
      Or the Federal Govt.

      Who said we had too much government?
      Probably someone who's about to be disconnected, or placed on a blacklist. :-)

    4. Re:Always remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we (the USA) want to socialize medicine?

      /only slightly off-topic

    5. Re:Always remember: by MichaelTheDrummer · · Score: 1

      Apparently it doesn't sound as bad if you say $X in a million. 1 in a hundred is terrible, and that is the problem: it won't work, and will annoy everyone with false positives.

    6. Re:Always remember: by flitty · · Score: 2, Funny

      [ed. Minitrue: This post did not conform to the community standards of Austrailia. Have a nice day.]

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    7. Re:Always remember: by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yes, because free health care is exactly like government censorship. how dare the government take away one's right to be too poor to afford medical treatment.

      let's do away with public education too. after all, the Nazi government killed millions of Jews. so how can we ever trust the government with anything?

      let's just abandon all notions of a civil society because a single undemocratic decision to impose government censorship on the internet. that makes much more sense than exercising your moral prerogative as a member of a democratic society and protesting such violations of fundamental civil liberties. i mean, why participate in the democratic process when you can instead sit back and be a passive observer and simply blame everything on "the government" when things go bad? it's not like it's up to the people to make sure the government serves public interest.

    8. Re:Always remember: by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      I'm just glad there is finally an issue that the U.S. isn't taking the most heavy-handed puritanical stance on. Even the bible-thumpers and think-of-the-children nutballs in the U.S. don't have the brass balls to push something like THAT through.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Always remember: by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually what I'd say is even more worrying is that it won't annoy 'everyone' with the false positives. Sure, if a site like YouTube, or Gmail or even Slashdot were blocked there would be outcry, but what about all those little sites that might be blocked or might just be down? What about the single page on the whole internet with the obscure information you need that's been up on some university server since 1996?

      I'd be much more inclined to believe that you'll just get a generic error bounced to your browser than an actual redirect explaining that the government required blocking is filtering out the page you want. How are you going to know what you're missing out on and what's really not there? That's perhaps an even greater worry - once they do have this in place it'd be very easy to make the whole system effectively invisible to the vast majority of users. Few people (at least nobody considered worth listening to, unfortunately) will complain about something they don't notice.

    10. Re:Always remember: by doc_doofus · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't celebrate too soon, there is an election coming. Things could change soon after that.
      /sarcasm?

      --
      Disclaimer:IANAL/MD/PhD-Just the local yokel PC "doc" ~If you're not having fun, then you are probably doing it wrong.
    11. Re:Always remember: by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ***Kids don't need overly restrictive blocks in place to prevent them getting access to porn, bomb making instructions***

      The bomb making thing actually is kind of concerning. Many parents are fond of their kitchens and will miss them, not to mention the potential impact on neighbors in multiple unit buildings.

      But there is another concern. Not only will legitimate web sites inevitably be accidentally blocked by false positives from the filters, but the kids will still find ways to access porn and other "undesirable"sites via false negatives. One might think that only the very clever or very bored will be able to master that. But in fact, kids talk to one another. The URL of any porn site that is not blocked will probably be known by 50% of the 13 year old males (and 20% of the 13 year old females) on your continent within 3.4 days of its discovery by any one of them.

      Filters are a really dubious idea. They are expensive to buy, expensive to administer, and don't work very well. The concept probably is not fixable although the volume of available material could be cut substantially and cheaply by things like .xxx domains.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    12. Re:Always remember: by hdparm · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother.

      I could never understand the fascination of various 'governing bodies' with the porn. Why is porn so bad? I'd like Rudd to point a single person from his cabinet who never watched porn on VHS. Look at them now, all successful, in high politics.

      Democracy, my ass. They are (all of them, in all countries) scared of anything associated with "Free". It's gigantic hypocrisy all around. All they want is to control every single aspect of our lives. The world has become less than pleasant place to live in.

    13. Re:Always remember: by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      And you forgot that there will always be at least one geek kid in the class who knows about proxies and TOR and will brag about his (her?) knowledge.

    14. Re:Always remember: by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      How about we just get back more of the original form of the US government that served us so well until recent history?

      A weak federal government that is there primarily for defense, and infrastructure and to maintain order between the states (who have the most power)...just to have enough government to allow people to do their own thing....to thrive and grow and not have their rights and privacy intruded upon....that would be nice.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Always remember: by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Contact the Minister,

      http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/contact

      I did, this is our freedoms at stake I'll be contacting everyone. Once you lose a freedom you will never get it back, not with the current collapse of democracy.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    16. Re:Always remember: by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Although I'm glad for many reasons that we finally got rid of little Bush Jr. (John Howard) and replaced him Kevin Rudd, it's a disaster that they now want to impose this crap on everyone.

      I'm not an Australian, but I was glad for you guys when that happened. John Howard seemed to me to be less Bush Jr. and more like Australia's belated answer to Reagan and Thatcher.

      And you seem to still be belatedly following our narrative: Reagan/Thatcher being replaced by a liberal-talking Democrat/Labour politician who in reality is hardly any different.

      Just wait for Obama to prove that all over again. You guys at least got rid of WorkChoices, didn't you?

      --
      Property is theft.
    17. Re:Always remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just do what I do. Write to the 'tics and let em know that they are pissing you off and they just lost your vote.

    18. Re:Always remember: by Philip+Shaw · · Score: 1

      It was the Bible-thumping nutjob who wanted it. It wasn't really Sen. Conroy's idea, nor was it Rudd's. It is the fault of Sen. Fielding, from the Family First Party. This is Australia's closest thing to the evangelical Christian Right, and nobody likes them. Unfortunately, without his vote, Labor need to persuade at least one Lib or Nat to vote for them, which isn't going to happen.

      --
      "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."- Winston Churchill
  2. WTF?! by Bifurcati · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Okay, seriously, can anyone with sources verify if this is real? I mean, I might expect this from Liberals - but from Labor? Who decides on the black list? What sort of appeals process is there going to be? Is there 24/7 tech support?

    I want answers, damnit! I'm Aussie, and not used to fighting these sort of things - Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!

    1. Re:WTF?! by Bifurcati · · Score: 1
      Also, with a superquick Google not turning up anything obvious, does anyone have links to good case studies where other governments have attempted something like this with disastrous results? Or, at least, they gave up? Coherent arguments against filtering also greatly welcome.

      (Aside from China, I suppose!!!)

    2. Re:WTF?! by srjh · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is very real, and very scary.

      http://nocleanfeed.com/

      I'm not sure why you think we're immune from this stupidity in Australia, or why Labor would be any better in this regard. Australia's censorship laws are some of the worst in the Western world.

    3. Re:WTF?! by plankrwf · · Score: 5, Funny

      We are sorry, no appeal is possible. You see, in order to verify that your website - cnn.com - is actually 'safe', we would have to visit it. However, as the black list is of the 'no opting out' type, we are unable to do so, as temporarely removing it from the black list is not an option: think of the children! Kind regards, your government.

    4. Re:WTF?! by james.mcarthur · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You been living under a rock since the last election? It was a Rudd policy for ages. Now they're in power they're going to implement their scheme.

      Have a look at http://www.efa.org.au/ for some more background.

    5. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet monitoring program was under trial when the liberals where in power. Labour is more socialist so one would more expect it more likely to be actually implemented by them.

    6. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why wouldn't you expect this from Labor? This is the party who made taking photos of the rehersal of the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony illegal (for the greater good of course).

      No, sorry, the Labor party is not about individual freedoms, far from it. Maybe you should read policy and have a think about who you are voting for next time.

    7. Re:WTF?! by wrmrxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a real plan alright. It was an election promise/threat made shortly before the federal election last year, but it got surprisingly little attention. At the time I figured it was just an empty attempt to look tougher than the Liberal party (with their taxpayer funded filters for everyone's PC) program, and I hoped it would go the way of most election promises. Here's an EFF article about this from the beginning of the year, including links to Stephen Conroy's media releases: http://www.efa.org.au/2008/01/02/media-release-efa-attacks-clean-feed-proposal/ .

      My understanding is that this has progressed as far as some technology demonstrations. I'm still hoping that technical infeasibility and resistance from ISPs will win out, but it's a worry that it has gone this far.

    8. Re:WTF?! by Bifurcati · · Score: 1
      Hey, don't get me wrong - I was one of those who saw it, disapproved, but knew I would opt out the second it came in. Still a ridiculous waste of money, but fine, whatever. Thinkofthechildren.

      But not being able to opt out - that's new, AFIAKnew. Thanks for the link - very useful.

    9. Re:WTF?! by theaveng · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell your legislator that you are watching them very closely on this issue, and if they vote in favor of it, they won't be your legislator for much longer, because you will organize a campaign to de-elect them in two, four, or however many years it takes. Add that you won't allow your right to free speech to be trampled. That written speech should NEVER be censored no matter what it might be, and that anybody who supports censorship of webpages deserves the label "book burner" and include a picture like so: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.JPG/250px-1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.JPG

      Here in the States there are certain persons who want to block internet downloads of "Huckleberry Finn" because they think it's racist. Well, anybody who's actually read the book knows it is the exact opposite of racist, and in fact teaches a lesson about how blacks are no different than whites. Fortunately for us, our government agrees and does not censor Mark Twain's greatest novel.

      Unfortunately for Aussies, your government doesn't have the common sense God granted a jackass. They are the 2000-era equivalent of book burners.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    10. Re:WTF?! by Bifurcati · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thanks for the link - very useful! Mod parent up.

    11. Re:WTF?! by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>Tell your legislator

      Actually don't write just yours. Write ALL of them. With actual letters if you can afford the postage.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    12. Re:WTF?! by davros-too · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
    13. Re:WTF?! by skegg · · Score: 1, Informative

      can anyone with sources verify if this is real?

      Sadly, it is

      Quoting:

      working with Australian Internet Service Providers (ISP) to make a filtered internet service available to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children-a laboratory trial of ISP filtering, followed by a real world live pilot, will inform implementation

    14. Re:WTF?! by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, start voting out every incumbent till you get ones you like.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    15. Re:WTF?! by AlanNew · · Score: 2, Informative

      I might expect this from Liberals - but from Labor?

      Remember that it was Kim Beasley that first came up with this a few years ago

    16. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well considering Michael Atkinson, who is Labor, was soley responsible for preventing an R18+ rating for games (to protect the children...) I would definitely expect this from them.

    17. Re:WTF?! by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what if Huckleberry Finn were a racist book? That wouldn't be a reason to censor it either. Nothing should be censored, ever.

    18. Re:WTF?! by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are other political parties out there that will fix the issues: Try the LDP:
      http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/index.html

      I'm sure I can get a policy statement from them if I try hard enough...

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    19. Re:WTF?! by wilder_card · · Score: 1

      The best way to fight it is to adopt an amendment to your Constitution that says something like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    20. Re:WTF?! by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      Don't ask us, the UK is farther down this crapper. We're going to be as hosed as you are when they come for us in a few months or so (by my reckoning):-(

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    21. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switzerland, here I fucking come.

      Oh wait, I only speak English.

    22. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      todays labor is not the same traditional labor. the party seems to have a centrist-right view these days with fundamental policies being quite similar to the liberals. They havent rolled back jack all of john howards IR laws yet as far as im aware, which is what they won the election on...but then big business complained and PM Rudd caved in like a bear in hibernation. Its not entirely their fault as they were hammered at previous elections with more left leaning policies. Im ashamed as an australian that labor had to give up on the policy of reducing funding for elite schools (to win more votes), which get more tax payer funding that public schools do, because there was a backlash against them over it. Jealous Australians were quoted saying "why did I have to work so hard to send my kid to private school if the kid down the street will get it for free?" Which is a disgusting thing to say, Its directly saying "I dont want poor people to have a good education". The point to this slashdot story is - Labor would very much do something like this these days because they will pander to the electorate even if its completely against core party values.

    23. Re:WTF?! by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      From the LDP Site:

      Lifestyle Choices

      Adults must be free to make their own decisions without interference by the government or requiring its approval. Adults are not like children and do not need anyone to make their choices for them. They can choose where to live, which job to take, where to go on holiday and what to do with their money, and live with the consequences. Similarly, they can choose their particular lifestyle including such things as how to live, whether to live alone or with others and who to live with.

      You don't need to vote for a major party. Getting a libertarian senator into gov. will make a difference. And no, I'm not a member of the LDP.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    24. Re:WTF?! by vikstar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmmm, I can't get to that link. It just says "Blocked by EFA".

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    25. Re:WTF?! by MindKata · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Coherent arguments against filtering also greatly welcome."

      I would start with Article 12 from this... http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
      i.e. "Article 12 : No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

      As for governments trying this sort, the UK is probably in the lead :( ...
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/15/2222209

      Its interesting how so called free countries are rushing towards censorship, control and out right Big Brother, faster than so called bad countries. The power seekers in each country seem to be treating technology as their dream come true. They can use it to fight for powers previous generations of power seeking leaders couldn't have dreamed possible.

      We all need to speak out against this sort of thing before its to late...
      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=997305&cid=25397001

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    26. Re:WTF?! by zehaeva · · Score: 1

      Write to your News Papers, Write to your representatives, Talk with everyone you can about this. Make this an issue not just for your self but for everyone you come into contact with. Physically go to what ever meetings they have any where they may be to discuss this and talk about it. Don't be an ass about it, be respectful and humble, but above all get out there and get stuff like this known to the general public. Let everyone know this is a make or break issue. Hell if you can personally meet some of your representatives and talk with them that'd be great. Exhaust every option you have. Express that this technical solution can be, and will be worked around. Find some people who can demonstrate how easy it is to work around it. Show everyone how futile it is. Demonstrate how this will filter out good websites as well as bad ones.

      If this gets through then some civil disobedience is in order. Circumvent the filter your self. Show everyone you can how to do so as well. Encourage everyone you can to circumvent it. Don't do it in secret, that kind of defeats the thought of civil disobedience. Take your governments punches. As horrible as this sounds, Make your self a martyr for free speech. Be as loud as possible.

      Talk to those in power, talk with newspapers/media people, talk with every common person you can.

      But That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong
      ~Z

    27. Re:WTF?! by AbRASiON · · Score: 1
    28. Re:WTF?! by grcumb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, with a superquick Google not turning up anything obvious, does anyone have links to good case studies where other governments have attempted something like this with disastrous results?

      You're looking for the wrong kind of evidence. What you want is proof that it works....

      ... And works too well.

      Everybody has something to hide, something they'd rather not share with their neighbours, their colleagues, even their chums. Make it clear that all of this will be visible to their government. Government censorship necessarily means that they can monitor everything.

      Then work the problem from the bottom up. This is how Canada's anti-DMCA movement has done it: With loud, credible voices like Michael Geist backed by legions of well informed and activist people. It's no accident that the Canadian bill has died on the order table at least 3 times so far.

      It's hard to imagine how a measure like this would be possible without enabling legislation. Get people organised, inform them about the exposure this creates for them as individuals, then target those few senators that you need to keep this from ever seeing the light of day.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    29. Re:WTF?! by g0es · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!

      1.) Form a political party
      2.) Take lots of money from special interest groups.
      3.) Sell soul
      4.) Profit!
      5.) Rule the country with all the money you have made. Profit even more by making sure the special interest groups feel special.

      But really your best chance is to form a group and get your message out, write your politicians and cross your fingers.

    30. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mate your the idiot. If you knew anything about something, you'd know that both parties have had some success and failure. 18% interest rates were under malcolm frasier too moron. (Do I have to tell you he is a liberal party legend?) The hard times under labor you speak of were not entirely their fault, there was the stock market crash of 87 for starters which caused a worldwide recession, then they made major reforms that weren't going to take effect immediately which actually helped john howards success...Heres a tip for politics....look past the party rhetoric and look at the political ideology of the people running the show. most federal labor ministers currently in power have centrist-right to right wing views. which means their policies are not going to differ much as they believe in the exact same shit as the liberal party. And they haven't differed much at all, which is plain to see... PS - for anyone reading this outside of australia, "the liberal party" is our conservative party......I know..... they've got the wrong name...and labor is their opposition that is supposedly left wing but really isn't anymore.

    31. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rudd's govt has been talking about this since the last election, but since the howard govt before was talking about it all the way through at least one term without taking any action I had hoped we'd be fairly safe.

      Then yesterday I started to see articles like this appearing on ars technica, itwire.com.au etc. Whether this is just a case of the media needing something to talk about and so rehashing old news or whether there is some PR announcement by Conroy that precipitated all the attention I don't know.

    32. Re:WTF?! by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll

      are you for real??? labor is the A typical nanny state supporter. the liberals merely stopped at providing filtering software to people who wanted it. let me guess, you voted for kevin 07 because it was catchy.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    33. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Aussie, and not used to fighting these sort of things - Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!

      1) Not used to these things, 2) asking Americans for help => you're definitely not Aussie.

    34. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia is part of the Western world?

    35. Re:WTF?! by lordmetroid · · Score: 1

      Merely speaking never changed anything on its own, non-cooperation is needed.

    36. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't australia in the "eastern" world?

    37. Re:WTF?! by omeomi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its interesting how so called free countries are rushing towards censorship, control and out right Big Brother, faster than so called bad countries.

      Well, 9-11 9-11 9-11. 9-11 9-11 9-11, 9-11. "9-11". Fear, 9-11. Uncertainty, 9-11. Doubt, 9-11.

    38. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say he voted for Kevin because people were sick of Howards shit.....

    39. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean you could expect this from the Liberals they'd allow more freedom of speech than the Labor jerks would any day. Besides that, if the Liberal Govt wanted to do this censorship they would of when they were in power, Labor have just waltzed into power and made band aid solutions and suggestions about what we can and cant do. If the Labor govt is thinking about this censorship there is little hope also that gamers will see a bill passed to allow R18+ games in Aust. In addition i say that "Rudd is a Dud"

    40. Re:WTF?! by digitalchinky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen a lot of posts from you, I guess it's your sig that I remember. Anyway, you're pretty hard line, I'd consider you as someone at the extremities on most topics. Don't be offended though, it's just an observation gleaned from a few hundred lines of text and subject to stereotype and various inaccuracies.

      I'm happy you are all for censorship (which is really to say that I don't care either way), and I'll defend your right to do whatever you please so long as it doesn't affect me. If you want to censor my own inane disgruntled rantings as a former secret 3 letter agency worker drone, then I'll be more than happy to censor your.... (insert whatever it is you hold most dearly)

      If you want to protect me from the ogrish of the world, don't bother. I don't need it. I'm big enough to handle my own affairs and sane enough to give my baby girl a happy and balanced childhood filled with pony's, daffodils, geek, and a sense of place and purpose within society. I can do this without the help of the government, so thanks anyway, but censorship is not for me.

    41. Re:WTF?! by DeathElk · · Score: 1, Troll
      You're the idiot. It's hard to fuck up an economy when you're milking out a country's natural resources for all their worth - and China's buying.

      And the economy under Keating was already recovering from a global slump when Howard the coward was elected.

      Get your facts straight before you post.

    42. Re:WTF?! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!

      Point out that this would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. That will kill it dead.

      Oh. Wait...

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    43. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading that book in class we changed every instance of the word "nigger" to ninja, it was highly amusing.

    44. Re:WTF?! by smoker2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So you're ok with child porn then ? Or your bank details appearing on the web ?
      You seem to be confusing free speech with censorship. You are entitled to write/say anything you like, but no-one is forced to read/listen. In the case of your "speech" causing harm to others, then it is perfectly acceptable to have it censored.
      I can stand at the corner shouting kill all muslims, but if the authorities do nothing, then the muslims think that the authorities agree and that causes trouble for everybody. So I don't get to do that.(not that I would want to)
      You can't have everything you want. Do you really want to see goatse on the front page of your local newspaper ? Or should the editor decide against it ? Is that censorship ?
      Argue amongst yourself ...

    45. Re:WTF?! by Ngarrang · · Score: 2, Funny

      Money. The American way is to donate appropriate amounts of cash to the campaign funds of the particular people you are trying to sway.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    46. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm still hoping that technical infeasibility and resistance from ISPs will win out, but it's a worry that it has gone this far.

      As far as feasability, (and probably ISP resistance) are concerned, your hopes are in vain. This technology has been in place for a few years in the UK, also under the name 'cleanfeed'. It's *not* mandatory but AFAIK all the major ISPs are using it 'voluntarily' and they probably decided that this was better than having the gutter press brand them 'friends of the pervs' if they failed to do so.
      On the (slightly) positive side, although my ISP (Virgin Media) apparently uses it, I've never seen any evidence of its presence. Also, I've never heard of anyone having problems or false positives (which obviously doesn't mean this doesn't occur). Also they *don't* try to block TOR or open proxies.

    47. Re:WTF?! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      What? Australia wouldn't have this problem if there was easier access to firearms? If we all had guns we could just assassinate members of the government whenever we did not like policy? Yeah, that would work!

    48. Re:WTF?! by all204 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My thoughts exactly. I wish I had mod points right now...

    49. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your another one that was fooled by a slick ad campaign. your less than 2 years old and probably never voted before. you need "sucker" printed on your forehead, labor singled out your howard hating ass and used you.

    50. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're incredibly naive if you're surprised by any of this.

    51. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is Australia in the "Western world"?

    52. Re:WTF?! by Emb3rz · · Score: 1

      Nothing should be censored, ever.

      I have to disagree. There are many things that I wish were censored. If, for instance, there were a filter on Slashdot that would obfuscate a standard list of words (and optionally the sentence that contained them) plus any additional words I deemed offensive to me, I would definitely make use of it. This is not so as to encroach on the rights of others, but rather to ensure that I have control/forewarning of seeing something that may be quite distasteful to me.

    53. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother? It'd probably just be ignored like it is here.

    54. Re:WTF?! by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 1

      You forgot "kiddy porn" and "piracy", but otherwise, you've got it pretty much nailed.

    55. Re:WTF?! by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 1

      Personally this is the kind of thing that I am beginning to suspect of Chairman Rudd, leader of the Labour party of the Peoples Republic of Australia (don't laugh, I swear it is happening...)

      Not a week goes by when we don't see a story about censorship, bans, etc in Australia. There have even been a number of reporters whose houses and places of work have been raided by the federal police to find the sources of embarrassing leaks. Not information that is vital to the security of the country, no. Merely information which when it was released into the public via our newspapers, was embarrassing to the government.

      But this will all be "for the best," because our government is here to treat us like lost little children and protect us from the big bad world.

      WHO THE F*** VOTED FOR THESE D**KHEADS!!!!

      ---

      Don't blame me - I voted Liberal

      --
      I am not stubborn. I am right!
    56. Re:WTF?! by theaveng · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It should all be allowed, except for the shouting (U.S. Constitution says *peaceably* assemble) or the revealing of a person's private data (essentially theft of property).

      We allow the Ku Klux Klan to print and demonstrate with signs the most racist garbage you can imagine, precisely because you CAN stuff earplugs into your ears and choose not to listen. People should not be censored simply because their ideas are unpopular or disgusting. Change the channel or walk away if you don't like that person's viewpoints.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    57. Re:WTF?! by edmicman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can stand at the corner shouting kill all muslims, but if the authorities do nothing, then the muslims think that the authorities agree and that causes trouble for everybody.

      Yes, you can, and no, it doesn't. You can rightfully say anything you want, peaceably, and the government has NO authority otherwise. Sure, you have to pay the consequences from the person punching you in the face for being a racist bigot (and they, in turn face consequences for punching you in the face). But the government CANNOT keep you from expressing your opinion. Same for the newspaper - it's not censorship if the editor chooses not to publish goatse - that is their right and responsibility as a private entity.

    58. Re:WTF?! by theaveng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>So you're ok with child porn then ?

      No because involuntary sex is wrong (it's rape), but I don't have any objections to Nudist sites which feature family photos. God created the human body; there's no reason to censor his artistry.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    59. Re:WTF?! by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this passed, it would be time for pitchforks and torches. Now you see why so many people are pro 2nd amendment (right to own guns) in the USA. To protect us from our own government.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    60. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that doesn't follow.

    61. Re:WTF?! by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not censorship (blocking the source).

      It's filtering (blocking access at the destination).

      I have no objections to the latter, but STRONG objections to the former. I don't mind if you don't want to hear my ideas, but I do mind if you gag my mouth.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    62. Re:WTF?! by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 1

      "Soap Box, Ballot Box, Ammo Box. Use in that order. Starting now."

      --
      Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    63. Re:WTF?! by Jimmyisikura · · Score: 1

      Well, usually we just bitch at them until they give us our neutralzors. And even though we piss all over our constitution we can still throw the 1st amendment in their face when they complain.

    64. Re:WTF?! by c-reus · · Score: 1

      are there any instances when the politicians have actually listened to the public opinion?

    65. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're ok with child porn then ?

      The images themselves? Fine, as long as I don't have to look at them. Keep them where they will only be found by those actually looking for them.

      As for the production of said images - that's a completely different matter, not related to censorship at all.

      You might disagree on it being a different matter, but look at other crimes. Hitting people with baseball bats are a crime. Showing footage of someone hitting people with baseball bats on the news is not. Outlawing that would be considered
      censorship by most people.

      Photographic evidence of a crime is not the same as the crime.

      Or your bank details appearing on the web ?

      No, because they are my business only. But if you wanted your bank details to appear on the web, they should not be censored for you. See the difference?

      Now, there is a relation between those two questions other than the censorship. The person in those pictures might not want them out there. However, them being out there does not harm said person (as opposed to abusing the bank details), only the knowledge of them being out there. However, censorship does not solve this point. The pictures are still out there, the knowledge that they exist are just the same. If you know or think that pictures were taken, you know someone somewhere is jacking off to them. If you are not aware that pictures were taken, you don't go looking for them.

    66. Re:WTF?! by master_p · · Score: 3, Informative

      And that's a reason many people believe that 9-11 was not orchestrated by Muslims, but by the secret services of western countries.

    67. Re:WTF?! by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because there's never been any reduction of people's freedoms in the US lately...

    68. Re:WTF?! by jandersen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would start with Article 12 from this... http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
      i.e. "Article 12 : No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

      Please note the little word "arbitrary". Is it arbitrary when it happens systematically? Such philosophical questions aside, what this article really says is that these must not occur except as allowed by law. This is just like when the polica can't arrest you on a whim, "just because" - that would be "arbitrary" - but they can still arrest you if they suspect you of committing a crime, because there is a law that says so.

      In the same way, if the legislators decide to make a law that decides which web-sites you are allowed to visit, it is no longer arbitrary, and the only way to get around it, as far as I can see, is by either proving that it is unconstitutional or by getting somebody elected that are willing to repeal this law.

    69. Re:WTF?! by Harin_Teb · · Score: 1

      If you tack the phrase "by the government" in between "censored" and "," then I agree with you.

      I think responsible parenting requires certain levels of censorship though.

      Seriously there is a huge non-trivial difference between what you said, and the way I changed it.

    70. Re:WTF?! by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It also helped that we have a minority government who wouldn't want to piss off too many people and ended up making copyright law into an issue in several ridings. As a Canadian, I'm genuinely proud of how we derailed that piece of crap. One of the heads of the CRIA, the Canadian arm of the RIAA (they don't actually represent any Canadian labels anymore) was actually ranting in an interview about how Facebook derailed their precious copyright law, which made my day, let me tell you. Our minority government however has already announced their intention to move in the same direction with future copyright bills, so we'll see how long our victory lasts...

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    71. Re:WTF?! by evanism · · Score: 1

      Bifurcati, this is NOT the Australia we grew up in. Orwellian Ultra Reigeme is now the norm.... you have two probabilities... 1: get out of the whole county... 2: live anonymously in the absolute back waters of back-of-whoop-whoop....

      dude, its game over here. The only option is to wait 20 years, hide your guns, and come out shooting later.

      Fair?...no... realistic.... yes...

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    72. Re:WTF?! by Darundal · · Score: 1

      Holy Crap, Rudy Giuliani has a /. account!

    73. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to make a campaign contribution.

    74. Re:WTF?! by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "I'm not sure why you think we're immune from this stupidity in Australia, or why Labor would be any better in this regard. Australia's censorship laws are some of the worst in the Western world."

      That brings up a related question. As an American (US variety) I *know* where the puritanical streak in my society comes from - it came over with the original Puritans. Doesn't make me happy, and you'd think 400 years later we would have shaken it off, but there it is.

      But why Australia? Was there a big Puritan exodus to there as well as the American Colonies? My understanding is that Australia was mainly a penal colony, and criminals, petty or grand, aren't known for having those traits.

      Not flamebait, just looking for a brief history/sociology lesson.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    75. Re:WTF?! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      I have studied history, and I know that disarming the population is dictatorship 101. However it does not follow that keeping weapons would have helped anyone.

      History is lacking in cases of popular uprisings that have had anything like their intended consequences. Most just end in massive casualties. Typically the best you can hope for is civil war, while some of the most violent and oppressive regimes rose to power after armed revolution.

      I know that Americans are taught that they need to have weapons in order to keep the government in check, but how realistic do you really believe that kind of scenario is? George Bush is generally considered one of the worst presidents of all time, but I've never heard any American seriously suggest overthrowing his administration, the cure would be worse than the disease

      If anything, the last 300 years of history has shown us that guns in the hands of the general population are most often used used to kill other members of population, if they are used at all.

    76. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As for governments trying this sort, the UK is probably in the lead :( ...
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/15/2222209 [slashdot.org]
      "

      Britain is considering national email monitoring, that's very different from censorship.

      These 'power seekers' sound like nasty creatures. Which Sci-Fi show are they from?

    77. Re:WTF?! by gaijin99 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nonsense. I'm a gun owner but the idea that the private ownership of firearms somehow protects us from our government is the biggest bunch of falsely puffed up ego stroking crap I've ever run into. The government has armies trained in cooperative tactics, armed with fully automatic weapons, squad support weapons, superior communications, tanks, the ability to call in air strikes and artillery, and you think you and I are going to do something about that with our handguns and semi-auto rifles?

      And, more to the point, there's a realworld example of why the "guns protect freedom" argument is total nonsense. Iraq. During Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime an Iraqi could walk into a gun shop and buy an AK-47 with the full auto function enabled. By your argument, therefore, Iraq under Saddam should have been a very free place, but you'll note that it wasn't.

      Guns are great, I like 'em. But I don't have the need to fool myself and think that somehow I'm a movie superhero boldly protecting freedom from the evil gubment.

      What protects us is that the army is made up of citizens who (we hope) believe in freedom, democracy, and (hopefully) take their oath to uphold the Constitution [1] seriously. The army would mutiny if it were ordered to occupy, say, New York City and enforce blatantly anti-Constitutional laws. That is what protects freedom in America. Not my guns, not the promises of politicians, but the simple fact that our army is made up of us.

      [1] Note, not to obey the President, but to uphold the Constitution.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    78. Re:WTF?! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're ok with child porn then ? Or your bank details appearing on the web ?

      At this point, Unequivocally, I say that; Yes I am willing to accept an internet, and a wider world, with child porn, Bank details, terrorists videos or what have you. Let me repeat my point. I would put up with any amount of child porn and pedophiles, any amount, before I would put up with taking one more step down the road that society is taking.

      People need to make a stand on this issue. People have to take away the ability for authoritarians and enemies of free society to use certain words, concepts and arguments as unassailable and irrefutable weapons. The Taboo of countering these arguments must end.

      It's better that a thousand children be molested than one website blocked. You think this idea is shocking? I think this image is more shocking. And make no mistake, this image is exactly where our society is headed if we allow our honest protests to be silenced with no more than a single word.

      If you think I'm being too radical, I'll leave you with a Frederick Douglas quote to chew on: "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground."

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    79. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with our UN rights is a bit further down the page, article 29, section 3:

      These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    80. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you have to get your pitchfork and kill him for holding a view different to yours.

      How can he be in favor of Censorship?

      Kill him, in the name of FREEDOM!

    81. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off mate, Australia has always had the resources. I personally don't like either party too much, Australia, being as rich in resources as it is has the potential to be one of the most successful nations in the world (much moreso than it is). But both party's have yet to put money and resources into the right things to bring the country to it's peak capabilities.

    82. Re:WTF?! by izomiac · · Score: 1

      So you're ok with child porn then ? Or your bank details appearing on the web ?

      Yep, because I care about police finding child porn so they can arrest the child abusers more than I care about making it difficult for pedophiles to masturbate. My financial security also shouldn't depend on the secrecy of a number, but censorship won't help if the number is exposed. I.e. it'd be neigh impossible to automatically sensor that information, and even if it's taken down quickly, you'd still need to move your (remaining) money elsewhere.

      You seem to be confusing free speech with censorship. You are entitled to write/say anything you like, but no-one is forced to read/listen.

      Censorship prevents free speech. It prevents people from having a choice to listen. Causing immediate harm is one thing, but teaching/telling people unfavorable things is quite another. Going on about how muslims are the scourge of the world is distasteful, and I'd hope people would choose to ignore it or argue with it, but it doesn't actually cause anybody harm.

    83. Re:WTF?! by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      Good points.

      And to shed some light... I think it's because it's computer related that some of the masses are letting it slip. They think it's too technical to understand, etc. etc. Well in reality, the masses (in the US at least) are getting so involved with computers and the internet, they really need to fight to protect their freedoms. Don't let the bad guys screw us over before you realize what you'll lose!

    84. Re:WTF?! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      I forgot the most important part of that Douglas quote in the context of this discuss. With apologies, I reply to my own post, with the entire quote, with selected parts highlighted

      "If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get. If we ever get free from all the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and, if needs be, by our lives, and the lives of others."

      - Frederick Douglas - 1857

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    85. Re:WTF?! by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      I kind of knew about this (though not its extent) when I voted for him. Unfortunately, the system isn't really set up for people to have any real kind of expression. You vote for one face, or another, and all the policies that come with it.

      I can't say I regret voting him in; better than another term of Howard and all the *other* shit he's dragged us through (ie. Iraq, among other things).

      I say it's foolish to argue about who should or shouldn't have been voted in, and better to reason with whoever was voted in. Time to get out my big fat ... letter-writing pen!

    86. Re:WTF?! by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Troll

      Censorship is always NOT about you and me. It's only YOU and people like YOU who always make it about your overblown Western personalities.

      Censorship it's about society. It's one of the necessary things that all people are unhappy about, but society as a whole is in need of it.

      So keep your personal wants and desires for your own family to yourself, they are pretty much off topic.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    87. Re:WTF?! by Sperbels · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What protects us is that the army is made up of citizens who (we hope) believe in freedom, democracy, and (hopefully) take their oath to uphold the Constitution [1] seriously. The army would mutiny if it were ordered to occupy, say, New York City and enforce blatantly anti-Constitutional laws. That is what protects freedom in America. Not my guns, not the promises of politicians, but the simple fact that our army is made up of us

      Ask yourself this...if there is a large group of people united in a just cause...and the government is willing to use force to pacify them...the military is just going to pop some tear gas in there and the problem is taken care. When the people are armed it's not so easy. You have to escalate matters to a whole new level. The military will be willing to pacify these unarmed people on a whim (just as the police do now). But if the people are armed, it requires deadly force to pacify them. The politicians giving the orders, and military personel doing the violent pacifying suddenly need a damn good reason to do it. If things ever got so bad that large portions of the population were willing to take up arms against the US government, a population carrying pitchforks could easily be dismissed. An armed population could not. Lastly, it's NOT futile for a bunch of people armed with hunting rifles to take on a modern military. It's called guerrilla warfare and small bands of people employ it against large technologically advanced armies all the time and having been doing it for centuries... with varying degrees of success.

      During Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime an Iraqi could walk into a gun shop and buy an AK-47 with the full auto function enabled. By your argument, therefore, Iraq under Saddam should have been a very free place, but you'll note that it wasn't

      You're making the assumption that Saddam was so bad that the people were willing to risk their lives to overthrow him. Maybe the majority of people were willing to live with things as they were...especially considering Saddam's history of gassing whole towns to quell an uprising.

    88. Re:WTF?! by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Back when the 2nd amendment was created, that was EXACTLY its intent (even though it ws not publicly acknowledged as such). In order to establish a stronger federal government than had been allowed under the Articles of Confederation and get the new Constitution ratified, the Federalists had to give the public and states some assurance that the new government would not set itself up as a new quasi-monarchy. One of those assurances was that the government could not divest states and citizenry of the weapons they had used to overthrow British control a few years earlier (an implied right to rebel if the new government proved as heavy-handed as the British government).

      Now practically, it's true that it would be a lot more difficult to rebel today than in the late 18th century with mere firearms. But if there are enough people equipped with small arms in a guerrilla insurgency, they can hopelessly mire down any government attempting to control them (just look at what simple insurgents were able to do in Vietnam and Iraq with just rifles and simple explosives). Tanks, large bombs, and airpower are overpowering in conventional warfare, but not nearly as useful against a massive citizen-based insurgency.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    89. Re:WTF?! by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but this speech has has been classed as "terroristic speech" and may not be accessed.

      (Courtesy of the Australian Authority - Your government working for YOUR protection.)

      Dang.

      Well I guess Frederick Douglas was nobody important anyway. And who's this Martin Luther King I hear people speak of? "Bill of Rights" - what's that? I don't think I'm allowed to read that from a *.au domain. (shrug). Pass the bread, I hear there are some circuses on the tv.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    90. Re:WTF?! by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Child porn doesn't harm anybody if the images are simulated. (i.e. Computer-generated imagery.)

      Yes it's sick & disgusting, but I can not lay my hand on any document that grants me a "right to not be offended". No such right exists.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    91. Re:WTF?! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've seen a lot of posts from you, I guess it's your sig that I remember. Anyway, you're pretty hard line, I'd consider you as someone at the extremities on most topics. Don't be offended though, it's just an observation gleaned from a few hundred lines of text and subject to stereotype and various inaccuracies.

      If you check GP's posting history - he is a fundamentalist Muslim. So don't be surprised.

    92. Re:WTF?! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!

      When it's gone this far, I'd say a few thousand rounds of ammo and a chip on your shoulder.

    93. Re:WTF?! by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Sure, plenty. Politicians in general don't like holding unpopular positions.

    94. Re:WTF?! by tapanitarvainen · · Score: 1

      Somewhat similar scheme was attempted in Finland... starting about a year ago. It wasn't officially mandatory but the minister in charge hinted it would be made so unless ISPs cooperated "voluntarily". It rather blew on their face when it was discovered how poorly it worked (like, 95%+ of the sites blocked weren't what they were supposed to be - e.g., w3c.org was blocked for a while), and after a public uproar they backed down - not dismantling the system or admitting it was a mistake, but saying "of course it was intended as voluntary to everybody all along".

      Today, police still maintains the blacklist and many ISPs use it by default but if you complain, they just tell you how to bypass it (change DNS servers), and some ignore it completely.

      There're English stories about it here and here.

    95. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I really would like to believe that the reason the bill has not (yet?) passed is because of a groundswell of public opposition, I don't agree.

      Notwithstanding Prof. Geist's efforts to derail this piece of garbage legislation, I believe it's because the Conservatives haven't (yet?) won a majority government. None of the other parties (all left-wing) would support them on this and trying to lean on the more "blue" MPs in any of the other parties would just raise unwanted attention.

      To date, I've not seen this issue raised by the MSM, and I'm pretty sure the Conservatives would like to keep it that way.

      Should the Conservatives get a majority (a bullet dodged just a few days ago - we should be good for the next couple of years), I have no doubt that we'd be seeing a lot more of these types of legislation come up and be passed.

    96. Re:WTF?! by gaijin99 · · Score: 1

      As you observe, things have changed since 1790. To begin with, back then the only real difference between military weapons and civilian weapons was that the civilian weapons were generally higher quality.

      My personal arsenal today consists of a .22 caliber rifle with a scope, one 12 magazine fed gauge shotgun, one 10 gauge break action single barrel shotgun, and one .32 caliber pistol. I have zero grenades, fully automatic weapons, squad weapons, mortars, armored vehicles, etc. I don't keep a stockpile of ammo, I buy what I need when I go out shooting, and as a result I have one 12 gauge shell and a partially empty box of .22 long rifle bullets. I have no body armor, no helmet.

      You think I'm going to have a chance against the 101st airborne?

      Guerrilla war can indeed be effective, but I notice that in Iraq the weapon of choice for the guerrilla is the improvised explosive device, not a gun of any sort. Maybe we should give up the NRA and start the National IED Association?

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    97. Re:WTF?! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Puritanism in the general sense -- "the desperate fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time" -- seems to be a trait that pops up in just about every type of authoritarian system. Authoritarians of the right, authoritarians of the left, and authoritarians with no discernable political philosophy other than maintaining their own power all seem to put an inordinate amount of effort into "protecting the morals" of the societies they control. A good measure of a government's attitude toward freedom in general is its attitude toward sex and other pleasures of the body.

      Honestly, I think it's a bit of a stretch to blame American small-p puritanism on those grim old pilgrims. The Mayflower landed almost four hundred years ago; a lot has changed since then, and the descendents of the Puritans are now held up as models of licentiousness and decadence by the descendants of Cavaliers ... Australia has a history almost as long and just as tangled. Whatever a country's origins, the people who live there now constitute their own society, and history informs but in no way determines how that society works.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    98. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I want answers, damnit! I'm Aussie, and not used to fighting these sort of things - Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!

      Without a guarantee of free speech and the right of the citizens to have firearms, you're pretty much at the mercy of your government. At least you have habeas corpus to guarantee your liberty... or would if the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005 hadn't gutted it.

      Nope. You'd better keep your mouth shut before you're given twelve months house arrest without trial.

      I love Australia and Australians. However, your government and your plumbing both suck. Your plumbing sucks because your government mandates how things must be done (such as stupid half flush toilets) instead of mandating the result that must be achieved (such as reduced water consumption). It's the same thing going on here. Your internet access will soon suck too.

    99. Re:WTF?! by wifiwaves · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is south of the equator...everything is reversed.

    100. Re:WTF?! by cavePrisoner · · Score: 1

      The real problem with rebellion today had nothing to do with weaponry. The problem is the ease of travel for troops. An insurgency/riot in a city in 1790 would only have to defeat a small local force before taking control of the city. It could be weeks before any serious attempt could be made to retake the city.

      The French revolution only calmed down when an improved French transportation system allowed the army to send troops into Paris from other areas of the country quickly. Non-local troops were more willing to fight their own people than local ones. They previously had the habit of joining the revolutions rather than be slaughtered by them.

      So really, in the past you wouldn't have to worry about the 101st until you had plenty of time to prepare. Now, you can expect to see them within a day or two.

    101. Re:WTF?! by Emb3rz · · Score: 1

      I would, and shall, argue that in certain media, gagging one's mouth would be important to preserve a certain standard. Neopets, for instance, prohibits abusive speech from being posted on their messageboards. Given that a large part of their audience is under the age of 13, they have felt it necessary for the integrity of their business and the environment they've aspired to create to prevent users from using harsh words that would be objected to by a) users b) parents of users c) thinkofthechildren onlookers. Further, I would add that I support censorship in this and similar veins. There is a clear and logical reason for it and it does not appreciably harm anyone (inconvenience those who can't put a sentence together without foul language, perhaps).

    102. Re:WTF?! by Sapphon · · Score: 1

      So, how many Americans exactly have exercised their right to bear arms to protect themselves against the litany of civil rights curtailments instituted by their Government? Seems like a fairly empty right to me.

      Besides, this content filter has no way of working: that 16-year-old who cracked the porn filter has had over a year to hone his elite skills; he's probably preparing a press release already.

      --
      Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    103. Re:WTF?! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Its interesting how so called free countries are rushing towards censorship, control and out right Big Brother, faster than so called bad countries.

      The Bad Countries already had censorship, control and out-right Big Brother. So they don't need to rush towards anything, they're already there.

    104. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!

      Well, as an American i can say that the best way to deal with this is to move.
      I would suggest that you do this before some guy named, well lets call him 'George Bush', shows up and asks if he can run your country.

    105. Re:WTF?! by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      Well, let's face it. People aren't as good to each other as they used to be. Criminals want *their* freedoms too, ya know. So *somebody* has to take care of the problem. If government does it, you end up with Big Brother and a huge risk of banished democracy.

      If the citizenship do it, the government will find itself mixed up with ordinary criminals; normal citizens don't distinguish between "bad people" and "bad people working on behalf of the government." So the government has a vested interest in 1) taking care of the problem and 2) making sure the citizenry don't try to do things their own way. Ever.

      If I were you, I'd start at the local level and identify people of influence who are willing to help you. Write down areas they can influence, identify peoplpe who have influence in areas you lack, and try to convert them to your POV. Rinse and repeat - and keep committing people to help out. Good luck!

    106. Re:WTF?! by danw5k1 · · Score: 1

      And shortly after their child dies in a car accident parents will attack the driver of the other car. The question is not _IF_ there was backlash but if it was _JUSTIFIED_ backlash.

      Admittedly 9-11 wasn't an accident. With foreign policy like the USA pushes it was just a mater of time. And if the USA wanted to beef up security it has had a great example for a long time

    107. Re:WTF?! by Kynde · · Score: 1

      Okay, seriously, can anyone with sources verify if this is real? I mean, I might expect this from Liberals - but from Labor?

      Ok, I know absolutely nothing about aussie politics, but not very liberal your liberals?
      Or perhaps just not very literal about being liberal?

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
    108. Re:WTF?! by swb · · Score: 1

      IEDs have their place, but primarily as an area denial weapon (as a hindrance to movement) and a way to defeat armor.

      But you can't have an effective insurgency without small arms. They ARE effective. We're failing to win in Afghanistan largely against irregular units with small arms. Your .22 rifle with a scope is an effective sniping weapon, especially with a home-made suppressor.

      What's not effective and probably hasn't been ever is trying to fight a "stand up" battle against regular armed forces. This is what they are trained to fight and superiority of firepower and logistics generally can defeat irregulars in a set piece battle.

      But look at what's happened to US law enforcement forces when they've faced small arms -- at Waco, for example, they got their hats handed to them despite superior numbers, weapons and training. They've "won" by employing largely heavy armored weapons, but it was a stand-off at best facing civilians. (I use this as an example since we don't really have any examples of American civilians fighting against military forces).

    109. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Every world map I've seen has you in the far east. That puts you in the same league as China. Must be why the censorship is so bad there.

    110. Re:WTF?! by pngmangi42 · · Score: 1

      I want answers, damnit! I'm Aussie, and not used to fighting these sort of things - Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!

      Write angry forum posts with lots of question marks and exclamation points! It's always worked for me in the past! Oh... wait... no...

      --
      I tried to walk into Target, but I missed. --Mitch Hedburg
    111. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censorship is about [...] YOU and people like YOU [...] it's about society. It's one of the necessary things that all people are unhappy about, but society as a whole is in need of it.

      Why is society in need of it? If it's about ME and people like ME, than we don't need it, since I don't need it, and thus people like me don't need it.

    112. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute quoting. The GP is making a statement against indiviualism (intentional or not), and you're making yourself the center of your society :)

    113. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia (I don't know if all states have the same law), it is a crime to vilify someone based on their race/religion. So yes, it may be illegal and presumably subject to censorship.

      Since the election of the Labor party, the loonies have come out of the closet. Add this to calls such as "no one should have the right to free speech if it offends someone" :-/

    114. Re:WTF?! by rabbit994 · · Score: 1

      [quote]Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?![/quote]

      You turned them in a couple of years ago. We can't help you that much either though. just having this discussion means black helicopters are going to come get me since Bush got to listen in since it's international conversation.

    115. Re:WTF?! by jibjibjib · · Score: 1

      Our Liberals, for some reason, are actually conservatives.

    116. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP assumes that 'socialist' means 'more likely to "nanny state"'

      Go figure.

    117. Re:WTF?! by mibus · · Score: 2, Informative

      1% is wishful thinking.

      http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2008/060

      "# Overblocking (the proportion of content that was blocked that should not have been blocked) was between 1% and 6%, with most falling under 3%. The median overblocking rate was significantly improved from the previous trial."

      Read the other dot-points at the end - performance hit was between 2% and over 75%... All to block "between 88% and 97%" of "bad" content.

      Somehow, the tradeoffs don't seem worth it to me.

      (Disclaimer: personal opinion; I work at an Australian ISP; ...)

    118. Re:WTF?! by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I want answers, damnit! I'm Aussie, and not used to fighting these sort of things - Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!

      You are asking the absolutely last group you should ask for advice on this. We had an election blatantly stolen and fought back by making hanging chad jokes.

      --
      Property is theft.
    119. Re:WTF?! by shplorb · · Score: 1

      I might expect this from Liberals - but from Labor?

      The Liberal Party is for individual freedom, personal responsibility and that government should give people a hand-up, not a hand out. The Labor Party is for cutting everyone down to the same level of mediocrity, government knows best and American spelling.

      Sure, they don't always stick to those lines and sway from them in different areas of policy like social versus economic, but that depends upon the political climate of the era and which party factions hold sway (after all, Labor governments instated the white Australia and mandatory detention policies). Mostly you can see those lines of thinking coming through in their policies.

    120. Re:WTF?! by msim · · Score: 1

      have a look at this link, yet another blog with info on the whole pesky internet censorship thing here in .au. There are also countless discussions including on the greens forum.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    121. Re:WTF?! by msim · · Score: 1

      Just remember that the USA gained independence from behind the barrel of a gun and the knife. Whereas Australia gained independence from a political stroke of the pen via British Parliament. Thisly i feel were mush more content as a country to roll along with a "yeah, whatever" apathetic attitude as opposed to going "hang on, that's not right" and fight it like so many populations are far more willing to do.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  3. 10,0000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is this some new scheme to confuse use by putting commas in the wrong place?

    1. Re:10,0000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the metric system v2.0. It's how we distract everyone from the fact that the stock market is currently being funded by the neighbor's dog turds.

    2. Re:10,0000? by plankrwf · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, this is a clever test.
      It is aimed at a certain type of slashdot readers:
      the readers in the following groups:
      - Americans. Or at least: they who are used to using a "." as a seperator. I.e.: "1/2=0.5"
      Beware: there are those who would write the above as "1/2=0,5"!
      - Non Americans, of the 'not enough geek' type.
      They wouldn't fall for the '0,5' thing, but would balk at a sentence 'about 10,0000 in one million'.
      Beware: those in the stock market (non US) would say that 10,0000 in one million is not very precise: better is of course 10,00000 in one million. I mean: 10,0000 is really between 9,9999 and 10,0001 which is not really precise.
      - Those who think that the world is NOT directed by mathematics. Indeed, these people would disbelieve a number of 10,0000 in one million (but would believe something like 12,9078).

      All-in-all, as I read my own thoughts: it cannot be but a lure to try to trap those slashdotreaders who are in the stock-exchange outside of the USA, and who ARE of the opinion that all riscs in the stock exchange can be put in a mathematical formulae.

      This off course in the best slashdot tradition:
      1. Identify a specific group of slashdot readers
      2. ...
      3. ...
      4. Profit!
      (They just haven't yet come to steps 2 and 3)

    3. Re:10,0000? by bundaegi · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you are Korean, this makes perfect sense as they have a numeral system based around 10^4. "man" stands for 10000 (10^4). 10,0000 would be "sib man". By the way, listen to a Korean convert a big number (say a house price) from a 10^4 based system to a 10^3 one and hilarity ensues...

      --
      bundaegi is good for you
    4. Re:10,0000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "10,0000" isn't wrong, it's "ten myriad". Which was everyday English back in the 16th century.

    5. Re:10,0000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works the same in Japanese and Chinese. It's called The Chinese Numeral System, Kimchi Jong Il!

    6. Re:10,0000? by JonathanR · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's just Shatner's version of one million dollars.

    7. Re:10,0000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine that it's the same system as in China (and Japan) where 100,000 is literally translated to ten ten-thousands (shi wan). I had plenty of fun learning to say big numbers in Chinese a few years back, on paper it's easy but making the conversion mentally takes some time to get used to.

    8. Re:10,0000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you are Chinese, this makes sense too as they also have the same thing. I'm sure many many other cultures are the same as well.

      My question is, how is this relevant to the article, and what does the specific Korean system have to do with anything?

  4. We already have this in Britain by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    www.iwf.org.uk

    Whilst to be fair as far as I understand it does a good job in that it focuses entirely on child porn and hasn't as I'm aware stepped out of this remit I am a little concerned that it came into play without anyone ever really noticing or anyone ever really being told.

    Can we be sure this organisation does only do what it says it does? Can we be sure it doesn't ever abuse it's powers? Would we ever know if it did?

    It is not run by the government and is an independent organisation, so not having a connection to the government increases my confidence in it a million fold at least however.

    1. Re:We already have this in Britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wrong on at least two counts. IWF isn't the same thing at all, because it doesn't filter anybody's content, it just provides a hotline for reporting illegal content, and secondly it doesn't focus entirely on child porn. Had you followed your own link you would have seen that they are concerned with "Child sexual abuse content hosted worldwide and criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK".

      --
      AC because modding

    2. Re:We already have this in Britain by Nuskrad · · Score: 1

      While the IWF doesn't filter content, it DOES provide the blacklists to those who do - notably the Cleanfeed and Webminder systems (which are used by BT and Madasafish respectivly), and possibly others

    3. Re:We already have this in Britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just a hash list provider for people who request it (mainly out of fear of legal liability, although that's not technically an issue...YET). The way I understand it, they're basically a DNSBL, not sure how accurate they are though (most DNSBLs on the Internet seem to have some proportion of false positives, but none of them every publish statistics).

    4. Re:We already have this in Britain by Xest · · Score: 1

      The IWF issues a blacklist that all UK ISPs implement so yes, it does act to decide what content is blacklisted in the UK. It is much more than just a hotline.

      This blacklist deals with child porn. Criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content aren't filtered by this blacklist but are passed on to the authorities and ISPs to deal with via take downs instead.

      Thank you however for demonstrating exactly what the problem is with the IWF. That people don't even realise that it does act as a censor.

      See here:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/07/bt_iwf_trails/

      here:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/may/26/onlinesupplement

      or here:

      http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2119771/web-watchdog-issues-paedophile-blacklist

      Again, I support the work they do currently if it is as suggested, however I do not support the fact that they are allowed to manage it without any oversight or public awareness.

    5. Re:We already have this in Britain by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Can we be sure it doesn't ever abuse it's powers?

      Can we be sure it doesn't ever abuse its apostrophes?

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    6. Re:We already have this in Britain by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Though I was under the impression that Cleanfeed's list comes from the IWF? (E.g., see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3797563.stm )

      Had you followed your own link you would have seen that they are concerned with "Child sexual abuse content hosted worldwide and criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK".

      Agreed, although note that it's not just "in the UK", despite what they claim - they recently reported the guy for prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act for writing a fictional story, even though the material is hosted in another country.

    7. Re:We already have this in Britain by das_magpie · · Score: 1

      Firstly The Government will always be able to manipulate the firewalls rules anyway. Privately ran or not. I doubt there is anywhere in the contract that says they are forbidden to do so

      Secondly if they know about these child porn sites, why don't they spend some money on locking people hosting the filth up. Or at least demand it be shut down fix the problem at the root. I am sure something more can be done, no one wants to spend any money though.

      Finally, I am not big on conspiracy theories but we in the west are all getting our privacy interfered with and our freedom of speech could so easily follow. Governments are making it so easy to hear what you and everyone around you are saying that is whats scary.

      Once a scheme like this is in place it probably not long before the Government make up there mind to filter out sites which boast "terrorist content"

  5. Hypocrisy anyone? by redscare2k4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And let me guess, the Australian guys in the government that want this, are the sames that scream "dictatorship!!" any time Venezuela, Cuba, or China is mentioned. Hypocrisy

    1. Re:Hypocrisy anyone? by deniable · · Score: 1

      Yeah, our PM is really tough on the Chinese. He talks tough to them, or so the translator says.

    2. Re:Hypocrisy anyone? by kaos07 · · Score: 3, Informative

      100% right. It was most noticeable during the Olympics.

      During the Olympics, the Australian media were in uproar about the "Great Firewall of China". Being a Slashdot reader, I knew all about it but for most people the fact that there's mandatory internet censorship in China was a completey new and abhorrent idea. What they apparently didn't know was that our government was actually testing how to do the exact same thing whilst they were banging on about how bad China is.

      I wrote many letters to all the papers on that very topic but alas, they were all ignored.

    3. Re:Hypocrisy anyone? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      You talking about our PM who speaks Mandarin, I don't recall howard doing that, if I recall the best he could do was insert his tongue into the back end of George W Bush....
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_rudd

      Rudd studied at the Australian National University in Canberra where he resided at Burgmann College and graduated with First Class Honours in Arts (Asian Studies). He majored in Chinese language and Chinese history, became proficient in Mandarin and acquired a Chinese alias, Lù Kèwén (traditional Chinese: or in simplified Chinese: ).[6] Like most Chinese names given to westerners, Rudd's Chinese surname (Lù ) is partially based on the phonetics of his actual surname, Rudd (both possessing the vowel 'U' and the similar sounding alveolar lateral flap initial 'R/L') as well as being an actual Chinese name. Similarly, despite his Chinese given name (Kèwén ) closely resembling the official Chinese language transliteration of 'Kevin' (Kiwén ), it is also a Chinese name in its own right.[7][8] Rudd's thesis on Chinese democracy activist Wei Jingsheng[9] was supervised by Pierre Ryckmans, the eminent Belgian-Australian Sinologist.[10] During his studies Rudd cleaned the house of political commentator Laurie Oakes to earn money.[11] In 1980 he continued his Chinese studies at the National Taiwan Normal University in Taipei, Taiwan.[12] Delivering the annual Gough Whitlam Lecture at Sydney University on "The Reforming Centre of Australian Politics" in 2008, Rudd praised the former Labor Prime Minister for implementing educational reforms, saying he was: ... a kid who lived Gough Whitlam's dream that every child should have a desk with a lamp on it where he or she could study. A kid whose mum told him after the 1972 election that it might just now be possible for the likes of him to go to university. A kid from the country of no particular means and of no political pedigree who could therefore dream that one day he could make a contribution to our national political life.[13]

    4. Re:Hypocrisy anyone? by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as hypocrisy when it comes to your government. When they do something it is right, and when someone else does the same thing, they decide whether it is right or wrong. This is all perfectly right and fair, they have decided.

      I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't been able to take anything an elected official or a business leader has said seriously for a long long time now.

      The stupid people won.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    5. Re:Hypocrisy anyone? by deniable · · Score: 1

      No shit, Rudd speaks Mandarin? Is the pope catholic? Look up irony sometime. You missed the subtlety. You must be an American like the original tool that thinks our government speaks out about China or Venezuala.

    6. Re:Hypocrisy anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a cunt.

  6. Waste of money by TheLink · · Score: 1, Funny

    Seems a waste of money since different parents have different ideas of what is appropriate for their children.

    I think it would be better to spend 125 million instead on teaching parents how to domesticate/train their children properly.

    Not saying they should all train their kids to be exactly the same , but if you look at the training programs for dogs, even if you're training a dog to do different things, the concepts and methods are pretty much the same, even if the desired results and objectives might be different.

    And too many parents are clueless on the basic concepts.

    Maybe they should force parents to pass a basic parenting test before they are allowed to have children. If they have children without a license then they get fined.

    --
    1. Re:Waste of money by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      How is this funny? The quy is freaking insightful.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  7. I thought *we* had it bad in SA by Henkc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Jeez, I thought we had it bad in South Africa with our ex-minister of health (Doctor Beetroot - so named because of her stupid approach to combating HIV/Aids).

    Not only do we beat the ozzies in rugby, but now they have another reason to feel oppressed :-)))))

    1. Re:I thought *we* had it bad in SA by BlackSabbath · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hey, don't knock the power of beetroot!

      I drank a "health drink" that contained ginger, beetroot, carrot, celery and apple juice - it tasted so f**king horrible that I couldn't finish it. I can vouch with some confidence for its ability to kill just about anything.

  8. Blame China by m_maximus · · Score: 1

    They proved this was possible, and now th rest of the world's governments are going to give it a try. It doesn't have to work 100% of the time, just 90% of the time for 90% of content. The main problem will be when they start blocking content that they just don't like, rather than stuff which is 100% illegal.

    --
    I have a solution but you're not going to like it. (Something I say far too forten to my boss)
    1. Re:Blame China by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The main problem will be when they start blocking content that they just don't like, rather than stuff which is 100% illegal.

      Oh that's not a problem anyway - they write the laws, so if they don't like it, they can make it illegal too.

      (When passing the recent law in the UK that introduces criminalisation of possession of so-called "extreme" adult material, one of the politicans made the argument that they want to make it illegal, because then it will be easier for them to get ISPs and other companies to block the material...)

  9. 10,0000? by g253 · · Score: 1

    That's not how you write "100,000", by the way.
    So it has a 10% error rate? Isn't that pretty huge?

    And please, since I arrive early in the discussion, can we avoid posts like "meh, just use opendns", because that's missing the point completely. It's like telling a brit concerned about the proliferation of CCTVs to just wear a mask on the street.

  10. The Krudd Filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you Conroy! Who is paying you?

    1. Re:The Krudd Filter by deniable · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we want our tame idiots like Alston and Coonan back. They were much better. (Holy crap, we're looking under the barrel for ministers.)

  11. Freedom scares the governmemt by Greymoon · · Score: 1, Informative

    Apparently from all this 'filtering' news I have heard recently, governments/corporations have discovered that the internet and it's corresponding freedoms is something to 'save the children from', be feared and controlled ASAP. Stop electing these people, people.

    1. Re:Freedom scares the governmemt by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Its a bit hard to "stop electing these people" when EVERYONE with a chance of getting into power is supporting this in order to placate conservative church groups etc (I am sure that if the Liberal party had won the last election they would be doing something just as bad if not worse)

  12. 1% false positive? by NoNeeeed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm actually surprised that it is that low.

    What I particularly object to (in addition to the whole concept) is the capricious nature of many blocks. BoingBoing has been blocked by a number of blocklist companies, not because of anything rude or illegal, but because they had articles about filtering companies

    At the end of the day, you have a human organisation making decisions, and even in the best of worlds that will be open to abuse.

    As a brit, I welcome our Aussie friends to the panopticon of fear.

    1. Re:1% false positive? by kaos07 · · Score: 2, Informative

      100,000 / 1 million is 10%, not 1%.

    2. Re:1% false positive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a brit, I welcome our Aussie friends to the panopticon of fear.

      Hello old friend

    3. Re:1% false positive? by mibus · · Score: 1

      Even the tests show it was at least as bad as 1%...

      http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2008/060

  13. Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally my lazy fellow Australians will get off their bums and implement SSL on their websites, like I already have.

    Please CmdrTaco, can you set slashdot up so it actually responds to an https request with something that is encrypted? Sites such as wikipedia, wikileaks and technocrat already do it, why not slashdot?

    1. Re:Hooray! by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Finally my lazy fellow Australians will get off their bums and implement SSL on their websites, like I already have.

      Please CmdrTaco, can you set slashdot up so it actually responds to an https request with something that is encrypted? Sites such as wikipedia, wikileaks and technocrat already do it, why not slashdot?

      I seem to be able to get https access to /. However it might be a subscriber only feature; Not that I use it much.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    2. Re:Hooray! by TRS-80 · · Score: 1

      5 of the 6 filters under test by the government include HTTPS filtering, by MITMing the SSL connection.

  14. So its 100000 of one milion by Dreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What dos it exactly mean?

    Is it: It blocks 100000 websites per every 1m (10% of the internet?)
    or: It simply blocks 100k (what does 1m mean then?)
    or: It blocks 100k of the 1m and this 1m is all you can get in australia anyway
    or: It blocks 100k attempts to access a blacklisted site per 1m of such attempts (that would be very inefficient wouldnt it)
    or: It blocks 100k illegal/harmful websites of 1m known. But if they know 10 times more why include only 10%

    Help me Im lost

    1. Re:So its 100000 of one milion by Terrasque · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could also mean, that for every 1 mill blocked, 100.000 of them shouldn't get blocked..

      Starting to get a bit confused myself when I start thinking of it.

      Of 1 million requests, it blocks X of them, where 100.000 of those shouldn't get blocked? Who knows..

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    2. Re:So its 100000 of one milion by Dreen · · Score: 1

      Still lost here

  15. Things I don't object too by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    I don't object to an XXX domain. Parents can block it, and people who want it can find it.

    I'm for mandatory tags on adult webpages. Again parents can block it, people who want it can find it.

    I don't mind so much black lists. At least real people maintaining them can correct mistakes. And a black list is good advertising for those who want that sort of thing.

    But mandatory government blocking program, that's just asking for trouble. At least with opt-in problems you can get away with "just don't use it".

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:Things I don't object too by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      The problem with XXX domains or "adult" labels is that communities can't agree on what it means to be "XXX" or "adult", and the Internet is limited to no one community. One community might find another's clothing ads obscene. Another might find a site about breast cancer "harmful to minors". How do you establish definitions that can apply everywhere the Internet is used?

      That being said, PICS allowed for all kinds of useful self-labeling, had a facility for 3rd-party ratings bureaus, and browsers even supported it for a time. Maybe start there?

  16. Vote ALL of Them out of office if you can!!! by itsybitsy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Before it's too late VOTE OUT ALL the elected members of the government of your country who support such draconian big brother mythologies.

    All countries, such as Austrailia, based upon English Common Law may have many defences and rights given a long time ago that can't be overridden by the fiats and power hungry wims of those who are deluded into thinking that they can take such dragonian steps to control society.

    The power elite are now the terrorists (yet again) against the masses. Not only that in many countries they are implementing the New World Order of Socialism for the Rich and capitalism for the not rich. Nationalization of the debts of banks and corporate follies while allowing them to keep their profits.

    Could the bail out be a scheme to keep the wars going with mercenaries instead of with national militaries? Pull out the troups and double the private contractors and presto no chango - the war machine grinds up more people from around the world.

    Enough is Enough. When will you and the rest of the people realize that those in power are not doing any of us any favors by imposing these draconian systems of control? Likely after it's too late.

    Vote out your leaders if you can. Say NO to their Big Brother Systems! Dismantle them.

    1. Re:Vote ALL of Them out of office if you can!!! by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

      So dealing with overzealous political types imposing Big Brother upon YOU is off topic? Very strange reaction by some. Must be Big Brother supporters within the Slashdot crowd or government plants rating the posting off post. If you value your freedom take political action.

  17. What mechanism are they going to use... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ...to prevent people from opt-ing out on their own? Router based IP filtering?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:What mechanism are they going to use... by g-san · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are buying firewalls from China. This is not unprecedented by any means. But luckily, since a lot of the internet is across an undersea cable, you won't notice an extra 10ms of latency while all your data is filtered.

      You do have a distinct geographical disadvantage, being a continent and all. Avian carriers could make a comeback though.

    2. Re:What mechanism are they going to use... by deniable · · Score: 1

      What, Chinese knock-off copies of Cisco firewalls? It was good, freedom loving Americans who built the great firewall.

    3. Re:What mechanism are they going to use... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police?

    4. Re:What mechanism are they going to use... by msim · · Score: 1

      mmmm, i look forward to reading about the "great crisco firewall of Australia"

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  18. What could possibly go wrong? by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We have buttiduously canvbutted the industry, buttessed what is available and buttembled the finest selection of PFI contractors for this buttignment. The filters will buttociatively clbuttify all communications and filter then, I can butture you, rebuttemble them with surpbutting exacbreastude in any quanbreasty. Consbreastuents can be rebuttured that a mulbreastude of industry compebreastors will butture quality and keep our clbuttrooms safe. EDS Capita Goatse will not embarbutt us."

    The plans have attracted wide criticism. "It will only give supersbreastious rebutturance to medireview thinkers. Automated systems won't solve human problems like loveual harbuttment. Mbuttacring the written word into a Picbutto painting is not the anbreastank missile of Internet safety."

    Unions also butterted that such close buttessment of staff in the workplace would hamper efficiency and could verge on workplace harbuttment. "Watermeloning cranberries."

    The government was unfazed. "Butterting free speech is one thing, but a triparbreaste committee considers that that does not justify mere pbuttive breastillation at the expense of others."

    The first filtering offices will be set up in Arsenal, Penistone and Scunthorpe.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Nice one - I'm going to have to dig out the 'Not the 9 O'Clock News' video again :)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by The_Chicken_205 · · Score: 1

      clbuttic :)

      --
      I need a new sig...
    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Inspired by The Daily WTF.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by deniable · · Score: 1

      We are the Borg, prepare to be buttimilated. Resistance is futile.

  19. Freenet? by femto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's people's real world experience of Freenet? Does it work and is it usable? Is it truly secure from government intervention and monitoring? If this proposal goes ahead it will be the thing that prompts me to install Freenet and badger all my friends into joining too.

    1. Re:Freenet? by nyctopterus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've played around with freenet. I don't know how secure it is, but in any case that was irrelevant, because it was unusably slow (on my 2mb up/20mb down ADSL2 connection). And we're not talking 56k slow here, we're talking 5-10 minutes for a page of text with a couple of little pictures. It's meant to get faster the longer you leave it on. It didn't in the four days I had it running.

    2. Re:Freenet? by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      What's people's real world experience of Freenet?

      Tried it every time a new major version is released.

      Does it work and is it usable?

      It works, yes. Is it usable? No, because compared to the standard net, it's horribly horribly slow. Besides that, due to the nature of Freenet, all sites are static and because there are so few sites there, and a high percentage of grey area or plain illegal content, almost all sites link to sites which link to sites which link to child porn.

      I2P is a much more promising project. It's basically an encrypted, anonymizing IP-layer on top of IP so the web sites that are running there are normal fully interactive web sites running PHP, Rails or whatever. There is also BitTorrent, IRC and many other things running on top of it. The only difference from the normal net is that there is no way to tell the real IP or location of neither the server nor the user connecting to it.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    3. Re:Freenet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also AnoNet, which scales a bit better than Freenet

    4. Re:Freenet? by svallarian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tor is your friend. Much, much faster than freenet ever was.

      http://www.torproject.org/

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
    5. Re:Freenet? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      freenet isn't suseful just because of lack of popularity. It's also not very efficient with data, but it is VERY resilient

      there are only 3 known attacks.

      Man-in-the-middle to trick freenet into thinking they're someone else. and requires deep network access like at the ISP to reroute your traffic

      an ISP grade check to make sure that all of the nodes you're connected to are being controlled as to find out if you're inserting illigal data

      both can be thwarted by it's new dark-net feature; which also assumes you go by a physical mean to by-pass man in the middle.

      and the infamous, make Freenet illigal because they can't pin a person who uses it because of lack of evidence.

    6. Re:Freenet? by Gamma746 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that Freenet only lets you access Freenet sites. If you want to use the "regular" internet, use Tor.

  20. Where is the Article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Went to read the linked article, but is no longer there. Hoax? or has it been Censored?

    **evil music begins**

  21. As a parent... by PinkyDead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would not be in favour of this at all.

    The system we have in our home is simple, the computer is in the kitchen where everyone else is. To my mind that is the only sensible way to keep your children safe on the Internet. If they come across something that is unsuitable then we talk about it. That means they know what's dangerous and how to deal with it, and we know what they're getting involved in.

    Blocking access is just wrapping your kids in cotton wool - and when you can't do that any more, they suddenly become very vulnerable.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    1. Re:As a parent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt the next step will be to require all households to sign up for the more heavily censored feed, and if they sign up for anything else to charge the parents with child abuse.

    2. Re:As a parent... by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      Probably. However, I would consider the opposite, assuming you child is safe because of the censored feed, to be child abuse.

      It's exactly the same as letting your child play on the street. My kids play out on the street (in a cul-de-sac) every day, but we keep a close eye on them - that's what you're supposed to do. They know to get off the road if a car comes down, they look out for each other and they know how to deal with strangers. This Australian idea is the same as leaving the kids in the front yard with the gates closed while you go out for the day. It's negligent parenting at best and it certainly should not be encouraged by the Government.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    3. Re:As a parent... by deniable · · Score: 1

      Or leaving them in the carpark at the Casino. Very Australian.

      Actually, I've found open-plan offices work well in a business. It's the guys in corner offices that get away with looking at porn all day.

    4. Re:As a parent... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered having pets _instead_ of having children?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re:As a parent... by s7uar7 · · Score: 1

      Just playing devil's advocate for a second - have you checked that the parents of any friends your children may visit are as diligent as you?

    6. Re:As a parent... by iosq · · Score: 1

      eugh, open plan offices? All that leads to is micromanagement by bosses.

    7. Re:As a parent... by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      That's a fair point.

      However, our objective is not to protect them from the nasties on the Internet, rather teach them how to deal with it. We have had a situation such as you describe and I have to say my daughter dealt with it as I would expect her to - she was open about the incident and we were able to sort it out.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    8. Re:As a parent... by c00rdb · · Score: 1

      They're next step should be to create a bill in which every computer is required to be located in the kitchen!

    9. Re:As a parent... by deniable · · Score: 1

      You've obviously worked in places where managers respect doors. Personally, I can't stand open plan, but I worked in one place where the guys in the open that everyone could see had their web access filtered while the people who could do things unobserved had no filtering. Of course, the worst offenses weren't porn but online share trading and the guy bleating loudest about the need for filtering was the worst of the lot.

    10. Re:As a parent... by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but as a parent, your opinion doesn't count. This isn't for protecting children, it's for preventing crime. Computer crimes, that we all commit day in, day out, and soon will be free of forever!

      I think if you are trying to resist, you must be a paedophile.

  22. Rudd scares me by noigmn · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately Australia went from one control freak to another at the last election. This one actually worried me a little more even though I voted for him. John Howard was so concerned with control and self image that it ended up being a pretty lame government. Most complaints about him were for underhanded politics, dirty election tactics, racism and neglect. He never looked far enough beyond himselfthe impact on him to do much damage.

    Whereas Kevin Rudd has the potential to actively destroy things by being idealistic. He's got that Mao streak in him, where he believes so strongly in his ideals that he can justify taking liberty for them. And he does it in such a no fuss, detached, almost autistic way. As I said I voted for him to remove Johnny, but he has always scared me a lot more.

    --
    Slashdot is powered by your submission.
    1. Re:Rudd scares me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you live in his electorate you couldnt have voted for him. That is the single most annoying thing about federal elections in Australia. I recall all my friends saying "I'm gonna vote for Rudd" and each one of them lived in Sydney. When I pointed this out to them they had no idea and responded "I'd still gonna vote for him". Sigh.

    2. Re:Rudd scares me by noigmn · · Score: 1

      I'd have to say that shows pretty limited thinking.

      If I vote for Labor before Liberal, and Rudd is the leader of the Labor party who will be Prime Minister if Labor wins the needed quota of seats, then I have obviously voted for Rudd even though my official vote is for my local candidate. I thought most people realised this before they voted in an election.

      --
      Slashdot is powered by your submission.
  23. Why is censorship bad? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?

    Can anyone make this argument? Because if the material is illegal in the first place, meaning you would normally get in trouble for accessing it, period, then a preemptive measure shouldn't harm you, logically.

    Cast aside the argument that it will make the Internet sluggish, because that argument will be nullified if technology and such improve enormously. Also cast aside the argument that it will be expensive to do, because what if we make it incredibly efficient?

    Also cast aside the false positives occurring, because what if they get it so refined that a false positive is a one in a million occurance. In such a way that the system works exactly as proposed, with no drawbacks (concerning false positives, network lag, etc.) whatsoever.

    I'm not defending censorship. I want someone to make a good argument.

    1. Re:Why is censorship bad? by richie2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you, assuming we are living in a modern democracy which purports to champion freedom of speech, tell me exactly what kind of material that should get someone in trouble for simply reading or watching it? Who would be trusted with deciding where to draw this line?

      / The Gestapo thought Anne Frank was a terrorist, producing illegal material.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    2. Re:Why is censorship bad? by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simple. Illegal information = Thought Crimes = A very bad thing!

      There is nothing wrong with information, it is what you do with that information that is crucial. Just because somebody get stabbed with a knife, you don't bad all steak knives do you? A screwdriver can be used to steal a car or build a house, it is a TOOL; just like information.

      Then that brings us to to the fact that no filtering software works 100% so you get:

      (A) legit websites get blocked too
      (B) "Bad Stuff" still gets through

      When this happens, what is the point of filtering it anyway?

      Another issue with all laws: People and opinions change, so what is illegal today, might be perfectly acceptable in 40 years. We don't think twice about letting women vote, or mixed-colour couples getting married, or even in some places same-sex marriages. Public opinion changes, but only with information.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    3. Re:Why is censorship bad? by thermian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its not what they want to censor now, its just that such laws and methods tend to get misapplied later. For example, sites which criticize the current administration in a not too nice way could be added to the list, or sites which recall 'uncomfortable truths' about a countries past. All they have to do is justify it to themselves.

      Laws and government policies which cover such wide topics often get misapplied. Here in the UK, laws passed to fight terrorism just got used to impound money from failing Icelandic banks. Didn't take long to justify using them out of their intended area, nor will it take long to misuse these blacklists.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    4. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Child pornography featuring actual children. (Not computer generated.)

    5. Re:Why is censorship bad? by B5_geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Age of consent varies from one country to another. Who's rule is right?

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    6. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you write is entirely true, no one with a brain here would say you're defending censorship.

      The real issue here is the possibilities that could arise from the implementation of this system. Who decides, implements, corrects and/or supports? How much would the public be involved in this process, since this is to "protect" the public?

    7. Re:Why is censorship bad? by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you ignorant or just playing devils advocate?
      All the reasons you "cast aside" can't just be ignored. There will always be false positives, and it will always cost the tax payer money.

      First off, what is so sacred about legality? The law is not set in stone, it's constantly being updated, and varies wildly from location to location. I believe all knowledge to be ultimately good, and censorship will necessarily trample on that. It's digital book burning plain and simple.

      Information about illegal Drug, bomb construction, racism all blurs into legitimate subjects because there are no real boundaries. That's why the law making process is difficult, and why censorship will always have side effects and is never acceptable.

    8. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not quite a perfect match, but RMS's The Right To Read explains quite a bit.

      You just *know* that tools for circumventing censorship will be made illegal- much like tools for circumventing DRM- and it's not the courts who are going to be deciding what's OK and what isn't. It'll be pollies and censors, and you CANNOT trust them with the power to block criticism of their policies online. I'm just waiting for the Ruddbot to announce his new Ministry of Truth and Ministry of Love.

    9. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gets hurt when someone accesses illegal material? That's right, nobody.

      Why should it be the Government's business who accesses what on the internet? Its not like murder or rape, you're just looking at stuff.

      Schemes like this is just another step towards having a monotonous population under Government supervision.

    10. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?

      "oops, sorry there mate. We thought your website was trafficking in illegal material instead of being a new democratic party attempting to discredit us by exposing our rampant corruption. Sorry about that, we'll see about unblocking you asap."

      "oops. look at that. We did it again. Someone must be adding the site improperly, we'll try to locate that person asap." *1 year later* "Yeah we're still looking into that. Seems every time we unblock it, it's blocked again within a day! Yes, it's a shame how it messed up your campaign a few months back but it's not our fault!"

      Once they have the tools, they can use them however they see fit. Unfortunately greed and corruption go hand in hand with humanity. If you think only illegal material will be censored, how the hell would you know? You won't see it.

    11. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What today is legal may tomorrow be illegal.
      Some things in the past were illegal, but today they are legal.

      Laws, Knowledge, Life, ... - is in constant motion.

      Preventing access to informations means reducing the number of possible futures - by declaring them illegal. Some of these prevented futures may contain darkness and regression - other may contain great value and truth.

      Declaring a future as illegal should not be allowed - by law. Our children may judge on their own what is legal and what not.

    12. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people you might not agree with are making the decisions on the list of what is censored and what is not.

    13. Re:Why is censorship bad? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I can not easily make a good argument for you, I can make a poor argument that most of the slashdot users (and especially Aussies) will understand.

      Free to air television is for the dogs! It's over for my generation and even some of the generation above me (I'm 30)
      I can no longer even contemplate the concept of actually scheduling my life around watching a TV show at X O'clock.
      Even recording from the TV, over here shows have many things done to them, such as
      Inserting up to 20 minutes of ads per hour
      Using that 'loudness' technology on the ads
      CUTTING PARTS OF THE ACTUAL SHOW OUT to fit in more ads (no, not joking)
      Airing the shows 3 / 6/ 9 months after they air in the states.
      Showing the shows out of order...............!

      The list goes on.
      It might be taboo but a hell of a lot of people grab their shows this way, it's the only way to get them as far as I'm concerned.
      Also while I'm at it, what about porn? What if the govt decide porn is illegal? I'm a youngblooded male, I want to hunt for porn on the net, there is free 'legal' porn out there, what's to say they don't block redtube or cheggit or whatever the trendy sites are now?

      What about when the filter makes a mistake? What about when slashdot is classed as illegal?
      The list goes on and on, it's bloody crazy.
      I'm very disapointed in Labour with this, I'm not a huge Liberal fan (no, I don't vote, sue me) so I can't say I voted for them to win, nor can I say I voted this policy in but it's quite frustrating and stupid.

      The real issue is, at this point according to the whirlpool thread http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=967413 it does actually seem to be getting some momentum.
      I really find the internet bloody slow enough as it is in this country, most of us have DSL over cable, so that's 60ms instantly, then we're mostly hitting US sites so that's a total of about 180ms in the very best cases - when you're doing your general browsing, this really adds up.

      I will have no hesitation in circumventing the law and using some kind of VPN, Proxy, Tor or whatever else will get me past this stupid thing, the frustration is having to do so in the first place.

    14. Re:Why is censorship bad? by ReeceTarbert · · Score: 1

      Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?

      Who decides what is and what's not illegal? For some things the distinction is obviously quite clear and would be easy to have some general consensus but, once you have a bit of legislation (and technology) in place, you have a system that is ripe for abuse -- just think about what they're doing with the DMCA, for instance.

    15. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is bad because the system in place to facilitate the censoring can be extended easily to filter "unwanted" material as well.

      I would think it is quite naive to assume the filter will not be abused.
       

    16. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Willbur · · Score: 1

      As you correctly note, there are two issues here:

          a) Should there be such a thing as illegal material, and then
          b) If the answer to a) is "yes", then shouldn't it be censored on the internet.

          You state you're not interested in discussing a), but want to focus on b), so let's do that:

          There are a few ways that I can see that you can filter out illegal material:

          i) Have a human prepare hashes of the banned material and refuse to transfer that material.
          ii) Have a human look at all material that might be transferred as the transfer starts and ok it, or not.
          iii) Have a computer look at all material that might be transferred as the transfer starts and use some heuristic matching scheme to ok it, or not.

          i) will have no false positives or false negatives. Unfortunately, it is usually very easy to make small changes to a file so that it no longer matches the hash. This makes this scheme relatively ineffective, and hence a waste of resources to try.

          ii) and iii) have a common problem: the mechanism for stopping a particular document is approximate and will get the answer wrong some percentage of the time. A human is more likely to get things right than a computer, but is much more expensive and there are privacy issues. A computer is going to have a horrid error rate. The article mentions 1%, but it isn't just a random 1%. It is a 1% around things related to the banned subjects. This means that people smuggling awareness sites are going to be falsely blocked at a much higher rate than banking web sites. This is a HUGE problem.

      In summary: if it was possible to block all the illegal content and only the illegal content, then you can only argue a) above. Unfortunately it just isn't possible, and the collateral damage is worse than the original problem.

    17. Re:Why is censorship bad? by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

      Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?

      The legality of things is defined by law, enforced by the police and tested by the juridical system.

      It isn't the opinion of a single person with his hands on the controls, either in the government or as a mass-media outlet. (For example the suspected paintings in the Henson case, the government and the media would like to have had Henson hanging on a rope at day one)

      It is only changed after the facts and environments have changed dramatically. (For a long time it was illegal in Australia to make copies of your own CDs while the empty CD-Rs where available in every shop)

      Different age groups have different rules. (You can go to TAFE and become a chef at the age of 15, but you are not able to buy the knives yourself because you are too young)

      Peter Coleman wrote in his book "Obscenity, blasphemy, sedition - the rise and fall of literary censorship in Australia" that shipments of books from the UK were not allowed to be unloaded in Australia. The publishers and importers couldn't do anything in advance because the list of banned books was kept secret - How will you ever be able to verify this list?

      There is a list of banner Usenet groups for Australian ISPs, but its contents are secret - How will you ever be able to verify this list?

      Now where did I go with this again? No idea, but I have it out of my system and will get it right in a write-up later this week.

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    18. Re:Why is censorship bad? by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 1
      I could live with having internet censored, IF AND ONLY IF the list was decided by a court of law, and representatives of the censored sites had a chance to make their voice heard. Essentially it should be a site-by-site affair, with every censored site getting it's own fair trial.

      That way the censored sites could find out why they get censored, and could do something about it should they want to.

      Further, each and every site on the list, irrespective of where it is located, has to be able to appeal being on the list. And appeal not only in connection with being placed on it, but at any time afterwards. This is to handle sites who's content varies over time.

      As an example of internet censorship gone wrong, the Finnish site www.lapsiporno.info is censored in Finland by the ISPs. The "lapsiporno" translates into "child porn" in English. Yet the site has nothing to do about child pornography per se, it is about the child porn filter the Finnish ISPs have been force to implement. The result is that the filter is being used to silence one of the filters critics! And the owner of the site has no way to get off the list....

    19. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm sure some can put this more eloquently, but i'll try to explain:

      censorship is wrong.

      in the context of declaring we live in free society's and wish to evolve along those lines to start introducing measures that restrict not even what we do, but what we think, is just plain dumb.

      if the government is worried that by reading some questionable material i'll be swayed to do bad things, then give me a good education and the skills to think critically.

    20. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?

      You are not asking this seriously, are you?

      Argument:
      * In some countries, free speech is illegal. Try China, or Russia, or Zimbabwe for a start.
      * In some countries certain kinds of music are illegal, try Oman
      * In some countries publishing news not approved by the government is illegal, in one wayor the other. Try China, again, or Vietnam, or White Russia
      * In some countries dating sites are illegal, try Iran
      * In some countries the depicting of womens breasts is already considered porn, try the USA, in others depicting women in bikinis is illegal, try several arabian countries
      * In many countries writing about homosexuality is illegal

      and so on and so forth... You'd end up with an internet that consist of the google search mask - and what would be it.

      In a nutshell: The problem is: Who defines illegal?

    21. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) High chance of false positives. One in a million is still a LOT of sites. What do you think the false positive rate is in the US for the no fly list?

      2) No clear definition of 'illegal'.

      3) Reading about illegal activities and doing them are two very different things. I'm not familiar with the specifics of Australian law but I'm pretty sure this distinction remains.

      4) Like DRM, the filtering of illegal content will only affect those who weren't going to do the activies anyway.

      I suspect Australia will soon lead the world in filter-evading technology.

    22. Re:Why is censorship bad? by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      It's not the illegal material that I'm worried about. It's the percentage of non-illegal material that will get flagged and blocked. And given the track record of this type of software, this will be an unacceptably high percentage. Hell, ANY unwarranted blockage is unacceptable.

    23. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?

      Can anyone make this argument? Because if the material is illegal in the first place, meaning you would normally get in trouble for accessing it, period, then a preemptive measure shouldn't harm you, logically.

      Cast aside the argument that it will make the Internet sluggish, because that argument will be nullified if technology and such improve enormously. Also cast aside the argument that it will be expensive to do, because what if we make it incredibly efficient?

      Also cast aside the false positives occurring, because what if they get it so refined that a false positive is a one in a million occurance. In such a way that the system works exactly as proposed, with no drawbacks (concerning false positives, network lag, etc.) whatsoever.

      I'm not defending censorship. I want someone to make a good argument.

      Censorship of illegal material is bad because illegality is arbitrary and thus any material can be censored. Ask the Chinese or the British, they may know more.

    24. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bad thing about censorship is that it is a slippery slope. One day its "illegal" music and movies, next day its racial and discrimitory things, next its anything sexual (one Liberal mp was quoted as saying "A man who looks at pornography cannot have a healthy relationship with a woman"). Then its anything "dangerous" (anarchist cook book style stuff), then anything whoever is in charge of the black list or the government decides should not be viewed. Then lo and behold, they realise that a white list would speed things up.

      I for one hope that the government realises that this idea is a "Very Bad Thing"TM or failing that, that this type of censorship is technically not feasible now or ever.

      *reads up on alternatives for internet access beyond australian isps from within australia*

    25. Re:Why is censorship bad? by kayoshiii · · Score: 1

      It's not so much about censorship as control of information. Quite often governments have a vested interest in us not knowing certain things that are harmful to them. The measures needed for censorship also bring the mechanisms to control what information you can access - that is the danger. It's basically like giving the big guy in the room a gun so that he can kill the bad people - only you might not trust the big guy not to use the gun on you if you happen to disagree with something he is doing (what if he becomes the bad guy).

    26. Re:Why is censorship bad? by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

      / The Gestapo thought Anne Frank was a terrorist, producing illegal material.

      Euhm... the diary wasn't published until 1947, by her father.

      She and her family was arrested because they didn't voluntarily commit themselves to go to work in Germany.

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    27. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'll repeat the GP's question:

      tell me exactly what kind of material that should get someone in trouble for simply reading or watching it?

      And I do not mean legal trouble, because that's arbitrary. Even though we all seem to agree that watching KP is as bad as producing it, I don't understand why. And note that viewing KP is not the same as financially endorsing it. Using the MAFIAAs logic, actually pirating KP will kill the business...

      Child pornography featuring actual children. (Not computer generated.)

      To give you an example of the arbitrariness of legal systems: you are aware that viewing computer-generated KP is illegal in the UK?

    28. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Nomen+Publicus · · Score: 1

      Who decides it's illegal? Do they explain why a given page is blocked with reference to the legal code?

    29. Re:Why is censorship bad? by bentcd · · Score: 1

      Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?

      The very idea that there can exist information that is in itself illegal is preposterous. If such information were to exist, and you happened to be exposed to this information, then effectively your brain would be illegal because it contains illegal information. What do you suggest we do with your illegal brain in this case? Brainwash it? Put it in jail? Destroy it?

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    30. Re:Why is censorship bad? by jmhoule314 · · Score: 1

      ??? if you cast away every problem, then what problems could you possibly have. Im using this argument for everything from now on. Sure Mr Employer, my foul stench, poor punctuality, massive debt and severe chemical dependence issues may make me a poor candidate for this job. But, if we cast all that aside can you make one good argument that i am not the most qualified? Give me money... I'm jonesing

    31. Re:Why is censorship bad? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Define 'illegal material'. Is a nipple illegle? What if it is a male nipple? What if you can't see if it is male or female? What about a penis? What about this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Penis_Anatomy.gif

      The problem with censorship is that is can't be foolproof.

      You cast aside a lot of things, thinking that it will break down the discussion to the bare essentials of censorship. Unfortunatly the things you cast aside are part of censorship and as why it would be bad.

      Censorship is a technical solution to a social problem. Wether this is books, images or the internet. It is a social decison made by emotional beings. There is no technical asnwer to it. There WILL be false positives and false negatives. Even if each item is screened by a commission, there will be falso positives and false negatives. You can not leave that out if the discussion.

      The problem is that it is percieved that the false negatives are worse then the false postives. The only way to solve this is highten the treshold. This means less (not 0) false negatives and more false positives.
      An even higher treshold will make the number closer to 0, but will also filter out much more. At a certain moment you will have nothing left, because everything is filterd.

      For that reason people could get arrested to send images of their nekid baby to grandma.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    32. Re:Why is censorship bad? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      First off, what is so sacred about legality? The law is not set in stone, it's constantly being updated, and varies wildly from location to location. I believe all knowledge to be ultimately good, and censorship will necessarily trample on that. It's digital book burning plain and simple.

      Information about illegal Drug, bomb construction, racism all blurs into legitimate subjects because there are no real boundaries. That's why the law making process is difficult, and why censorship will always have side effects and is never acceptable.

      So you can break the law with impunity because in 20 years time the law might be different ?
      Should all cancer treatments be banned because they have side effects ? Balance is the key word. Never say never.
      In a world where most people are relatively uneducated, you can't make laws that rely on the people having a first class honours degree in philosophy. So you go for practicable, not nth degree logical.
      Self censorship exercise. Tell the boss what you really think of him. Here's another, your mother calls down to your basement to tell you food is on the table, you are busy - do you shout "oh for fucks sake, you bitch, just hold on a minute" or do you say " thanks I'll be there in a minute" ?
      Define censorship.

    33. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Rennt · · Score: 1

      At the risk of invoking Godwin...

      "they came first for the Communists, And I did not speak up for I was not a Communist,
      then they came for the trade unionists, And I did not speak up for I was not a trade unionist,
      then they came for the Jews, And I did not speak up for I was not a Jew,
      then... then they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak for me"

      Once this technology is in place, what guarantees are there that it won't be used on other "questionable" material?

    34. Re:Why is censorship bad? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1
      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    35. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just consider the possibility of 10.000+ webpages of Bank/enterprise/political frauds/whistleblowers/arguments/facts/opinions agaisn't the government policies ending up intentionaly blocked and presented as a glitch or flaw of the system, while being labeled as something such as terrorism/copyright violation/violence/internet desorder/ethics violation etc, when its the actual government doing those actions of abuse of power imposing fear and control over the citizens on what they need to see, to read, to hear, to debate.

      Do you still want a system that can work acceptably well on actual illegal content BUT could be easily abused for other reasons and publicly present that as a technical flaw/imperfection? People would slowly turn away from a WWWeb that's nothing more than a big virtual shopping mall filled with propaganda/entertainment.

    36. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      "Then that brings us to to the fact that no filtering software works 100% so you get:

      (A) legit websites get blocked too
      (B) "Bad Stuff" still gets through

      When this happens, what is the point of filtering it anyway?"

      The police doesn't have a 100% success rate

      (A) They arrest innocent people sometimes
      (B) Criminals still exist

      When this happens, what is the point of having a police force anyway?

      Nope, it doesn't cut it.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    37. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is very simple censorship is a worse crime. Illegal activity should be reported by the people, All you need is a venue to report it with a list of exactly what is illegal.
      IE:Americas Most Wanted

      Everything is best policed by the people and enforced by the government equally and fairly.

    38. Re:Why is censorship bad? by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Where one burns books, one will soon burn people." --Heinrich Heine

      1:Censorship of any kind is the same as book burning, it serves to prevent people from accessing information which precludes any reasonable consideration of the topic.
      Want to bet whether forums where people discuss whether whatever material you name as evil should be blocked will suddenly become inaccessiable?

      2:Once you've got a computer sitting listening in on everyones connections and blocking illegal content it's very very tempting to listen for other things. Express an unpopular political opinion with someone listening in on your line and you might very well get your door/head kicked in.

      3:Parallels with groups which used to be treated similarly. Go back a few decades and groups seen as perverts were subjected to the same treatment, books protraying gays as anything other than evil were burned/censored.Hell, gays were burned along with the books in some countries.

      4: It's very very tempting to add sites which you don't like to the list. If you give *government figure* the keys to the database of blocked sites then *government figure* might very well add *site critical of government figure* to the database as one of the -statisticly insignificant- false positives. Sites critical of some of the major blacklist publishers are often themselves blacklisted.

      5: How do you know if you're being fed bullshit? China built it's firewall to "protect" people from the "harmful" content on the internet. What's to stop them from adding more and more and more to the list of things which make up "illegal content" which is of course perfectly OK to block. Until everything your local minister wouldn't like is on the list. The blocking system is there, everyone with a pet peeve will want to get their *thing they hate* added to the list.

      6:Ultimatly it can all be defeated by technical means, the illegal content just sinks deeper, it doesn't disappear.

      7: Comparison to physical situation, imagine being forced by law to wear a headset which blacks out your vision whenever it thinks you are looking at something which the makers of the device considered you shouldn't be looking at. Imagine such a device getting introduced as a measure to stop peeping toms and creepy old men in parks who stare at children. Never mind the tiny proportion of the population who get unlucky as it blacks out their vision while they're doing something totally blameless like driving.
      Does this seem reasonable?
      Stealing is illegal, should someone invent an implant which makes it physicly impossible for you to steal how happy would you be about wearing it? It's for your own good! it would just stop you from accidentally stealing things which would help you! Does this seem reasonable?

      Peeping on people showering without their consent is illegal just like looking at child porn or stealing is illegal and if you get caught you're in trouble, this doesn't mean we have to blindfold/hobble everyone. The responsibility- the choice, to break the law or not is an individuals.

    39. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    40. Re:Why is censorship bad? by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      In Australia, it's a man named Michael Atkinson (among others). As Yahtzee says in his latest review, "I imported Silent Hill Homecoming to review next week, looks like you lose Michael Atkinson!"

      Yahtzee had better be careful, or he'll have to "Face the Wheel" (something I saw in a documentary about the Australian justice system some years back.) I originally thought it was some kind of fantasy movie, but the more I hear about Australia, the more I realize that they were just showing us the awful truth.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    41. Re:Why is censorship bad? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Also cast aside the false positives occurring

      No, you CANNOT do that. It is IMPOSSIBLE to not have false positives.

      They can't do it now when they're testing it. If it goes online and suddenly thousands of people are trying to circumvent it, would it magically get better?

      How on earth could the billions of webpages online at any money be classified correctly?

      How will you stop malicious people planting "illegal" content on a site (eg, attaching to a forum post), the reporting the site to have it blocked for an indefinite period?

      You can't just assume it will be sorted out and go ahead. It will not. It hasn't in any country that has tried to do this.

      Those really trading in real "illegal" content will route around it. Some will certainly do so by hijacking legit sites, using them till they're blocked, and them moving on to another.

      The question is, what GOOD will it do? Bad guys will be mildly inconvenienced. The rest will have their connections slowed down and occasionally randomly blocked.

    42. Re:Why is censorship bad? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Cast aside the argument that it will make the Internet sluggish, because that argument will be nullified if technology and such improve enormously. Also cast aside the argument that it will be expensive to do, because what if we make it incredibly efficient?

      Also cast aside the false positives occurring, because what if they get it so refined that a false positive is a one in a million occurance.

      What sort of argument is that? "If we ignore the reasons why it would be bad, why would it be bad?"

      I want someone to make a good argument.

      It's not a good argument to ignore all the perfectly good arguments already made.

      Another point is that not all "illegal material" is material that should be illegal. Of course yes, we should oppose those laws too - and I see nothing suggesting that people outraged at this aren't against such laws too.

      Plans like this go hand in hand with the laws themselves. People will be more likely to be affected with this system (as opposed to something which is technically illegal but unenforceable).

      Also consider that politicians will be more willing to criminalise things, if they know that doing so will mean it can be censored (and this isn't just hypothetical - I've seen this argument used by politicians in the UK, supporting the recent law criminalising adult material).

    43. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just defeated your own argument. This isn't about child porn. It's not even about illegal stuff. This is about anything, pornographic or not, that some government agency secretly deems unsafe for children, or censors for other reasons under that pretense.

      I'm with you in that not all censorship is bad. Yes, nonfictional depictions of rape and child abuse should be censored. Hate speech should be censored. Nazi websites posting photos, names and addresses of their prospective victims should be taken down (and DDOSd until they are). But if a government is to censor anything, there need to be very strict controls. It should only ever happen based on an individual court order that everyone can review and appeal.

      Oh, and one more thing: Kids have a right to porn. I mean it.

    44. Re:Why is censorship bad? by jaminJay · · Score: 1
      1. Prohibition of anything drives such activities underground where it is harder to control, investigate or manoeuvre.
      2. If all illegal things are filtered in such a way as proposed, a thing may easily be suppressed by passing legislation making it unlawful.
      3. Making a thing illegal and preventing its occurrence negates itself.
      4. One person's trash (morality) is another person's treasure (immorality).
      --
      Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
    45. Re:Why is censorship bad? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Self censorship exercise. Tell the boss what you really think of him. Here's another, your mother calls down to your basement to tell you food is on the table, you are busy - do you shout "oh for fucks sake, you bitch, just hold on a minute" or do you say " thanks I'll be there in a minute" ?
      Define censorship.

      In either case should the GOVERNMENT be able to prevent you from saying either? Of course not. A private citizen is free to act upon what you've said as they see fit, but it was your right to say it if you wished and not the Government's business.

      There is no "balance" for me when it comes to information legality. No bit of text, pictures, video, or software should ever be prevented from being distributed, or it's viewers punished for doing so. If the producer committed a crime when making it, then they can be punished, but that would be outside of the scope of the creation of information.

      For instance, if you kill somebody, then you should go to jail. If you kill somebody, video tape it, and upload it to Bittorrent, then you should still go to jail, but because you killed someone. Video taping and uploading it was irrelevant to your actions. Conversely, the video now moving about Bittorrent is simple information. I'd suspect very few would actually want to view it, but whether they did or didn't is irrelevant. It's merely information.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    46. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP did pretty explicitly say he was playing devil's advocate.

    47. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gets to decide what content is illegal right now?

      Compare and contrast illegal speech in America, Germany, China, and South Korea, and you will have your good argument.

    48. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two points here:

      1. The system is open to abuse.
      2. There is no oversight on the system.

      Consider how governments such as China are able to make dissenting groups and events simply "disappear" from the internet.

      Because there's no real oversight, people aren't aware of what's being blocked, so there's no chance to even protest.

      This is open for huge abuse.

    49. Re:Why is censorship bad? by m0rm3gil · · Score: 1

      You'll be waiting a long time - there is no good argument.

      The technology can't support it in any efficient fashion. Proxies will allow people to bypass it. Legal material will get blocked along with illegal material. You know all of that is true. You know that the only argument in favour of any of this is "think of the children."

      I voted for Rudd because I didn't want idiots like Abbott getting their personal morals confused with the wants of most Australians. And now it looks like we've swapped one pack of wankers for another.

    50. Re:Why is censorship bad? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored? ...
      I'm not defending censorship. I want someone to make a good argument.

      In China, democracy is illegal.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    51. Re:Why is censorship bad? by marcushnk · · Score: 1

      Because it costs far too much for something that does not and can not work.

      Worse yet it lulls clueless parents into a false sense of security when they should be paying more attention.

      --
      "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
    52. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's your good argument.

      Very few are suggesting that child-pornography should not be censored.

      The problem is that we have no guarantee that the filter will "only" be used to filter illegal material.

      We can't suppose that it will only be used to block illegal material. A bunch of humans are enforcing this, not sime wholly impartial and all-knowing deity. So your abstract problem of it only filtering illegal stuff is bullshit and pointless because that's not how it will be used in practice. EVERY SINGLE TIME THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IN HISTORY, THE SAME FUCKING THING HAPPENS. THE POPULATION GETS FUCKED.

      It's time for people like me to stop proving to people like you that it's a bad idea. It's time for people like you to start proving to me why this one little time is so vastly different to things which have been happening for thousands of years.

      Once this filter is in place, it will be expanded every time some politician thinks they need to bang on the "save the children" drum a bit more for another grab at power, of course while lining their pockets on the side with their corrupt bribes.

      Look, it's not that hard. It's a technology with a huge potential for abuse and no recourse for anyone affected by it. (Well, there are technical recourses, but I'm talking legal courses. We shouldn't have to resort to technical recourses when these rights should be enshrined in fucking law.)

    53. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to "cast aside" way too many things to make your argument worthwhile. You are literally trying to forget all of the problems that will never go away.

    54. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, I can't speak to Australian law specifically, so I won't try.

      Leaving aside the practical objections like cost and false positives, as you say, censorship is a bad idea because it gives power to the state to criminalize ideas. Look behind the specific method being proposed to suppress information this week and ask, what authority does the government to tell us we can't see or write or think about certain things? In the US we used to have a limited government* under which we could respond to a legal proposal like this one by saying "The government just doesn't have any authority to do that. Amend the Constitution if you want it so badly." Our Founders realized that what we now call "feature creep" would gradually destroy any freedom we had if there weren't strict limits on government power. One of the most basic freedoms we enjoy is free discussion and peaceful difference of opinion. To protect that freedom, we need to take a hard-line stand and defend even things that we despise, such as ensuring that the likes of the KKK can hold a rally if they want to or ensuring that a bookstore is allowed to sell Mein Kampf. Once we abandon that principled stand, everyone is in danger because our continued freedom becomes a matter of whether some coalition can gather the votes to forcibly silence things we like. Enshrining freedom of speech (as a "super-law" in the US' case) aims to take that dispute off the table.

      So, my objection is twofold. One point is to question whether any government has the authority to suppress information on the grounds that it's icky and immoral. The other is to point out that once censorship infects a society, it grows and threatens everyone.

      *This isn't Bush-bashing; it's a much older problem involving both parties and all three branches of federal government.

      -Kris Schnee

    55. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. You already have several good arguments. Here are mine. Responsibility for monitoring a child's internet usage belongs to the parent/legal guardian of that child. Just because some parents don't bother to monitor their child's internet usage does not justify the government (any government) stepping in and monitoring everyone's internet usage. Can you say Big Brother? 1984? Fahrenheit 451?

      If a government controls what you get to see and hear and read, how do you have a chance to know if/when they are lying to you? You don't. There should be no such thing as âoeillegal informationâ. What should be (and is) illegal are certain ways of using that information. Could you build a bomb from commonly available materials without any outside information? Using only what you have seen, heard and read to this point in your life? I think that many people could. Yet most people have no reason or desire to do so. Just because they know (or could figure out) how to build a bomb does not make them a criminal. Neither does curiosity about how one might build a bomb. Actually building and using a bomb are criminal acts in most countries.

      The opportunities for the unscrupulous to abuse censorship and censorship laws are endless.

      I believe that everyone (nit jus Australians) must fight this. The more governments that get away with this kind of crap the more there will be that want to, and will try!

    56. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The argument against the black list is that it can't be a perfect system and it will be subject to abuse.

      Also, not being allowed to break the law is analogous to conviction for thought crime. Knowledge is power; don't give yours up so easily.

    57. Re:Why is censorship bad? by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 1

      Why is AIDS bad? Can anyone make this argument? Cast aside the argument that it will kill you because that argument will be nullified if technology and such improve enormously. Also cast aside the argument that it will be expensive to treat, because what if we make medication incredibly cheap? Also cast aside the immune problems occurring, because what if they get treatment so refined that a random illness is a one in a million occurance. In such a way that the system works exactly as proposed, with no drawbacks (concerning death, diseases, etc.) whatsoever. I'm not saying we should give everyone AIDS. I want someone to make a good argument.

    58. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't cast aside false positives though the system will undoubtedly be block legitimate content accidentally and intentionally.

    59. Re:Why is censorship bad? by rea1l1 · · Score: 0

      Because it's not what I want the government above me focusing on. They have already showed themselves to be corrupt bastards. If we give them this finger they're going to take the whole hand.

      They have more important things to do than block websites. They need to get off their asses and actually improve the nation instead of sitting up there and jerking off with our tax money.

      Corrupt bastards.

    60. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?"

      Because the legality of internet content is hard to determine.

      You would have a relatively small amount of people making, most likely, highly biased judgments on the legality of content, with most likely, very little proof.

      The site, and it's content, would be guilty until proven innocent.

      Now, if the government had to prove in a court of law that a site's content was illegal, in order to add it to the blacklist, that would be fine with me:)

    61. Re:Why is censorship bad? by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 1

      Treating the symptoms doesn't cure the disease.

    62. Re:Why is censorship bad? by faraday_cage · · Score: 1

      Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?

      When you read further into the policy, they will also be filtering legal material. This is the part that has insensed most of us. Nobody is arguing against censorship of the kiddy porn.

      It is the legal content that is the issue. Legal content will also be filtered out, with no Australian being able to opt out of the filters.

      This is the true crux of this argument and the point we should be concentrating on.

      I take great issue with someone else telling me what legal content is appropriate, and inappropriate to view. I take even greater issue when there are no children within cooee of this home, and the youngest person to touch my computer is on the wrong side of 40. Why should I only be allowed to view someone else's sanitised view of the world, suitable only for a ten year old?

      This explains it far better than I can at this hour of the morning.

    63. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though we all seem to agree that watching KP is as bad as producing it

      No, "we" do not. Why does KP get special treatment in this regard? No one argues that watching a video of a murder is the same as murdering someone, even if the viewer is really excited by what he sees and really hates the victim and wants the victim dead. I've never really understood this: murder is a crime, yet we're free to own pictures and videos of murder (including the murder of minors, as long as they're clothed), same with adult rape, arson, assault, robbery, etc. Yet, there's this one crime--child sexual abuse--that is also a crime to own pictures or videos of. I have yet to see a good argument that reconciles this double standard.

      Honestly, it's hard to get anyone to think clearly about the issue at all! I once had a woman tell me, with a straight face and in all honesty, that she saw no difference between someone whackin' it in private to a picture of her naked little boy and someone actually, physically, sexually abusing her little boy. Seriously, I asked her, if those were her only two choices, which she'd choose, and she said it didn't matter because they were equivalent. I mean, damn. Wow. That blew my mind.

    64. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me any web site you want and I can prove you that it contains either illegal or children unsuitable material. With this law I can block any site I want at any time without seeking permissions, approvals, etc.
      This is why it is bad.

    65. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Urzumph · · Score: 1
      OK, assuming we cast away all those arguments (which are quite good really), the answer is because it is a major extension of the law. It's because it depends largely on their definition of 'illegal'. There are two types of 'illegal' in Australia - Illegal to possess which I think covers only child porn plus maybe terrorist training videos. There is also Illegal to distribute, which covers anything rated higher than R in most states. This would block a lot of stuff, which despite being technically illegal, is available in almost any video store.

      To my mind the second, and most important argument is this: I choose what content to view on the internet. The only person affected by me viewing the content is me. It is the very definition of a victimless crime. The government should stop repressing us and stop real crimes.

    66. Re:Why is censorship bad? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?

      Can anyone make this argument? Because if the material is illegal in the first place, meaning you would normally get in trouble for accessing it, period, then a preemptive measure shouldn't harm you, logically.

      Two very good reasons:

      - The filtering is never perfect, therefore legitimate sites get blocked, which affects individuals and businesses.

      - Such censorship allows a government to seize nearly absolute power - anything they don't like they declare illegal and block access.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    67. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't the censoring of 'bad' content. I think we (most people) can agree that pictures of young children abused in heinous fashion are 'bad', and should be illegal.

      The problem is all the false positives that will occur, the fact that there is no opt-out, it will cost us Australians money to implement this P.O.S., might tie up the courts (Yes your honour, I lost business when my web site was incorrectly blacklisted, and I'm suing for lost business), and will mean a latency hit for packets coming into and out of the country.

    68. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the government in power decides that public disagreement with it's policies is now seditious and Illegal,(In the wake of some new crises or terrorist incident).

      It's a tool far too easily abused by whomever is in power and should never be put into place.

    69. Re:Why is censorship bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because who decides whats illegal and whats not? Take 4chan a website whose posts are deleted every hour.

      Do they automatically ban 4chan because people have posted illegal content on there before?

  24. i have one word for any aussie reading this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...proxy...

    They're the Internets greatest loophole and they can run circles around ISPs.

    While i was a Rep for Time Warner cable i helped countless Chinese-Americans defeat china's overzealous Great Fire Wall.

    Censorship is a tool of the moronic and the Internet has already transcended its limitations.

    As long a encryption exist so will free speech, so please all you Government Officials of the world that THINK we the people need to be protected from the Evils of the Internet; Fuck off.. Because there's no way your or ANY one for that matter can protect me. Only I the random mass of the Internet can Protect my Self from the Rigors of an Unforgiving environment containing the foulest and most rancid underpinnings of Humanity.

    Scary Shit happens here and if you can't accecpt it or don't know better on how to ignore it then please don't even both to force me into your Limited and Finite view upon the Greatest, Worst, and Most Encompassing Invention that Humans have yet to even completely envision its limitations

  25. Riddle Anonymous Dastardly Invention Onomatopoeia by tqft · · Score: 1

    How much bandwidth can you get over Ham radio channels?

    Text chat should be do-able and plain text email.

    I could go and look it up and someone somewhere is probably already doing it.

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
  26. Phew by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank God I live in good old England where this surely won't happen.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Phew by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope that you are joking

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  27. I might be forced to lead a healthier lifestyle! by mfearby · · Score: 0

    If this thing works as advertised, and no way is found around it, then I might be forced to lead a healthier lifestyle, and perhaps even become a more productive member of society!

    Nooooo!

    Sarcastometer: 50% (this really could make life rather dull and boring)

  28. something worth exporting... by jamesh · · Score: 1

    At least we'll have something worth exporting. I'm sure lots of other countries will be only too happy to buy our blacklists which we have meticulously researched.

    except... we'll probably just be importing them from somewhere else...

  29. General encryption by kvezach · · Score: 1

    The more I read about these things, of how internet access is being limited, the more I think there should be a general encryption protocol that could be applied to data traveling on the internet. Sort of like SSL, but without the certificate authorities (webs of trust instead, perhaps? Or some magic P2P technology).

    The point of such a protocol would be to make opaque all traffic going on so that it's impossible to say what it's getting (and perhaps with proxies, where it's going or where it's coming from). Then censorship would fail.

    This needs to be done, because stories like these show that governments won't practice self restraint when trying to rein in the internet or tame its wilderness.

    1. Re:General encryption by nyctopterus · · Score: 2

      Err... freenet?

    2. Re:General encryption by kvezach · · Score: 1

      Freenet is too ephemeral. Content appears and disappears from popularity alone, and the routing mechanism is very slow. I2P would be better, but it's still slow (and I don't know if it provides end-to-end security, which the various Tor snooping stories have shown to be needed).

    3. Re:General encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err....really-fucking-slow-net?

  30. censorship thriving, not to mention spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fear based behaviors as the illuminati is challenged. we're against child porn etc..., but the rest of it is totally driven by fear of losing control of the population(s). even robbIE does it now, attempting to satiate his insatiable advertisers, resulting in fictional representations on a variety of 'stuff that (really) matters'.

    greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

    http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
    http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
    (talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
    http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
    (the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
    (some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
    (the old bait & switch...you're share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

    is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail

    1. Re:censorship thriving, not to mention spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own a black helicopter, you insensitive clod!

  31. Not entirely by jeevesbond · · Score: 1

    As a brit, I welcome our Aussie friends to the panopticon of fear.

    Britain has had two suddenoutbreaksofcommonsense recently. Remember the -- incorrectly reported on Slashdot -- 42 days detention? The House of Lords bitch-slapped the government down over it. Worst defeat in the Lords in living memory, according to that BBC article.

    The Lords also got the government to back down over secret inquests. Which are just as evil, if not moreso, than the 42 days detention (the idea is certainly straight out of Kafka's The Trial).

    People whinge about the Lords being unelected, but from where I'm sitting the score is: Meritocracy 2 - Democracy 0. I believe the Lords would also smack-down something as stupid as this Australian Internet filtering too, on cost and futility grounds alone.

    --
    I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
    1. Re:Not entirely by squizzar · · Score: 1

      True, but they have been countered by the ramblings of Jacqui Smith:

      http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/10/17/jacqui-smith-wants-facebook

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7671046.stm

      I am trying to work out whether she is actually a fascist or if she is simply an idiot who has never looked at how the sort of things she is suggesting have worked out in history.

    2. Re:Not entirely by squizzar · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself is lame, but I've just seen this:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/17/hoon_comms_data_bill/

      These people are surely unfit to be in charge.

    3. Re:Not entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont worry. In 2010, they wont be.

      I think this is all about wrecking the country so they can blame the Tories for "exposing us to terrorists" when they get into power and scrap all these stupid schemes.

      Captcha: "Relocate". What to do if Nu-Labour get in again.

  32. Not Good. by amdpox · · Score: 1

    I did some research earlier in the year and decided that the filtering would either be ineffective due to humans attempting to maintain blacklists, or would result in a ridiculous amount of false positives (as quoted in the summary). And no opt-out? Yipes. I certainly hope this is the hand-picked blacklist that was the original proposition... but I really don't think they'll get anywhere with it. After all, it's alt.binaries you really have to worry about. On a more serious note, Rudd was in China jabbering Mandarin at a mysterious group of people a few months ago. Now we know who they were - Golden Shield sysadmins. Flee to the parts of Europe that aren't Sweden, the UK, Russia or Germany! Flee now!

  33. Think of the children! by YellowMatterCustard · · Score: 1

    Honestly. I lost count of the number of times I saw the word "children" in TFA. How many thinly veiled schemes will it take before we quit falling for the "but think of the children" argument?

    --
    This is not hatred. This is retribution. This is not revenge. This is justice.
    1. Re:Think of the children! by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Blame it on all the women behind the scenes who come up with this stuff. They're all on hormonal autopilot and rarely engage their brains for anything.

  34. No more pantomimes by ribuck · · Score: 1

    No more pantomimes in Australia - well, not "Dick Whittington" anyway.

  35. The true reason for the current economic crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is to distract the public in order to curtail the free internet.

    Think about it. *The* most important thing of a living system is its neural circuitry. If you can control that, then you can implement garbage in, garbage out, helping you achieve what you want. The most far reaching development of our times is the free internet. It is a societal neural circuitry that can bypass the former GIGO manipulation. It is the most dangerous development by far to the powers that be, and so it must be eliminated.

  36. Time to move to china I think........ by fester2001 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Time to move to china I think........

  37. Precedent is a big part of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once they have the system in place, it allows the slippery slope toward total control. Right now they want to censor 'x'. What if the next politician to come along wants to censor 'x' and 'y'. No big deal, right? Next comes 'z' and soon you're in mainland China and no one remembers how it got this way.

  38. Remind them of the boundaries by DeathElk · · Score: 1

    I cannot comprehend why my government would want to impose such draconian measures upon the population. I can only assume they perceive some kind of return on investment. Perhaps this ROI is votes from conservative right voters who would typically vote for the Liberal Party - an investment for the next election.

    As an Internet Systems Administrator, I can see that there will most certainly be significant repercussions in performance and quality of Internet data. The realisation of open and adult concepts and discussions on public forums we have come to enjoy will fail. I'm not talking about pornography either. Any false positive as a result of mandatory content filtering is unacceptable. Bloggers and online journalists will be forced to curtail language, emotion and subject matter. The new journalism model that is allowing the voice of everyday people to be heard over the roar of commercial media will be dimmed.

    Keeping children safe from predators has always been the responsibility of parents, not the state. I encourage all Australian slashdotters to write/ring/email your local federal member, cc-ing the Federal Minister for Communications and the Prime Minister. Remind them of the boundaries of acceptable government.

    1. Re:Remind them of the boundaries by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself here. Here's the contact details for relevant ministers:

      Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
      Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
      DEPUTY LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE
      Parliamentary office
      Suite MG70
      Parliament House
      Canberra ACT 2600
      Tel: 02 6277 7480
      Fax: 02 6273 4154
      Email address can be found here

      The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
      Prime Minister
      Parliament House
      CANBERRA ACT 2600
      Or use this contact form

    2. Re:Remind them of the boundaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      completely off topic, but I didn't know Parliament house was in the 2600 postcode - I assumed it'd have its own set of postcodes like the ANU does....
      That thing is a city all of its own - it's not part of Canberra at all really.

      It rather bothers me that it shares a postcode with our city centre.

    3. Re:Remind them of the boundaries by genw3st · · Score: 1

      Because... your government is INSANE. What with all the game censorship, it couldn't have been long until they wanted to limit your web surfing to national (possibly international) news sites and government sites.

  39. We can do a little.... by Klucki · · Score: 1

    By signing this petition. Just a direct link to the one on nocleanfeed.com http://petitions.takingitglobal.org/oznetcensorship

    --
    Stop Aussie internet censorship! Sign the petition.
  40. welcome to a labor government folks by timmarhy · · Score: 1
    what else did you expect from a left wing government?

    in their first few months in office, they have established 25 committees packed with their union buddies, created new taxes and set in motion their own nanny state.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:welcome to a labor government folks by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      The opposition wanted to do this too, when they were in power.

      Stupidity is not limited to either side of your false dichotomy.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    2. Re:welcome to a labor government folks by DeathElk · · Score: 1
      Left wing my arse. Look at the guys haircut!

      Coiffeuse critisisms aside, your complaints remind me of the hush hush deals under Howard, particularly children overboard and Tampa. I'd rather have some union involvement in govt decision making (democracy) than outright lies and racist military action.

  41. Yes, Freenet is usable by waba.be · · Score: 1

    Freenet is a distributed data store. Of course it is slower than connection-oriented networks like Tor or I2P, but the availability of its content depends solely on its popularity, not on a given server being online. In other words, it's not censorable even if an author gets arrested, raided or worse.

    It goes without saying that the more people contribute storage, bandwidth and content, the better Freenet will get.

  42. Proxy jump stupid proxy by eniacfoa · · Score: 1

    what are they gonna do if you just proxy jump their stupid filter/proxy? The computer world is full of smart people and we will beat any bullshit wall you put in our way. We are smarter than you are Mr Rudd. you will never censor us and you will never beat piracy.

    1. Re:Proxy jump stupid proxy by iosq · · Score: 1

      I refer you to http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf There was never any real plan to consider any technical details; Labor was in it to look better than the Liberal's (And for Non-Australians, they are the Conservative party in Australia - false positive for ya). It basically lumps in a bunch of bullshit "Facts" at the start, then rants on about how this waste-of-taxpayers money will some how be better/more effective then the previous. Some of this stuff is golden: "Computer addiction can also cause such things as anti-social behaviour or, if associated with pay per play online gaming, may also have a financial impact." A $180 Million financial impact though?

    2. Re:Proxy jump stupid proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      labor failed miserably at previous elections with more left wing policies... IMHO its the australian public at fault for labor just reflecting the liberal party. We are too stupid to ask for an opposition party. We demanded labor be what it is...it was never going to win another election otherwise. Conservatives are brilliant at winning elections, governing is another story. There really is a bunch of people, who think that conservatives are holy Christian people that have the interests of everyone at heart. They are very low IQ, they usually don't know anything about politics at all or the person they are advocating... they will follow any evil twit as long as the twit also claims to be against things like abortion...being against gay marriage and abortion is like a "get away with anything else" license. When are 95% of people going to wake up and say to the other 5% - "stick em up motherfuckers, this is a hold up, we've come for whats ours..." ?

  43. Yes, Freenet is usable by waba.be · · Score: 1

    Freenet is a distributed data store. Of course it is slower than connection-oriented networks like Tor or I2P, but the availability of its content depends solely on its popularity, not on a given server being online. In other words, it's not censorable even if an author gets arrested, raided or worse.

    It goes without saying that the more people contribute storage, bandwidth and content, the better Freenet will get.

    (reposting in the right thread)

  44. Two lists by ark1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "users can switch between two blacklists which block content inappropriate for children, and a separate list which blocks illegal material" Does this mean illegal material is appropriate for children?

  45. What a bad week this has been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been the worst week for privacy in a long time. I can't imagine it getting any worse, honestly.

  46. 10,0000?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10,0000 Web pages from one million? Should that be 10,000 or 100,000?

  47. It works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It works quite well for small and medium size files and very well for "Freesites" - websites in Freenet.

    There are anonymous discussion boards (called FMS), anonymous email ("Freemail"), blogs ("flogs"), anoynmous SVN, etc.

  48. Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This bill was brought to you by your local censors.

    So Aussies can look forward to a rabid reaming by prurient hypocrites, and the undoubted pleasure of being billed for it, too. The details of the public reaming will also be off-limits, of course (for the public good: can't have people witnessing such lurid acts).

    Due to the shotgun nature of blocking filters, there will be many pages wrongfully blocked. Based on the blocking policies enforced at some workplaces, entire domains may be blocked on account of just a single objectionable page in a single user's subdomain. Whole domains may also be blocked wrongly, through ambivalent ignorance or a mere typo.

    Whole communities might find themselves wrongfully off-limits, as happened a few years ago, when the alt.binaries.pictures.astronomy usenet group was blacklisted by a large US ISP. The ISP did not block all alt.binaries.pictures groups, but chose to lump the astrophotography group in with the porn groups. That's what misinterpretation of phrases such as "heavenly body", "images from last night", "multiple exposure", "open truss", "polar mount", "white dwarf", "full moon" and the like can cause. I doubt if anyone involved in the decision to block the group actually looked at the images being posted there - I never saw an inappropriate image in several years of regularly reading that group.

    Presumably, all anonymizing services will promptly find themselves on the blacklist, lest anyone use them to bypass the filters and look at unapproved pages. Expect also, that anyone acting as a freenet node will be dealt with appropriately (ISP cutoff, or legal action).

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Whole communities might find themselves wrongfully off-limits, as happened a few years ago, when the alt.binaries.pictures.astronomy usenet group was blacklisted by a large US ISP. The ISP did not block all alt.binaries.pictures groups, but chose to lump the astrophotography group in with the porn groups. That's what misinterpretation of phrases such as "heavenly body", "images from last night", "multiple exposure", "open truss", "polar mount", "white dwarf", "full moon" and the like can cause."

      I don't want to know

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what misinterpretation of phrases such as "heavenly body", "images from last night", "multiple exposure", "open truss", "polar mount", "white dwarf", "full moon" and the like can cause."

      I don't want to know

      Well, I for one am intrigued by these topics and wish to learn more.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Due to the shotgun nature of blocking filters, there will be many pages wrongfully blocked."

      In a society that values freedom of speech, any page blocked is done so wrongfully.

    4. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by Talla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Wow, a couple of networks may at some point be wrongly blocked by mistake for a short period of time till the mistake is identified.

      You REALLY believe these mistakes will happen seldom and be fixed quickly? You must be new here.

    5. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

    6. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by philspear · · Score: 3, Funny

      In a society that values freedom of speech, any page blocked is done so wrongfully.

      Except goatse and 2 chicks. Those are the two good uses of censorship.

    7. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You forgot tubgirl. I must know how you did so.

    8. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by philspear · · Score: 1

      I didn't. ;)

    9. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      He was obviously using the absence of her mention as a subtle way of reminding you of her.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    10. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      All Aussies contact the minister and let him know what you think!

      http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/contact

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    11. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Well, I for one am intrigued by these topics and wish to learn more.

      Just don't get into the scary looking van young padawan ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      > Wow, a couple of networks may at some point be wrongly blocked by mistake for a short period of time till the mistake is identified.

      Yes, like government blocking access to sites that have disagreeable political views to express

      Things like that huh?

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    13. Re:Follow orders: bend over & spread 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The Government obviously hasn't heard of OpenDNS, a free DNS service that allows any person to decide what is and is not appropriate. Cries of 'the Average Australian' (or in Ruddspeak "working families") being too complex to handle could be equally met with "government too stupid to ask ISPs to offer as an opt-in DNS service in account preferences"

      2. We're not talking the UK's BT master blacklist, which blocks approximately 1000 of websites deemed so horrendous that they have to be blocked, or the now known practice of having web communications in the US monitored (yes, we're already got that), it's a completely different ballgame when your website is blocked, and you've got no way of unblocking it, and no-one to ask. The New South Wales education department has content filtering, sanctioned and administered by the government. And that leaves about 50 pages suitable for children.

      3. It seems unfortunate that Rudd picked a program to pursue with a) A large proportion of Australians are first generation from Asia or the Middle East who see censored internet as the norm, and b) Rural folk who probably didn't care about censored internet- they just wanted a connection to the internet at all.

      5. I'd like to know exactly WHAT is classified as 'illegal' - Because we really don't know. Is P2P illegal? Under our Copyright Act, iTunes and MP3 software is illegal, so is that going?

  49. the final solution to the stupidity by CHRONOSS2008 · · Score: 0

    When we all have no rights
    when we all have no money
    when we all have no place ot live
    when we all have nothing left BUT A STICK

    you know what happens then.

    Beatup a musician or actor today.
    Make them understand that this shit is THERE fault
    they make these people have power.

    HATE them curse them throw a rock or spit.
    They are evil people all of them unless htey contribute to fighting against this evil.

    YOU are with us or against us no more middle ground, draw up the army people the tsunami is coming.

  50. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material.

    source
    They'll be hard pressed to find any house or school that is free of pornography. So Australian kids have nothing to fear. Nobody's taking their porn away.

  51. Australia =? China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this basically what the Great Firewall of China is?

    1. Re:Australia =? China by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 1
      It needs another name with Australian flavour...

      The Great Barrier Firewall
      Great Dingowall of Australia.

  52. Already covered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's not being sold, there's no market incentive to create and only risk possible. If it's being sold, then you have both the purchaser and the site accepting money to bring in.

    Neither requires that you block access to the material to persue the proper legal course and get the crime (abuse of real children) sorted out.

    In fact, banning the ability to see it means it will be sent by spambot or trojans hiding on innocents computers and you will be unable to persue the REAL criminal: the person abusing the child.

    You can also miss finding people who ARE interested in this sort of thing and get them some help before they move from "looking" to "doing" and thereby PREVENTING crime.

    So censoring the information in this case cannot help and can only be neutral or damaging to the REAL problem of kiddie porn: the abuse of children.

  53. The burden of proof is reversed. by kcots · · Score: 1

    You can't just cast aside false positives, though. It's as if you're asking what's wrong with murder on the presupposition that nobody is ever hurt.

    This particular method of censorship also reverses the burdens of proof. Rather than the government going to court to prove that a defendant has something illegal or that a site should be blocked, it appears that the government has carte blanche proscribe access to sites; presumably people will now need to sue to have their material unblocked, rather than the government suing them. This can be rather burdensome, particularly for people who are on the margins of society.

  54. Usable and monitored by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Autoraties know they can't block P2P systems , so they monitor them instead. Don't think P2P is a get out of jail free card, more like a get into jail with the book being thrown in after you.

    1. Re:Usable and monitored by RPoet · · Score: 1

      The purpose of all the P2P systems he mentioned (Freenet, Tor, I2P) is anonymity. They can't arrest you if they don't know about you.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    2. Re:Usable and monitored by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Don't be naive. How hard do you think it is for them to trace an IP address? It doesn't matter how many hops you do , they only need to monitor the connections from your machine and what you're downloading.

    3. Re:Usable and monitored by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just ask the kid who hacked Mrs. Palins email account about those "anonymizing" proxies.

      Wanna do something illegal? Be prepared for the repurcussions.

      --Toll_Free

    4. Re:Usable and monitored by waba.be · · Score: 1

      Such claims are just FUD unless you can demonstrate them.

      In particular, Freenet reencrypts and pads as appropriate the data routed through a node, protecting against this kind of attacks.

    5. Re:Usable and monitored by RPoet · · Score: 1

      That guy didn't use Tor. He used a regular 1-hop commercially-driven web proxy service. Such ones are easily traceable because it only takes the cooperation of the proxy company.

      That said, I agree that if you do crime, you should be prepared to do time.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  55. Mudoch countries by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think it is an accident that these things are going forward in the English speaking countries where Murdoch has the most influence, US, UK, & Australia. So far as I can make out, Canada and NZ are sticking with freedom.

    1. Re:Mudoch countries by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Are they accepting redidency visa applications?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Mudoch countries by ubercam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All the time! In Canada we have a healthy immigration system that heavily rewards business/education/financial success and refugees & their family members.

      Some individual provinces even have their own vetting system for immigrants wishing to establish themselves in that particular province. Manitoba's Provincial Nominee Program is the largest and most successful program in the country (and the only one I know anything about). It doesn't guarantee you a visa, but they do their homework, background checks etc, and also a labour market study to determine whether your skills are needed here, or whether you'd be stealing a job from a Manitoban. If they feel you're needed, they issue a recommendation to the Federal dept of immigration, which usually rubber stamps you, unless of course they find something which rejects you, like a criminal record or an unticked box on one of the thousands of forms.

      I have been helping my friend get his application together for the last couple months and he should have it sent in by Christmas. It will take 6-9 months to get a response though. Don't expect to apply and move in the next 2 weeks, more like 1-2 years.

      A Provincial Nominee Program isn't the only route, you can apply directly to the feds as well, but I know nothing about that route. The Feds announced recently that they were going to increase the immigration quota, so better chances.

      That said, Aussies are very welcome here. I hear Aussie accents all the time here in Winnipeg. If you're SERIOUS about it, do it. You won't regret it. Canada is seriously poised to take a huge leap upward in international power rankings... that is if the gov't manages this crisis properly and we keep our heads above water while everyone else is drowning. We're a net exporter of valuable resources (wood, oil, food, minerals), so we're better off than other countries who are net importers. We've also currently got the best banking system in the world. Cost of living is low... lots of really good reasons to move here. Best place to live right now and for a long time to come.

      If you're worried about the net neutrality issue, I'm positive that's gonna be on the back burner for the foreseeable future while parliament sorts through this much more important "economy" business.

      A neat bonus is that you'd finally get snow on Christmas!

    3. Re:Mudoch countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far as I can make out, Canada and NZ are sticking with freedom.

      That's because we'll burn your White House to the ground for the second time if necessary. Just kidding, Mr. Bush, just kidding.

  56. Contact Details for the Minister in Charge by Alicat1194 · · Score: 1
    Let him know what you think:

    email: minister@dbcde.gov.au

    phone: (03) 9650 1188

    snail mail:
    Senator Stephen Conroy
    Minister for Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy
    Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
    Melbourne Vic 3002

    The EFA also has a form letter you can copy and send here if you need it.

    --
    You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
    1. Re:Contact Details for the Minister in Charge by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      Any country that employs "ministers"

      IS CORRUPT.

      --Toll_Free

    2. Re:Contact Details for the Minister in Charge by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Huh? A 'minister' is just the name for the head of a government department in any Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy (i.e. UK, Canada, NZ, South Africa, Australia...). They are elected members of Parliament.

      Their role is roughly equivalent to your Secretaries in the US (Secretary of Defence, Secretary of Education, etc.). I'm a little confused as to what you think they are, but I assure you it's nothing unusual :)

    3. Re:Contact Details for the Minister in Charge by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      I never said it was anything unusual or anything like that.

      And nearly every one of your countries that you stated, is, corrupted in one way shape or form.

      All the ministers in Korea, China, USSR (or the former Republics to the younger crowd) and the middle east are fine upstanding individuals, too.

      It was a generalization. Just as our secretaries are just as corrupt. HOWEVER, more countries refer to their cabinet level members (or insert your phrase of choice for your country here) as ministers, hence me being able to make the statement I did.

      It was more of a joke than anything else, bud. :)

      Thanks for the edu, though....

      --Toll_Free

    4. Re:Contact Details for the Minister in Charge by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Ah I see. Good point - virtually ALL countries refer to their cabinet members as Ministers (or some word translated into English as 'ministers' at least). Including a lot of 'bad' ones :)

      One interesting thing though - check this out http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008

      One of the ones I mentioned (NZ) is in fact equal first on this years index (least corrupt countries in the world). The others are mostly in the yellow (good), or orange (fairly good) shading on the map (excepting South Africa). Not too bad on the whole. Now of course one might argue that their methods of coming up with this index are flawed, but there's an extensive FAQ that explains how they do it in good detail. It's rather shocking how few countries get that yellow or orange colour when you look at the map though.

  57. Re:WTF?! (Off-topic, yes I know) by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 1

    I'm big enough to handle my own affairs and sane enough to give my baby girl a happy and balanced childhood filled with pony's, daffodils, geek, and a sense of place and purpose within society.

    Would you swap out the first two for anything if your baby girl was actually a baby boy, and if so, why?

  58. Child pron?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would laugh in the face of Conroy if he tried to tell me that an uncensored internet is equivalent to looking at child pornography.

    The man has no concept of what is more important for society. As an Australian, if the Government insists that they know what it is best for people to see and hear, I'd be thinking twice about returning home permanently.
    The next question is what line the filters tread?

    Since Conroy goes down the emotive child pornography path, maybe he'll explain to me where the line is here and give a 5 page essay on why...

    Naked cherub statue?
    Naked cherub in oil painting?
    Photo of naked child in cherub headgear?
    Photo of naked child not dressed as cherub?

  59. it has started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first the guns now the press... long live down under..

  60. dunno by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    you could ask :)

  61. Do I got this right? by Lord+MuffloN · · Score: 0

    Am I correct when I understood it as the liberal party of Australia proposed something like this? If so, what the fuck is wrong with the rest of the world?! A true liberal party NEVER EVER supports censorship, is the Australian liberal just as "liberal" as the American ones? In other words, not at all? -Swedish Socialliberal wondering here.

  62. Choose safety or freedom by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 1

    If you could do it without additional cost to infrastructure, without degradation to network service, without ANY false positives (one in a million is not good enough), without unforeseen side effects due to the fact that HTTP is not designed for interception, and without ambiguity thanks to the fact that legality is sometimes context sensitive, then it boils down to a philosophical argument as to whether it's best for government to actively prohibit illegal activity or detect and punish violations. I am slightly inclined to think that "freedom" includes "freedom to break the law and suffer the consequences", so I believe that censorship should be voluntary. That way you can decide for yourself whether you want "safety" or "freedom". Why deny people that choice?

    --
    proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
  63. I'll bet... by Saint+Gerbil · · Score: 1

    I'll bet TPB is one of the first on the list.

  64. Cyber Terrorism! by Yeorwned · · Score: 0

    You realize this opens the door for a whole new world of small scale cyber bombers flooding legit sites with the perfect keywords that make the filter crawler bots add the site to the banlist. An example would be similar to a YouTube video. Every once in awhile, you'll find someone with a grudge who uses proxies to spam a video as inappropriate until it gets removed or flagged as such. I'm sure the Australian's wont have to pay for this fancy filtering feature either...

  65. First they took the guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost impossible to own any type of firearm in Australia after they took them from law abiding citizens a few years back......

  66. Cleanfeed by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the (slightly) positive side, although my ISP (Virgin Media) apparently uses it, I've never seen any evidence of its presence. Also, I've never heard of anyone having problems or false positives (which obviously doesn't mean this doesn't occur).

    Note that you wouldn't actually know if you had reached a page that was blocked under the system. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3797563.stm :

    if you are a BT broadband customer and you follow a link to a website that is suspected of hosting images of child sexual abuse - what is often sloppily called "child porn" - then you will get a "page not found" error.

    (Compared with places like Saudi Arabia, which inform you why the page isn't available, and even allow you submit a form if you think it's been incorrectly blocked.)

    Note that although theoretically this only covers "illegal content" like child pr0n, from January the Government will start criminalising possession of some adult material, vastly increasing the range of sites which could fall under such blocking.

    Also it was the IWF (who run Cleanfeed) who recently reported someone for prosecution for writing a fictional story (although as it happens, the story in question still seems to be available and doesn't seem to be blocked - instead they're going after the author, who may face up to five years in prison).

  67. Sich Heil! by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Sich heil am neues Fuehrer...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Sich Heil! by ubercam · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe you meant to say:

      Sieg Heil zum neuen Fuehrer...

      /GermanGrammarNazi

    2. Re:Sich Heil! by idontgno · · Score: 1

      +1 MetaGrammerGodwin

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  68. 3rd rock by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    It is Australia. They live down under. The whole 3rd rock is on top of them.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  69. Laws are visible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A blacklist (and the reasoning for that list) is secret.

    BIG DIFFERENCE.

  70. Walled gardens? by OmniChamp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So people have touched upon censorship, but in the big picture, is this a future trend? China's current implementation of the Great Firewall and now this? This may have a larger impact than most people think and I'm not big on fear mongering. Reduction of the access and free exchange of information breaks down the fundamental usefulness of the internet and if greater organizations (I say organizations because even if a country doesn't do it, but ISP monopolies worldwide do, the results are similar) continue down this path the internet will devolve into something resembling television: a passive experience with controlled and filtered inputs and outputs.

    Last tin-foil hat thought: The reason I'm concerned about this is that I've been confident that these attempts to censor or filter the internet in the past were futile because, like water confronting a rock in its path, the information will flow around the damage. But if things go the way of "1984", the general public just won't know of any better if they are brought up in a filtered environment and what they're missing. I'm straining my memory, but I believe in Orwell's book, they removed terms to describe dissent or hatefulness so that people would be unable to express their dissatisfaction. AOL users thought that their world WAS, in fact, the internet until they changed ISPs.

    Alright I'm digressing. If I lived in Australia, I would fight tooth and nail against this. To redirect the "Think of the Children" play, even if they are not subject to illegal or lewd material early on, it's still out there. A more reasonable action would be educating in school safe surfing of the web, how to determine reliable and unreliable sources and proper teaching of ethics in a more subjective and technologically advanced world. My last example is this: Would you rather have teach someone walking down the street why its important not to break into someone's house or line the doors and windows with spikes and barbwire? Think of the children!!!!

    /rant over. I'm getting some coffee.

  71. Still a prison colony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Looks like Australia is still a giant prison colony, eh?

    No wonder all you Aussies call each other "mates". It's short for "inmates".

    All you Aussies need to grow a pair, and rise up and fight your oppressive regime, or else you might as well continue to be sheep and invite the New Zealanders over to shear you too.

    Ever notice how the word colony contains "colon"?

  72. The road to hell is paved with good intentions by Cinnaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Strangely the discussion is more civilised here than at Ars Technica, hopefully this revelation will be the beginning of the end of the net filtering idea.
    When I first heard of it, it sounded like a valid way to make it easier for people with children to filter their internet, and there was an opt-out option (I really disliked the idea of opt-out rather than opt-in though).
    Now it sounds like it will turn us into a second great firewall of China, so I think the further this goes the more consternation will increase.

  73. Quit Helping The Terrorist--Reduce Your Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And think of the children you hurt when you don't.

    10,000 out of 1,000,000 = 1 out of 100

    Of course if you're too lazy for that, and don't hate America too much, you can even run it through a calculator for a percent.

    10,000 out of 1,000,000 = 1%

    Granted after 9/11 everything changed and 1% isn't as sensational, but if we wanted misleading math and sensational journalism we would turn to mainstream sources.

  74. What a bunch of morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to work for these idiots, too. I feel sorry for the average Australian citizen, for having to put up not only with crappy service that's even more overpriced than here in the States, but now they're having a gun held to their heads forcing them to have their hands held like they're ALL little children. It's complete and utter bullshit.

  75. Games rating system foreshadowed this. by Spice+Consumer · · Score: 1

    We've previously discussed the issue with Fallout 3. It was a real eye opener to learn they didn't have a +18 game rating. But after learning that I can't say I'm surprised something like this came up. This all seems like a throwback to the mid 90's to me. As an American I clearly remember the big sigh of relief I received when the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act was shut down. I also dug up an old article pointing to the ruling and it mention's as far back as June of '96 that Australian's were still under this type of threat. http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR960613.html

  76. Poor Aussies by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Poor Aussies,I guess it's time to take up arms and revolt against your oppressive government to gain back God given liberty lost. Whoops, I guess you let Big Brother take your guns a while back. I guess you can throw rocks at them.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    1. Re:Poor Aussies by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      May I point out we didn't need guns to obtain our freedom in the first place, and most of us never had even the slightest desire to own one. Our histories are different, but we both have a very strong democratic tradition that allows us to solve these problems via the ballot box, rather than with force.

      There's no way this will ever get past the planning stage. The entire telecomms industry would be up in arms (heh ... pardon the pun) about it and public opinion would stamp this out before it ever got through Parliament.

  77. This will probably never get off the ground by Cimexus · · Score: 1

    ...simply because, as we all know, it's completely infeasible. The Internet is simply too large to have a hope of maintaining an even vaguely accurate list of 'bad' sites. You would have to employ literally an army of public servants to surf around and maintain it. And anyone with even the slightest bit of technical knowledge can get around it in a flash (encryption, Tor, proxy, obtain from non-filtered mediums such as IRC/P2P, etc).

    I strongly suspect what will happen is that the Rudd Govt. will ooo and ahh about it for a while so it appears that they haven't neglected their election promise re net filtering. But soon as they see how completely useless any proposed filtering scheme will be, it will quietly fade away into obscurity. Particuarly as they have bigger fish to fry right now (economic collapse and all).

    Our politicians do have some very stupid ideas, but I'd bet pretty good money this will never actually get off the ground (in its current form at least) in Australia. Most of the public, and every single person in the ISP/telecomms industry is against it (for good reason - it costs money to implement, will slow down net access due to the need to run every request through the IP blacklist, and it shifts responsibility for content from users, to ISPs).

    So it's scary in theory, but I'm not worried ... it won't get past the planning stage.

  78. China by Godji · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And this is different from the Great Firewall of Chine how?

    Not that being similar to the GFC makes it any more acceptable of course.

  79. Re:Riddle Anonymous Dastardly Invention Onomatopoe by querist · · Score: 1

    Text chat and plain text emails were doable back in the early 1990's. I did it on the 70cm band back then. It works just fine.

    And, these days, they have much better equipment so you can obtain higher speeds.

    Granted, it's not going to be what you'd want to download the lates Linux distro, but it's more than adequate for email and text chat.

    HOWEVER, you have to interface with the "wire" some time. Unless you're going to use HF (low bandwidth for reasons of physics), you're going to have limited range. Any amateur radio operator in Australia will still end up interfacing with Australian routers unless they set up a link to New Zealand or some other country. NZ's just the logical choice due to proximity.

    I am an amateur radio operator, but I'm not in Australia or NZ.

  80. Im literally laughing here by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

    Funny as shit, watching all the .eu trash and .au trash as they talk shit about the United States.

    Remember, you're less a democracy than we are. Wanna shit in my yard, better clean your own up first.

    I'm sure we will have the same thing, I just felt the need to point out the obvious... Gets tiring watching the posts here from non us citizens talking about how they would never, nor would their country.

    Guess you better move now, aussieboyeeee.

    --Toll_Free

  81. NIMBY by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    While at first glance it seems evil and bad, the devil is really in the details.

    What comes to mind is the adage "who watches the watchers". So if the public has some input and control over what exactly is censored and it isn't totally dependent upon whatever political party is in power at the time then it might not be so bad.

    Most of our regular media, TV, Radio, Paper, etc... are all regulated and censored to a degree. Each government has a slightly different way of doing it, but they all do.

    So as long as they don't go overboard with it, it might not be too bad, hell it might even help protect you from some of the baddies out there.

    Having said all that, I am glad mine is not censored! (or so I think anyway!)

  82. Are they going to block online bibles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does contain references to sodomy, nudity, and prostitution

  83. $125.8 million (63 million Euro) for what? by BruceCage · · Score: 1

    Ignoring everything else for a second. That kind of money would allow you to hire more than 3000 people working full-time at a yearly salary of 20.000 Euro (that's more than I make), or 52 people full-time for most of their working life (60 years) at the same salary.

    I couldn't quickly locate any budgets and only found a press release by Hon Stephen Conroy stating that:

    The Government's cyber-safety funding will provide $49 million [24 million Euro] to law enforcement, ensuring that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Child Protection Operations Team can expand its capacity to detect and investigate online child abuse, with 91 additional AFP members dedicated to online child protection by 2011.

    And another factoid (not related to this specific plan perse) from the Electronic Frontiers Australia that:

    Filter vendor's claims about the suitability of their product need to be treated with extreme caution given filter vendors stand to make a very large amount of money if their product were to be selected for a government mandated system. Of the estimated $33 million per annum cost (as at 2004) stated in the Government report, $14.3 million per annum was the cost of filtering software licences that would be paid to filter vendor/s.

    --
    Perfect is the enemy of done.
  84. Canadian internet monitoring by John+Bayko · · Score: 1

    Every major ISP in Canada logs all web site access, using software developed for the Totonto Police Service and the RCMP by Microsoft. It is freely available to anyone who wants to use it, and used around the world:

    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/apr05/04-07CETS.mspx

    A friend of mine works at a major ISP, and claims that "tens of thousands" of IP addresses (out of maybe a quarter million) are captured for accessing "child pornography" web sites.

    So far, prosecutors and police have limited the use to go after producers of child porn, who are the ones really victimizing children, and not the viewers, but rest assured everyone is monitored across Canada.

    It probably is illegal under Canadian law, but nobody is looking at it too closely. I don't know if it will be abused in the future - Canada is ranked as one of the least corrupt nations in the world. But given time, I wouldn't be surprised.

    1. Re:Canadian internet monitoring by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

      Very discouraging.

  85. Re:WTF?! Labour have shaped Australia. by glamb · · Score: 1
    I think the Labour party have done more in their shorter time in office.

    The following things have been introduced under Labour Government which have probably shaped modern Australia and contributed more to it's current prosperity:

    Whitlam (in less than 3 years)

    established formal diplomatic relations with China

    abolished Uni fees

    cut tariffs by 25% and abolished the Tariff Board

    introduced a supporting benefit for single-parent families;

    abolished the death penalty for federal crimes.

    reduced the voting age to 18 years;

    abolished the last vestiges of the White Australia Policy;

    introduced language programs for non-English speaking Australians;

    mandated equal opportunities for women in Federal Government employment;

    appointed women to judicial and administrative positions;

    abolished conscription;

    set up the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee;

    amalgamated the five separate defence departments;

    instituted direct federal grants to local governments

    established Legal Aid,

    increased funding for the arts

    Tried to introduce universal free health care (medicare)

    Hawke-Keating

    economic rationalism (Deregulation,

    Privatisation, a free market economy, privatisation)

    Floating of the dollar

    enterprise bargaining

    introduction of Superannuation

    reductions in trade tariffs

    passed the Native Title Act

  86. Relax folks, it's just a field test of... by Jerry · · Score: 1

    a plan to suppress free speech on the Internet. it's nothing you haven't been experiencing for years.

    After all, there's been no real freedom of expression through printed or visual media since the 60s. Why should the Internet be any exception?

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  87. Just wait..... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

    .....for even a few moderately large (and perfectly legal) businesses to experience a massive drop in sales because their customers suddenly can't connect to them anymore (because they have been mistakenly blocked), let the lawsuits fly, and the whole scheme will be dropped or drastically modified. Even if there is a provision for individual sites to be manually approved, the inconvenience of the need to appeal the block, and the loss of even a few days sales in the process, cries out for compensation.

    Misguided ideas like this one can never be headed off prematurely -- usually the implementers have to learn the hard way.

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  88. Like the apple... by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    Maybe this censorship is just like the apple that I tried to take to Australia. (it wasn't allowed for fear of diseases etc) Now they ecosystem will never get `hardened`. Same for the people. And what about people that cause a lot of hits for censored sites? They must be terrorists?

  89. Why aren't we doing this in Britain? by DrChrisJ · · Score: 1

    Why aren't we doing this in Britain? Our government is going even further than this and we are just sitting back and letting it happen. So, is there a petition that exists that we can send to the government, or do I have to create one? Thanks.

  90. Finland by weicco · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Welcome to Finland! We already have secret filter lists that saves us from all the kiddie porn in the internet.

    Hey, wait! It doesn't! It just blocks DNS queries to kiddie porn websites. I'm sure no-one will never ever figure out how to set up DNS server of their own or use P2P networks...

    Funny thing about this law is that it is written so that it can only concern foreign websites containing illegal child porn material but actually it is used to block gayporn websites and domestic websites criticizing the law. And because filter lists are kept secret we really don't know what else is blocked. About those two we at least have some evidence. Well, they also managed to block japanese music shop in the process ;)

    Oh. And did I mention that they are trying to broaden this filterings stuff to concern copyrighted (other than kiddie porn) material also?

    So let me tell you again! Welcome to Finland - where Orwell lives and is well!

    --
    You don't know what you don't know.
  91. awww by cavePrisoner · · Score: 1

    You think there might be a way to get your voice heard. That's cute.

    Seriously though, if you raise your voice you'll be accused of defending terrorists and child predators. At least that's how it works up here. Have you tried pitchforks?

  92. Can you read this? Maybe they censored this post.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you're hijacking things for a start, you're using "if's" and then telling me I can't use certain arguments.

    Ok - What "if" the things you can't see aren't illegal, only damaging to people in power? What if the truth is blocked (under the guise of stopping "radicalism")? What if the blocking filters accidentally include something you need to access right now? VERY few people will try and get something unblocked..."oh, bugger, there's something wrong with the site honey..."

    You'll never know.

    And imagine "if" you believe that something (that you don't know exists because it's been blocked!) shouldn't be blocked and the powers-that-be believe otherwise? You, sir, will be a marked man at that point.

    And who makes the decision that something is innapropriate for me? That means that someone *is* looking at , well, why should that person be allowed to view it and not me? Are they not being harmed just like it would supposedly harm you and me? Yes, old argument - but have you ever known a censor? I met some once and My god they are the most backward troglodytic born-agains you could ever meet. Even the young ones in their 20's scare me to death with their morals. (They all seemed like they were on serapax or something)

    There's also the problem of "creeping legislation" - which we are all beginning to experience around the world - today we make item(a) illegal, but not item(b) as it would cause a voter backlash. But in 5 years when everyone is comfortable, item(b) is made illegal and nobody notices and so on until we finally have items(a-z) blocked.

    Hey, maybe they'll ban my facebook page cause I have photos of people smoking MARIJUANA!!!! Ohhh, ain't that gonna start pissing people off when they can't access their own photos and web-sites anymore! How do you get them back? Will you get them back? Or will they be kept for "evidence"???

    There is no argument for censorship that makes any kind of sense. It's all an emotive issue of "I don't like this so nobody else should have access".

    Mind you, you'll still be allowed to watch pictures of decapitations or old Arnie ripping off arms. War and death in general will still be accessible. I hate that shit, but I would never have it banned so that you can't see it.

    I could go on and on, but it's kind of pointless, as they have everyone distracted by all this missing money (that never existed anyway, but that's another rant). Perfect cover to bring in all sorts of stuff.

    As I write this , I realise that you may never see these words, as they may in fact be censored.

  93. It's called prior restraint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is no one familiar with the phrase "prior restraint" any more? It's a junior-high civics concept, for fuck's sake. I'm not speaking to the parent poster, I'm bemoaning the need for the parent's long explanation.

    The single most important aspect of any _just_ society, from a law-enforcement perspective, is that it not practice any form of prior restraint . . . the police detect and apprehend those who harm others - the courts assess whether harm has been done, how much, and to whom - the penal system prevents someone known to have done harm from doing more . . .

    Actions, such as censorship, which render someone or everyone _unable_ to harm others, or themselves, in some way, are NOT NOT NOT proper for any human association - and least of all for an association, such as a government, that has a full or partial force-monopoly.

    Such restraints undermine not only liberty, but morality - if realized, they turn the entire subject population first into criminals, then into children, then into slaves.

  94. 4chan and friends by Sibko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, how much do you want to bet that website like 4chan, 7chan, 99chan, 420chan, anonib, etc. etc. are all blocked as 'illegal' websites?

  95. MOD PARENT UP by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm just too much of a language geek, but I would definitely have given you a +1 Informative if I had any points right now.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  96. I already wrote in by Dracophile · · Score: 1
    Here's what I wrote to the Prime Minister's office:

    I am writing to express my concerns with the government's proposal to filter the internet for all Australians. My first concern is with Senator Stephen Conroy's public statement, as reported by the ABC, that "if people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree." This association of the natural right to free speech with the abhorrent practise of child molestation is irresponsible. Poisoning the well in this manner gives the community the impression that the Rudd-Labor government regards suspiciously any free-speech arguments against restricting access to information. It also limits the ability of members of the community to debate the merits or otherwise of this proposal in free speech terms. If this is not the government's intent, then it should issue a clarifying statement to that effect: allowing this conflation of free speech with child molestation to stand is unacceptable to a free-thinking people.

    Second, I am concerned that the government has taken it upon itself to decide what each of us may or may not read. This is multiply offensive. It implies that we are not intelligent enough to make such decisions for ourselves, nor to implement these decisions. It also implies that none of us possesses good enough moral standards. Moreover, I am concerned about what might be deemed "unacceptable" in the future, in particular by a different government. Even if I can trust the present administrators of the proposed filtering system, I am certain that I cannot trust the next administrators and government simply because I do not know who they will be. How can I know what they will decide is permissible for me to read when I don't even know who they are?

    My third concern is that this proposed filtering system is to be implemented on an opt-out basis. This reinforces the impression that the designers of this scheme have assumed a certain lack of intelligence in us: apparently we're too stupid to opt into something for our own good. It also means that deliberate effort must be made merely to retain the right to make one's own decisions. It should be the other way around: it should require a deliberate effort to hand this task over to someone else. However, the most concerning aspect of this is that it makes very simple the compilation of a list of people who choose not to be filtered. Will this list be marketed to people peddling pornography? Will this list be used as some sort of shopping list for law enforcement? Why should anyone who has to opt out of this filtering scheme, on the basis that it slows down their feed or that they are able to make better decisions about what may or may not come into their home, have to fear appearing on lists that could be used for these other purposes? This is unacceptable in a free society. Please note that "give me a list of people who have opted out" is identical to "give me a list of people who have not opted in", so making this system opt-in does not ameliorate this aspect of the problem in any way.

    Finally, I have concerns with the technical aspects of this proposed scheme. Any filtering requires computing resources, and these are not free. Either the ISPs will take a performance hit or they will be forced to increase the cost of their services. By the way, I do not believe for one instant that anyone opting out of the filtering service will receive any sort of discount: they will be forced to subsidise filtering for other people. Filtering schemes are known to fail with false negatives that fail to filter content intended to be filtered and false positives that block "innocent" content. Any reliance on black-listing of sites will be frustrated as each provider of undesirable content moves that content from host to host, and great amounts of resources will be wasted on a game of whack-a-mole that can never be won. Encrypted connections to proxy servers outside Australia will go straight through the filtering scheme and are trivial t

    --
    Athy, athier, athiest.
  97. ATTACKED BY FBI FOR ONLINE MCCAIN MATERIAL!! by Jim_97 · · Score: 1

    ATTEMPTS ON OUR LIVES FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST NORTHWEST AIRLINES AND MCCAIN ONLINE AFTER VICIOUS ATTACK UPON US. McCain is backed by Northwest Air as a primary sponsor-We did not know this until just this moment-It is clear now why my mother and I's online protest on WWW.AARONJAMESSTORY.COM was removed (removed from Archive.org also!), and why there are ongoing attempts upon our lives at this time and threats from FBI: Our story: McCain Northwest Air Campaign Ties Exposed In Airline Profiling Attack Murder Attempts Ongoing PLEASE SPREAD!! ***>>http://McCainATTACKS.BLOGSPOT.COMhttp://mccainattacks.blogspot.com/ Presidential candidate John McCain I have now discovered, is deeply connected to the persecution ongoing against my mother and I in the wake of the Jan 18/06 Minneapolis Northwest Airlines profiling attack upon my mother and I (EVIDENCE BELOW), via his close association with Northwest Airlines, the official airline of his political campaign and the fact that his lawyers have Northwest Airlines as one of their top two primary clients!!- a detail which I have just this second uncovered, the most profound aspect, bar none of our ordeal. Our website: http://mccainattacks.blogspot.com/ Northwest Airlines Profiling attack, Northwest Air a McCain campaign affiliate and sponsor and amongst the top 2 clients of the McCain legal counsel. (proof and links below), now ongoing kidnapping attempts in Canada via Canadian police acting on behalf of U.S. to silence our online voice http://aaronjamesstory-importantlinks.blogspot.com/ THE EVIDENCE OF MCCAIN NORTHWEST AIRLINES TIES: ***--->>>Northwest Airlines is primary supporter of McCain re airlines CEO Douglass Steeland is very pro McCain and primary airlines supporter of his campaign complete with magazine photos and coverage in Daily Traveler magazine http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/northwest-airlines-supporting.php ARTICLE McCain Supporting Northwest Airlines: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/northwest-airlines-supporting.php "1) If you've taken a flight on Northwest Airlines in August you may have noticed the full cover of their in-flight magazine, World Traveler, greets you with the trio of Norm Coleman, John McCain, and Tim Pawlenty with the headline "The Republican's Are Coming!" The full-length photo identifies "Presidential candidate John McCain is flanked by Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty." Meanwhile Barack Obama gets a less than two inch inset headshot photo which fails to mention that he is a senator, also a Presidential candidate, oh, yeah, and that his name is Barack Obama. 2) Then there's the message from NWA President & CEO Doug Streland which reminds us that his airline is the official airline of the Republican convention. ... 3) Inside the magazine, the splashy feature article on the Republican convention includes the cover photo of the three men again along with brief descriptions of them, including "fun facts." ***McCain's lawyers amongst the 133 lobbyists working for McCain have Northwest Airlines as their primary clients!!!http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0006 Firm / Employer Campaign Role Lawyers for McCain Select List of Clients Northwest Airlines Union Telephone U.S. Chamber of Commerce Source JohnMcCain.com Corporate interests are at play here, and McCain's racially bigoted campaign strategy (Palan labeling Obama a consorter with terrorists and their supporters shouting "lynch him, kill him etc) is consistent with the profiling mandate of Northwest Airlines and their 6000 CD release to the FBI developing the profiling system (CAPS-Computer assisted profiling system) targeting U.S. civilians. Treading on McCainâ(TM)s Corporate

  98. STFUN00B? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if the authorities also stand at the street corner shouting STFUN00B!

  99. Re:ATTACKED BY FBI FOR ONLINE MCCAIN MATERIAL!! by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

    Holy lack of paragraphing, Batman!

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8