Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australia's ISPs Speak Out Against Filtering

Posted by Soulskill on from the is-it-possible-to-import-an-isp dept.

daria42 writes "The leaders of three of Australia's largest internet service providers — Telstra Media's Justin Milne, iiNet's Michael Malone and Internode's Simon Hackett — have, in video interviews with ZDNet.com.au over the past few months, detailed technical, legal and ethical reasons why ISP-level filtering won't work. Critics of the policy also say that users will have no way to know what's being filtered."

11 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. It will ruin the politians involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I take comfort in the fact that once typical people are aware their internet is being filtered and monitored they will start blaming every internet slow down and disconnection on it.

  2. This government is really naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    IaaA (I'm am an Australian)

    If they think they can start censoring things they don't want us to read using child pornography as an excuse, they're really underestimating our intelligence. Everybody knows why KRudd wants this, he has some really unpopular solutions to problems nobody cares about (or those that don't even exist). Who knows what the great firewall of Australia would filter out?

    Many technical users will bypass this in a matter of minutes. People should ask for a personal refunds from the morons who devised this scheme, taking back the tax money they wasted from their own pockets and giving it back to hardworking Australians.

    1. Re:This government is really naive by walshy007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You didn't say anything when they took your guns.

      some of us were too young to have any say in it at the time (1990) and while even more strict and limiting laws have been applied since then, the general public's view of firearms is only what they see in cop shows and action movies

      It's those views that really harm shooting as a sport, and I know people who want all firearms in the country banned except for police.

      Their view is nobody needs them, nobody needs to go rock climbing either, but should we ban it because some people like to be idiots and hurt themselves every few years? I have no qualms about requiring licenses for people who own firearms, hell even the whole requiring a safe over x kg or permanently bolted to a building foundation, but some of the limits are just too much.

      as an example, I've always wanted a walther ppk, something just reeks of class about it, anyway I have no chance in hell of ever owning or using one in Australia, because it's 'too small'

      granted, my other favourite firearm is justified in the limiting of civilians having access to, the aug steyr, it's a semi/fully automatic assault rifle, however being in the military solved that problem. I'll never own one, but using and practising with them all the time is nice.

      Former prime minister John Howards irrational fear of firearms was clearly evident on one of the few times he went to speak to concerned firearm owners, he wore a bulletproof vest...

      that pretty-much sums it up I guess. But the biggest problem is the general public's lack of knowledge of firearms, and lack of experience, that which people don't know they fear.

    2. Re:This government is really naive by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion
      The hated whiskey tax was repealed in 1803, having been largely unenforceable outside of Western Pennsylvania, and even there never having been collected with much success.

      They ended up getting what they wanted, even though they could not prevail militarily. Similar results were obtained in Australia from the Eureka Stockade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Stockade where they were overcome, but within a year had achieved most of their goals, the leader even being elected into the Victorian Legislative Assembly (one of their grievances was not having the right to vote, taxation without representation).

      Resistance to the government doesn't have to mean "fight to the death of the last man standing". Even the Magna Carta didn't happen as a result of deposing the King, this is something you ought to know about for someone who claims that people with a different view to you lack knowledge of history.

      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
    3. Re:This government is really naive by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "... and if you dont do what i say i'll shoot you."

      Where in the previous post was this ever mentioned? So you have made up something the previous poster never said, then use your made up statement as proof that gun owners are unstable. I would laugh if I did not see this used time and time again.

      "funnily, the more an individual wants guns the less stable they come across - furthering the argument against them having said weapon(s)."

      Here we go again

      There was nothing unstable in that previous post. And yet again we have a repeat of the usual. Make up something about the previous post that was never there.

      Read the study by Melbourne University. To quote the abstract of the study "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths"

      "The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
      not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."

  3. It will start with Child Porn... by Airw0lf · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...next it will be used to silence political dissent, and then the content cartel will lobby to block everything from torrent trackers to sites that about console homebrew software.

    Oh wait it's already happening - from TFA:

    Conroy's mandatory Internet filtering proposal caused a stir last week when it was revealed a member of his department had tried to censor severely critical comments made on the Whirlpool broadband forum by an Internode network engineer regarding the merits of ISP level filtering.

    1. Re:It will start with Child Porn... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, what they want to ban is this:

      Publications that:
      (a) describe, depict, express or otherwise deal
      with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction,
      crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or
      abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they
      offend against the standards of morality,
      decency and propriety generally accepted by
      reasonable adults to the extent that they
      should not be classified; or
      (b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to
      cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person
      who is, or appears to be, a child under 18
      (whether the person is engaged in sexual
      activity or not); or
      (c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime
      or violence

      The way that this is done with films, books, etc, is that everything must be reviewed before it can be made available to the public. Consider how fucked the internet would be if they applied that standard.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. Re:Well, maybe we know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That can't be true - I'm posting from Austr

  5. Technical arguments are counter-productive by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The purpose of this filtering is not to keep child porn away from pedophiles. It's not to keep hard-core porn away from people who wanna whack off. The purpose is to stop Mum and Dad and the kids from stumbling upon this stuff. Sure, if they can stop people who want this stuff from getting it, they'll do that too, but they're happy that they've put some effort into stopping it. Having Customs officers review the contents of video tapes does not stop people from getting this material through the mail, but it does stop some of this material from getting through the mail.. and the slowdown caused by Customs officers is considered acceptable.

    Filtering websites with this material is easy. You just force the ISPs to blacklist certain addresses from their DNS, and hire some puritans to maintain the blacklist. No, it isn't perfect, but neither are Customs officers. And it won't even result in much of a slow down.

    These technical arguments are being raised by people who are against filtering in principle. They are against censorship and, frankly, so am I! The technical arguments are being raised because these people don't want to enter into a censorship debate. Why? Because they perceive that this ship has already sailed. We've had censorship in Australia for decades, and arguing now that censorship is wrong and the government shouldn't be doing it, is considered by many to be futile.

    I disagree. I believe we should be speaking out against censorship. I believe we should be ignoring censorship laws and fighting to have them overturned.

    NC = censorship. End censorship now!

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  6. Re:Wow.. by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 5, Informative

    Australia's constitution does not have an explicit guarantee of free speech. However in a series of cases starting in the 80s the High Court have found an 'implied right' to free political speech.

    The reasoning runs thus:
    * All Australians are guaranteed a right to vote in elections.
    * To vote in an election you need to be able to inform yourself.
    * In able to inform yourself you need to be able to freely discuss political matters.
    * Ergo, political speech is protected.

    This means that the whole project may be unconstitutional as any filter must necessarily cause false positives for political matters. If not, nothing stops websites from adding a "we hate the censorship laws and the ALP" statement to the footer of every page to force the matter.

    --

    Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

  7. I mentioned this a few days ago. by kaos07 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1012207&cid=25565869

    "Regarding the Australian filter, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

    The Green party and the Liberal party are both going to block the legislation in the Upper House. Their numbers combined are enough to stop the bill from passing.

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/30/1224956188036.html

    The Greens don't get much of their other policies talked about very much, besides the environment, but they have the most pro-Slashdot internet platform out of any political party. By that I mean they support open standards, net-neutrality and internet freedom (no censorship). They also want the government to embrace open source and all government documents to saved in an open document standard."