Slashdot Mirror


Largest Aussie ISP Agrees To "Ridiculous" Net-Filter Trial

Klootzak writes "Michael Malone, head of Australia's largest ISP iiNet announced today that his company would sign up to the Government's live trials of the Great Firewall of Australia. In an article published by The Age, Mr Malone is quoted calling Stephen Conroy 'The worst Communications Minister we've had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed.' Despite at first giving the impression that iiNet is rolling over like a good Government puppy the article quotes Mr Malone saying that the reasons for participating in this trial is to show how unfeasible and stupid it is — Quoted from the article: 'Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we'll be publicizing it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we'll be publicizing it.' Let's hope that in typical fashion of government-instigated Internet-filtering that this stupid idea is just as useless, inefficient and ineffectual as the last one, and that the Australian Government realizes this before wasting more taxpayer dollars on it (seeing as the first attempt only cost taxpayers $84,000,000)."

58 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Oh no... by hopejr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... iiNet is my ISP!!! It will be interesting to see what happens, and what sites get blocked. I like Mick's idea about doing it to show how unfeasible it is, just hope it won't sour iiNet's reputation. Their already overrun support lines may end up getting worse.

    1. Re:Oh no... by srjh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm with iiNet and I fully support Malone's plan to continue with the trial. Reading his comments, it's perfectly clear that he is opposed to the filter and that he doesn't think Senator Conroy is playing with a full deck. The internet industry has been telling him all year that his plan will never work, and he continues to ignore and harass them. The only way to bury the plan once and for all is to get it out in the open and let the spectacular failure of the filter be visible to all.

      At the moment, 90% of the politicians don't understand the issue (clearly including Senator Conroy), 90% of the public hasn't heard of it, and the Labor party just keeps parroting the same bullshit about protecting children whenever someone objects to the filter on technical or censorship grounds. Nevermind the fact that even if the filter is a perfect list of kiddy-porn websites, when it leaks, they've just provided the most comprehensive list of such websites to the entire online community.

      When the test goes live, I'll opt-in to the kiddy filter and complain when I still see some naughty bits. I'll find the sites that have been accidentally blocked (there is no doubt that there will be some, the government's own tests showed that between 2% and 8% of the internet will be accidentally blocked), and complain when I can't reach them. I'll complain when the ~30% speed penalty hits. I'll find every flaw that everyone in the industry is predicting, and complain at every step.

      The government is conducting a test, and we need to let them know it failed by demonstrating the failure ourselves. If the only people participating in the test are people naive enough to want ISP-level filtering to begin with, the problems won't be revealed and Conroy gets his pet censorship project through.

    2. Re:Oh no... by phyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      iiNet is a good ISP. They were the first to support ADSL2 by installing their own DSLAMs (at least in West Oz), they were the first to trial naked DSL. They help push the industry forward. If it wasn't for these types of ISPs we would still be paying $50 / month for 512k / 5gig.

      Also I appreciate the fact that MM built the company from his garage like a true geek. Also they were the first to offer TCP/IP.

      Not to say that iiNet doesn't have some bad moments, but they are far from the worst in Australia.

      They really hate this firewall crap, and have been one of the biggest voices against it.

      --
      Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
    3. Re:Oh no... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      if they have a list of all the kiddie porn sites on the web, why don't they just go after the site owners? even if the sites are hosted overseas, there are very few countries in the world that tolerate that sorta thing, and with a little international pressure it shouldn't be too hard to get their own governments to shut them down.

      if the RIAA can get the Swedish government to illegally shut down the pirate bay and seize their equipment, i'm sure it'd be no problem for the Australian government to pressure other governments to go after their own kiddie porn sites.

    4. Re:Oh no... by computational+super · · Score: 5, Insightful
      why don't they just go after the site owners?

      Because this isn't, and never has been, actually about protecting the children.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    5. Re:Oh no... by srjh · · Score: 5, Informative

      The simple answer is that it isn't about kiddie porn, it's just the rhetoric that is about kiddie porn. There's actually very little kiddie porn out there floating around on HTTP (just about the only thing that the filter will block), because no-one is stupid enough to host it when it's highly illegal pretty much everywhere. Really, if they wanted to actually remove the kiddie porn, they'd cut it off at the source - the only way that it is even possible to do. Instead, we have to wait for the content to be classified, then listed on an updated blacklist, then we have to wait for the updated blacklist to filter through to all the ISPs in the country.

      It's a complex situation, but there are a few points:

      The balance of power in the Australian Senate is held by a Senator from a party called "Family First". That party pioneered the concept of mandatory filtering of internet pornography, and the current government needs this one Senator's support in the Senate to get any legislation through. So it definitely wants to be on friendly terms with said Senator.

      Originally it was going to be a filter at the ISP level that every ISP had to offer, but that adults could opt out of. Unfortunately the idiot in charge of telecommunications in Australia decided that the technology could also be used to ban "unwanted" content (his words) for everyone. He's confirmed that unwanted content would include topics such as euthanasia, and other politicians have been pushing for gambling and anorexia websites to be added to the mandatory filter.

      The severe technological obstacles that would be obvious to over 99% of the posters here at slashdot are being repeatedly ignored, and opponents are being accused of peddling child pornography (I wish I was joking, this is literally what the minister is saying to his opponents). Never before have I seen a minister and his industry have such a fundamental contempt for one another.

    6. Re:Oh no... by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if they have a list of all the kiddie porn sites on the web, why don't they just go after the site owners? even if the sites are hosted overseas, there are very few countries in the world that tolerate that sorta thing, and with a little international pressure it shouldn't be too hard to get their own governments to shut them down.

      If you're talking about shutting down sites with 5 year olds, you're probably right - Not many countries would refuse to cooperate. But if you're talking about sites featuring 13-18 year olds, the lines get a little blurry from one country to the next (I think IANAL nor a pedophile). So, like the TPB shutdown, the "best" they could do is illegally shut down the sites temporarily before they returned as strong as ever (along with some extra publicity) and possibly try and convict the site owners in absentia so that you can arrest them if they ever decide to visit your country.

      And, like the other posters point out, this isn't really about shutting down kiddie porn. It's about giving the government the ability to filter the Internet as they see fit. The kids are just a convenient launching point because, as everyone knows, opposing censorship == supporting child abuse.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:Oh no... by janrinok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there are very few countries in the world that tolerate that sorta thing

      It depends on what you mean by 'sorta thing'. If you mean fully clothed children posing for a camera seen on the kind of site that has been frequently banned in the US then many other countries do NOT have a problem with that. The problem is with the individuals who get some kind of sexual pleasure from those sites and, even then, if they don't actually do anything then what crime has been committed? The problems with this type of filter is who gets to choose what is kiddie porn and what is not? We might have different but equally valid views both of which comply with the laws of the country under which we live. But having another country tell us we have to change because 'they' don't approve doesn't usually go down well with us. Take for example the cartoons that so offended the Muslim community. Why should my country - which is Christian and considerably more tolerant than many others - be dictated to because what we believe to be acceptable is not the same as their belief? I think that if a country tries to tell other countries how they should behave then they ought to mind their own business. By all means open a channel of discourse and debate but I don't believe that one country has more right than another to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    8. Re:Oh no... by SuluSulu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      why don't they just go after the site owners?

      Because this isn't, and never has been, actually about protecting the children.

      No, it's far more likely that the kiddie porn site operators themselves are much harder to find even if their sites aren't. They would have to be pretty stupid to run their sites with real names and addresses. Not to mention that they are likely to operate in countries that have different laws about what is illegal (like the age of consent).
      I think that it would be better to go after the credit card processors. Make it more difficult to get peoples money.

    9. Re:Oh no... by cute-boy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and he continues to ignore and harass them

      Yep. Several weeks after I sent a letter to his Australian Labour Party Cabinet Minister's office on this subject I have yet to receive even an acknowledgment.

      My own Australian Labour Party representative (also a cabinet Minister) also failed to respond.

      The main opposition party's Shadow Minister of Communications, Senator Nick Minchin (Australian Senate is the Australian Federal Upper House) at least responded with an acknowledgment.

      Australian democracy in action, as it really is - arrogant and self serving for those who are in power at the time.

      Richard

    10. Re:Oh no... by ross.w · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is Australia. Voting is compulsory.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    11. Re:Oh no... by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Informative

      You seem to be completely unaware that hard core porn is considered as "illegal" as kiddie porn in Australia.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    12. Re:Oh no... by srjh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well sort of... Labor + Greens are still a minority, so the opposition can sink any legislation with either Family First or Xenephon.

      Sure, the Greens oppose this legislation, but it's more about getting support for future legislation. Although Conroy is hungry for censorship, most of the Labor party is going along for the ride because they don't see it as a very big deal.

    13. Re:Oh no... by complete+loony · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, you have to show up, have your name checked off, and put a piece of paper into a box. But you don't have to fill it in correctly if you don't want to. Though I don't think many people throw their vote away deliberately.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    14. Re:Oh no... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not even about stopping them, or slowing them down. It's all about the balance of power in our Senate being held by the conservative christian 'Family First' party and our current governments attempts to woo them over to their side. This is why the technical impossibility and futility of the filter isn't an issue, it's all about looking like an uptight conservative christian, and that plan is working great.

  2. What a scam by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good way to get the people to accept it, ' look we are just trying to disprove it' ' its for your own good '.

    I bet a buck it doesn't get shut down and seen as a success.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:What a scam by aliquis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I especially like how they seem to suggest they will be able to tell when someone breaks around it, and even more impressive who did it!

    2. Re:What a scam by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyone that has traffic on lets say... port 22 is *obviously* getting around it and will have their name paraded as a violator.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:What a scam by Fex303 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Posting will undo some moderation, but I have to do it here...

      I know that in general we look on ISPs as evil pricks, but in this case, iiNet is actually stepping up to stick it to Aussie government. iiNet isn't the perfect ISP, but they've consistently taken steps to push the Aussie ISP market in the right direction. For example, they were the first (I think) to introduce ADSL 2+ and their ADSL 2+ connection has been the fastest I've ever had, beating out connections in the US, Singapore and Australia. They also pioneered naked ADSL (which is great). When I had ADSL issues with the local telco's lines they helped diagnose and get the problem resolved.

      Then there's the quotes that have been coming out of iiNet's staff about this filtering, which are leave no doubt about their thoughts about the whole thing.

      They're going into this kicking and screaming and only volunteering because they know they'll kick and scream the loudest.

      Full disclosure: I'm currently posting from an iiNet connection, and have been a happy customer in the past. (Though I also rate TGP's connections.)

    4. Re:What a scam by Fex303 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The thing is there's no motivation for them to screw us over. iiNet are out to make money, and filtering is just going to be a massive problem/money hole for them. Sucking up the government won't get them anything because of the telco situation here.

      So iiNet are taking the long term view that being seen as 'the guys who stopped the filtering' will be seen as a positive for their brand and mean when people ask their local geek who they should get their interwebs from said geek will be more likely to suggest iiNet.

    5. Re:What a scam by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let us stipulate, then, that iiNet's aboveboard and that agreeing to this trial is, essentially, a demonstration of the futility of the government's proposal. Even with iiNet's principled and participatory opposition (i.e., not just sitting there pouting, but doing something about it), this may have unintended consequences.

      [Comms Ministry]: The trial was a smash success; iiNet's endorsement guarantees we have good PR and can steamroll this out. All we have to do is invoke the name of our ally in the industry.

      [iiNet]: "Endorsement"? WTF are you talking about! We signed up to prove just how stupid the idea was.

      [Comms Ministry]: You signed up. That's endorsement. Your participation gives us all the credibility we need, and the rollout will proceed on schedule.

      Trying to change stupidity from the inside has risks, one of which is that you get stupidity all over yourself.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:What a scam by Fex303 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know it's bad to reply to your own posts, but someone posted a link to a thread on Whirlpool that Michael Malone has replied to. I just had to include the link because it shows you what kind of company you're dealing with. The managing director replies to a thread on a consumer advocacy forum and uses language like:

      ... It is not sensible to stay out of the trials. If we do that, then the government will sign up a couple of pissant ISP's from some small regional location. They will run the trials there and then say voila, it worked, perfect results, no slowdown. Then it will be legislated and enforced. That's stupid.

      ...

      There is no point sticking our heads in the sand on this. I want real data that demonstrates why this is dumb, even to someone as slow as this minister.

      Now, perhaps this is part of grand scheme to get this filter in place, but if so, it's so masterfully orchestrated that I think we may as well give up, they're too good to fight. :P

      Credit to ghmh's comment for the link the Whirlpool thread.

    7. Re:What a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Knowing Michael (and I do), he'll happily encourage his staff to break around the filter from their home connections.

      They will do just that, document their methods and he'll have his findings to present to the government.

      But that is immaterial. He doesn't need his staff to do this alone and give it a hint of bias. He has a wide basis of support on this topic with the technical masses who will all do the same thing.

      As has previously been stated, this is all to appease a tiny minority group that represents a tiny minority of the population. It needs to be stopped dead in the water.

  3. Re:iiNet by hopejr · · Score: 5, Informative

    iiNet has been around longer than the iMac. They started in 1993. As an aside, it is commonly known as iiBorg, as it has bought out (assimilated) many smaller ISPs.

  4. Re:iiNet by imamac · · Score: 4, Funny

    12 blades 'ought to be enough for everyone!

    I know a lot of companies who use more than just 12 blade servers...where have you been?

  5. "Filter advocates need to check their facts" by apathy+maybe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mark Newton (of Internode, not the same mob as this story is about) has an opinion piece on the ABC (which I submitted to Slashdot, but still pending...), entitled Filter advocates need to check their facts.

    In my observation, it's obvious that the debate has polarised into two camps. One of them is largely populated by people who know what they're talking about and who mostly oppose the ALP's censorship plan;

    The other camp includes people who just make lots of mistakes; including Senator Conroy, who claimed that Sweden, the UK, Canada and New Zealand all have similar filter systems as are being proposed.

    ----

    Anyway, if Conroy is the worst minister, that's pretty damn bad. After all, Richard Alston, Daryl Williams and Helen Coonan were all communications minister under Johny sticken Howard.

    According to Wikipedia, Alston tried "to ban online gambling, and make email forwarding illegal, he was dubbed 'the world's biggest luddite'. [1]".

    Maybe this "representative" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? Anyone up for some Demarchy?

    --
    I wank in the shower.
    1. Re:"Filter advocates need to check their facts" by NoisySplatter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd never heard of Demarchy before. Thanks for the lesson.

      I can see where a lot of reelection pressure would be removed, but I think it would lead to even worse corruption than we have now, or at least less expensive corruption.
      A randomly selected segment of the population would be likely to have far less personal wealth than current politicians and thus be easier to influence with current lobbyist practices.

      Add to that there would definitely have to be some way of ensuring that the person selected could actually fill the capacity they're supposed to. Perhaps a competency test and the appointee is chosen randomly from that pool.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    2. Re:"Filter advocates need to check their facts" by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Funny

      Okay, I don't know what this website is, and maybe it actually needed $1.2 million to develop, and $956,000 for hosting and support services.

      But how the hell do you spend $928,000 spent on software and $661,000 on hardware?

      Yes, not everyone uses free software for web hosting, but last I checked the most expensive version of Cold Fusion was under $10,000. I don't know how much the most expensive version of Oracle costs, but I'm rather doubting it's six fucking figures. (Remember, that doesn't include support.)

      Likewise, for $661,000, you could build a damn hosting building. (And what was the $956,000 for if you've got your own building?)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:"Filter advocates need to check their facts" by NoisySplatter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you misunderstood where I was trying to go with my rambling.

      I wasn't trying to say that working class people are bereft of morals or less fit to govern. I was speaking directly about the separate issue of bribery and illegal corruption that you spoke about in your last sentence. Basically I skipped a few steps in between and assumed oversight would stay as it is now, allowing lobbyists to work their magic on an equally impressionable but less wealthy group of people.

      I'm all about getting rid of the "rich" requirement to be in public office. I'd like to be involved in politics myself, but don't feel I have the time or background to have a chance.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    4. Re:"Filter advocates need to check their facts" by ardle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with your POV on the prospect of bribery effectively shifting from the elected to the electorate. And you are right that it may be cheaper because it is going on at the moment, in the form of advertising.
      Extreme example - and at risk of taking the thread in an unwelcome direction - oil industry ads are very "green" these days. Surely the goal of those ads is to make us feel better about the product we are buying into?
      There are a lot of things I like about the "Demarchy" idea (new to me) but I think it runs the risk - like any system - of becoming self-serving. Demarchy's goals need to be aligned with citizens', i.e. mankind's (etc., etc. - easy to say, but what are they?). I imagine it could be a very "responsive" system, given current technology.
      I also agree with your "competency" point: maybe citizens might be allowed to nominate "proxies" to opine on their behalf on various topics (different proxies for different areas of expertise) and veto their proxy's (possibly explained?) vote instead of trying to understand subject matter 100% themselves. Of course, that idea opens another means for external interests to "game the system"; I don't think that kind of thing can go away until "the game" bans bots ;-)

  6. Re:iiNet by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hah! You buy at the KwikEMart?

    Everybody knows the KwiikEMart is much better.

  7. Re:iiNet by sc4ry4nt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually iiNet was formed (and named as such) in 1993, which was eight years before the first iPod release. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IiNet#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#History_and_design

  8. Obligatory Dilbert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was just as bad an idea 12 years ago:

    http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1996-01-23/

    1. Re:Obligatory Dilbert by pitchpipe · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  9. What about TPG? by jonwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If TPG have ADSL2 DSLAMS in whatever exchange you are on, you should consider giving them a go. They have decent download quotas on their ADSL2 plans and VoIP service. Customer support is good too

    Note that I have no relationship with TPG other than being a satisfied customer of their ADSL1 plan (there is no ADSL2 available in my area from anyone I would give any money to)

    1. Re:What about TPG? by skaet · · Score: 3, Informative

      TPG was bought out by iiNet a few years ago but has retained the brand name and the control to operate independently of iiNet. This is great because I like TPGs plans after being with iiNet some time ago.

      Though TPG did outsource its support lines to an Indian/Asian/Whatever company I've still got very good support from them. Only very occasionally do they had some DNS issues but it's easy enough to use iiNet's instead :)

      --
      There is no knowledge that is not power.
    2. Re:What about TPG? by frglrock · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are correct to doubt. TPG isn't owned by iiNet.

      The only company that has been bought out by iiNet that has retained its own name is Westnet and that happened earlier this year.

      TPG merged with Soul earlier this year as well but that's about it

    3. Re:What about TPG? by Malekin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Moving from iiNet to TPG has proved to be one of the worst decisions I've made with my ISPs.

      Their support is not good. It's terrible. It seems whenever I call I get put on hold and forgotten about. I once made the mistake of admitting I was using a Mac and the problems I was having with the TPG-supplied modem not registering with the SIP proxy for VoIP were suddenly because I wasn't using Internet Explorer.

      They have accidently made charges to my account I had to have them revoke.

      TPG use transparent proxies in some areas - thankfully not where I am anymore - which don't re-write the IP address properly, and (for the six months I was in their proxying pool) I'd find sites would tell me I was banned because someone else on the same proxy had incurred the wrath of the moderators and they'd banned the IP. You'd have similar problems with sites like RapidShare.

      Finally, there are a lot of ways they get money out of you. Their contracts are long and their disconnection fee is very high. You have to buy one of their modems for many of their plans. Perhaps most annoyingly changing plans resets the contract period.

      My experience with TPG has been one of pain and suffering I would only wish upon child molesters and people who talk in the theatre. As soon as my contract is out I'm dropping them for iiNet, Internode or Netspace.

  10. Re:iiNet by theaveng · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Why get your internet service from just one puny i, we've got two!"

    The UUnet already invented this idea back in the 1980s. Not just one "you" but two "yous" for that extra-special focus on the customer. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uunet

    --
    FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  11. Re:UUnet by andyh3930 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So UUnet is not the Intranet at Discworld's Premier Thaumatological Institution?

  12. It's not a firewall, it's more like a dam by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know it's popular on slashdot to look at things based on its technical proficiency, but this isn't about whether or not it works. It's based on satisfying certain luddites that think that free access to information is evil because free access to information means free access to things that they disagree with. Things like abortion, religion, sexuality, human rights, protest, recipes for unhealthy food, and government/corporate oversight. And it doesn't matter whether it can be bypassed or not, what matters is whether the majority of the population cares enough to.

    It's like peer to peer filesharing. Geeks like us will always be able to make it work because we know enough about the network to make a connection from any one point to another point. It's a decentralized communications network and by design and very nature it cannot be fully compromised. You can't stop the signal. But very few of us that use the internet are geeks and they use common tools like Google and Shareaza and if they don't work then they just give up. They don't have the proficiency to make it work. And so the luddites win, because the literacy is so low.

    They don't care if it works... They just want to stop enough people that they don't lose their political clout. It's not a firewall, it's a dam; And while there's always water flowing through a dam, it's not all the water and that's what makes a dam useful.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:It's not a firewall, it's more like a dam by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      computational super -- It's not faith that makes me say this. It's the knowledge of human nature and statistics. No, I don't underestimate what people are willing to give up; The everyday person will sacrifice almost anything except themselves to have a little temporary safety (however illusory it is), to believe in the promise that the government, or the church, or some institution can somehow build some framework to hold back the chaos. But there will always be people either too smart, too stupid, or too "insane" to subscribe to whatever theory. Every institution, every law, advantages one group by disadvantaging another. Sometimes it's fair, sometimes it's horribly inhumane, but by the very act of disenfranchising one group to advantage another they have therein created the impetus to find the holes in the framework.

      There is no such thing as a perfect institution, law, or way of living. There will always be holes. And there will always be free radicals, and so there will always be a way. It might be dangerous, illegal, and ill-advised but somebody's going to do it, and because of the social nature of people, they will eventually organize into groups and build on this, making it less dangerous, less visible, and easier. It's the eternal struggle between building better mice, and better mouse traps. And even supposing the system is morally perfect, advantaging everything, giving no reason to question it... There will still be people who will test it, by nature.

      And technology is blind to morality. It is an extension of us all... And so... There will always be a way. Technology cannot solve social problems... People will always be evolving, trying to find some other way of doing things... And this fact alone guarantees that there will always be a way to live outside the system. There will always be a way for me to find others like me, and ways to find others like you. It's part of the human condition.

      As long as YOU want it, there will be a way. And with over six billion other people on the planet, the odds are very good there are others who also want it, and they will find a way to find you, even if you don't believe they are there.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  13. Content by fireheadca · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they filter conte

  14. Largest ISP?? by kingturkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    How is iiNet Australia's largest ISP? That's ludicrous. Telstra Bigpond is by far the largest due to their former government monopoly, Optus would be a 2nd and then perhaps iiNet would be there along with a dozen other medium sized providers.

    1. Re:Largest ISP?? by aaron+alderman · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the largest ISP part is actually referring to the size of their balls as opposed to the number of customers.

  15. "Great Firewall of Australia" . . . by mmell · · Score: 3, Funny

    Y'know, I understand the "Great (Fire)Wall of China". Shouldn't this be the "Australian Great Barrier Firewall"? And - isn't that in danger of being destroyed by people poking and prodding at it, punching holes in it, etc.?

    1. Re:"Great Firewall of Australia" . . . by lec8rje · · Score: 3, Funny

      Surely it must be "the smut proof fence" ...

  16. Related Whirlpool Thread by ghmh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is here, in which an iiNet user pleads with them to not go ahead with the trial, and is replied to by Michael Malone (the head of iinet). Whirlpool is the main news / forum site on Australian broadband news and information.

    I concur with the original poster, and that the ulterior motive is not about blocking child pornography, but instead about:

    • Trying to keep the independent senators who hold the balance of power happy, so they can get them on side to help push their other legislation through, (specifically Mr anti-gambling and Mr christian)
    • Give the government the ability to control access to information - there is no opt out. (Remember - we're not allowed to know what's on the blacklist). This is largely encouraged by:
    • Big media, who are slowly losing control over information as most of what they publish gets republished on the internet in some form, rendering their traditional distribution channels obsolete(and thus potential advertising revenue falls in a big way)

    Australian censorship has always been pretty hopeless... - We still don't have an R18+ classification for games (although we do for movies, and print media), so games that would fall into that category are refused classification (and therefore can't be sold). This mandatory internet filtering would take things to a whole new (unwanted) level.

    Unfortunately, despite Michael's best (and appreciated efforts), there's still nothing stopping them from continually moving the goalposts... and when challenged they'll continue with the "If you're not with us, then you're against us, which means you're pro-child porn" rubbish. Sounds kind of like the always attack never defend strategy endorsed by a certain science fiction author.

  17. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf by glamb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people," Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. "As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." (sorry, pinched from an earlier thread)

    1. Re:Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf by ahankinson · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'll go for +1 Godwin

  18. Re:iiNet by N+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, the iPod wasn't the gagdet which popularized the iSomething. The iMac predates it for about three years.

    Surely Asimov's "iRobot" predates those. 8-P

  19. Great... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Funny

    He's confirmed that unwanted content would include topics such as euthanasia, and other politicians have been pushing for gambling and anorexia websites to be added to the mandatory filter.

    Now that you have mentioned those words, this is going to get slashdot blocked from Australia. Let me see what these two words mean, oh heck wikipedia is probably going to be blocked now ;)

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  20. All of these mistakes play out the same way by roesti · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Whenever political or social ideology gets a chance to make as enormous a mistake as this one, the playbook always contains the same steps, and they're always taken in the same order.

    Firstly, decide on an ideological action. In this case, The Powers That Be don't want the internet to remain free and open, and a system is needed to control it. (Don't kid yourself that what is at stake is anything less.)

    Secondly, make up an excuse that appears, at least superficially, to justify that action. It doesn't actually need to justify the action, and typically, under any degree of scrutiny, the argument will fall apart. If you need to resort to cheap appeals to "the children" and scare tactics, by all means, go for it.

    Thirdly, you need to maintain that your excuse is better than anyone else's explanation to the contrary. Try not to spend too much effort replying to the experts who pick your excuse to pieces - you can't match wits with them. Don't answer their questions.

    Fourthly, do whatever you wanted to do anyway. Again, ignore all the failings for now. Stick to your excuse; say it louder, if need be.

    Fifthly, explain why the whole exercise has been such a success. If it has actually been a success in some way, your mistake has been justified by a successful result. However, even if it has been a terrible failure, you can still fall back on your ideological decision. For example, if your system has failed, you can campaign for the funds for a bigger and better system. Perhaps most importantly, do not acknowledge any failings significant enough to suggest that the move should be undone: leave it there at all costs, and use it as leverage as required.

    I worked for an Australian government department once, and I've seen these sorts of mistakes made firsthand. I can all but guarantee that Conroy will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to keep the filter going. Everyone knows it doesn't work. The ISPs will say it doesn't work because it's broken by design. The Minister will say we just need a better one to make it work. If that's all that happens, the Minister will win.

    If people don't stand up and make themselves heard, sooner rather than later, then the government is make whatever mistakes it can, using your tax dollars, and make your life worse with the consequences. Let's make them earn their keep for a change.

  21. Take Action Now! by a.ameri · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you are an Australian, please take action:

    1) Call Senator Conroy's office on 03 9650 1188. Do not be rude, do not swear, just in a very reasoned and rational voice, express your disapproval, and in a few short sentences, say why you disagree. It matters a lot.

    2) Write a letter to Senator Conroy, make sure it's between half a page to one page (no more than 400 words). Again, in a polite tone (that doesn't have to be formal, and doesn't have to have letterhead, etc., just your name and address) let him know why you disagree with him. His address is:
    Senator Stephen Conroy
    Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
    Melbourne Vic 3002

    3) Write a letter to your local MP. It doesn't matter what party he/she is from, Liberals will use your letter to back up their claims in Question Time, which gives publicity to the whole issue and will bring it to mainstream media's attention. Labor members will also express their criticism, privately, to him. This specially matters if your local MP is a Minister and serves in the Cabinet. To find out who your local MP is click here [aph.gov.au]

    4) Write a letter to Prime Minister Rudd. Let him know that when the Australian people voted him in office last year, they didn't know "Education Revolution" means censorship. Rudd's address is:
    PO Box 6022
    House of Representatives
    Parliament House
    Canberra ACT 2600

    5) Donate or become a member of Electronic Frontiers Australia . Right now the EFA is the sole organisation fighting this. They need all the help they can get.

    6) Write a letter to your ISP. It doesn't matter if it's the Evil Telstra; on this, we're all together. They are fighting the battle for us right now, but it would help them to know that what they are doing is a good business practice, that you expect them to fight this to the end.

    Don't just sit around and do nothing and then complain about how evil governments are. We, the citizens are the ones who allow governments to become evil, by our political apathy. Move! Take Action! Now!

    --
    -- /* Those who don't underestand Unix, are condemned to reinvent it poorly */
  22. www.stopthecleanfeed.com -Help us stop this idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Efforts to prevent this idiocy ever being implemented are being organised at http://www.stopthecleanfeed.com

    Please drop by and see how you can help.

  23. Re:iiNet by Super+Jamie · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean Goatse-net :P (look at their logo)

  24. Re:iiNet by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    iiNet was actually named as a bit of a pun on uuNet. It also used to always be pronounced as "eye eye net" too, but a few years ago the few ads I saw or heard had changed it to "eye net".

    I would've thought Telstra Bigpond was the largest ISP here, quite an achievement if MM's company has managed to overtake them.

  25. Re:Citation needed. by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

    What is refused classification is:

    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

    and are effectively banned.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.