Slashdot Mirror
Aussies Hit the Streets Over Gov't Internet Filters
mask.of.sanity writes "Outraged aussies will hold simultaneous protests across Australia in opposition to the government's plans for mandatory ISP internet content filtering. The plan will introduce nation-wide filtered internet using blacklists operated by a government agency, away from public scrutiny. Politicians and ISPs will join protesters in the streets to voice their opposition to the government's plan, which has ploughed ahead, despite intense criticism that the technology will crippled internet speeds and infringe on free speech. Opponents said the most accurate filter chosen by the government will incorrectly block up to 10,000 Web pages out of 1 million."
Once again the guise of stopping child porn and terrorists will be used as cover to do the bidding of big business and lobbyists for the music/movie/software studios who want to block torrent sites. I doubt the U.S. and E.U. will be far behind Australia's lead, sadly.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Opponents said the most accurate filter chosen by the government will incorrectly block up to 10,000 Web pages out of 1 million.
Uh, why didn't they use the metric of 10^4:10^6 or 1:100? Sounds like somebody wanted that statement to be heard as much more impacting than it is. The thing that worries me is that if we look at other technologies designed to "protect the people from themselves," a false positive rate of 1% really isn't that bad--especially on a fully automated system. A high false positive rate is--in my opinion--what's holding back facial recognition but I fear that 1% blockage of websites is completely acceptable to most folks. Maybe a better analogy is that of the FCC in America and the words you can't say on TV ... even though there is no research showing how these words negatively affect people, this small percent of our language and expression is blocked. This analogy (like all) is flawed, however, as you might never know what was on that website that caused the super happy and helpful animated kangaroo to appear on your computer and gently chide you that this site is not for Aussies.
Hopefully (and I'm betting on this) it will turn out to be a lot like prohibition. The outlawing of these sites and data cause their value to skyrocket, the government is made to look a mockery, your average citizen (I've heard talk of simple SSL encryption stopping this) knows how to reach them, in so doing they inadvertently supply criminals with capital and the very stupid law is repealed. Twenty years later, everyone is joking about "the Grand Experiment" and how pathetically futile it was to begin with.
Lastly, how is this any different than what China is doing? I'm surprised nobody has made this connection and accused the government of being no better than anti-free-speech China.
After reading a bit of the plan on Australia's Cyber-Safety, it's evident this quickly degrades into a "think of the children" mentality:
While the internet has created substantial benefits for children, it has also exposed them to a number of dangers, including exposure to illegal and prohibited content. Parents rightly expect the Australian Government to play its part in helping protect children online.
So why isn't there an "opt-out" plan for those Aussie adults who like our interwebs a little dirty (and are over 18 years of age)?
My work here is dung.
It takes some amount of courage to stand up to laws like this. Basically they have to publicly oppose the guise of 'Safety' and 'For The Children'. For politicians and normal people alike it can be difficult to come out sand say you oppose anything that is 'supposed to protect children'.
Good luck to them I say, and lets hope this kills this insane filtering plan.
They will label the protesters pedophile sympathizers. Insinuations will fly. Motives will be questioned. Fingers will be pointed. Dissent will disintegrate.
Newspapers will be sold.
These protesters are only protesting the symptoms and not the root causes of modern censorship. That is why they will fail.
May the Maths Be with you!
"Think of the children! Won't somebody PLEEEEEEASE think of the CHILDREN!" - Helen Lovejoy
While this is a great start, perhaps they can also lift the bans on games? I'm pretty sure that aussies will want to play F.E.A.R. 2 and Silent Hill Homecoming. Okay, maybe not so much Silent Hill, but they'll want to give this one a miss by choice, not by rating board decree or royal edict.
The Great Firewall of OZ, Dorthy will be safe now.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
"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 first filtering offices will be set up in Arsenal, Penistone and Scunthorpe.
(Inspiration: The Daily WTF.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
"Holly Doel-Mackaway, adviser with Save the Children, the largest independent children's rights agency in the world, said educating kids and parents was the way to empower young people to be safe internet users.
She said the filter scheme was "fundamentally flawed" because it failed to tackle the problem at the source and would inadvertently block legitimate resources."
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I'm curious. What does the Slashdot community think of government run opt-in blacklists and/or whitelists?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
However, I don not see anything else Aussies can do. I don't think their constitution is strong enough to carry a challenge against parlementary primacy. Naturally, they can vote the b#ms out, but that happens anyways as a matter of control.
Unfortunately, many "democracies", especially UK-style parlements, functionally are elected dictatorships.
Also known as 1 in 100, or 1%? Granted, 10,0000 sounds a lot better, but it's a bit disingenuous...
"Opponents said the most accurate filter chosen by the government will incorrectly block Web pages."
:-)
The opponents are doing themselves a disservice by analyzing percentages. By doing so it takes the focus from "should we or shouldn't we filter", to "how much should we filter?" Government should never filter Internet access, and the US should put pressure on them however they can, though I concede that is unlikely to happen since so many politicians are too busy trying to figure out ways to convince the proles that the US Government should filter the net to slap the hands of others for doing the same
(admit it; you were in desperate need of a good run-on sentence and I filled it.)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
"No mandatory ISP internet content filtering!!" "When do we want it?" "Before our copies of Quantum of Solace finish downloading!!"
will incorrectly block up to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Web pages out of 1 decillion.
There, fixed that for you.
Sigs are for Terrorists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYbYG-nXVA Lawrence Lessig is the man! Internet users should be in control of what software they use and what content they transmit over the internet. The internet has operated openly since its start. Nobody should be able to use their market power, or government power to silence people's voices on such a powerful network as the internet.
The best internet filter that can be used is called a 'parent'. The 'parent' places the child's computer in a high trafic area of the home and monitors what the child is doing. 'Parents' can also come with aditional feature which is called 'intrest' as in the 'parent' takes an active intrest in what the child is doing on line. (Comments accepted, special cases ignored)
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
No doubt those at the mercy's of company's such as Telstra and Westnet...
No doubt those at the mercy is of company is such as Telstra and Westnet...
There....fixed that for you. :/
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
So Australia, you voted in a Labour government, thinking you were going to get a moderate, left of centre government? A change from the Neo-Liberal (see Thatcher and Reagan) fiscal policies of the right.
But what you got is a bunch of socially right-wing, authoritarian cock-wads, who think the solution to any social problem is making new laws. As a Brit, I have to say this sounds disturbingly familiar.
If it's not Stephane Dion declaring that he's "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime," Australians electing a Tony Blair clone, or the Canadian Prime Minister ripping-off speeches from John Howard; it continues to amaze me how the Commonwealth leaders copy each other.
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.
if they do this in the USA, there will be blood. end of story.
Hold your protests in the voting booth, not in the streets. Then something will really happen.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Any widespread filtering of the internet at large will result in a massive tech 'arms war' that will make the cold war look like a Sunday picnic. Splinter cryptoed internets on both the current and eventually new internets will occur. Won't be pretty.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Whether by the Chinese government, the Aussies, the US, wherever, censoring public communication is the ultimate expression of disrespect for the public, and seriously undermines the validity of the offending government.
Pornography has "no socially redeeming aspect"?
Can you tell me what the "socially redeeming aspect" of reading Slashdot is? And why I should allow you to continue doing so?
"This level of censorship will have zero practical effect on political speech."
On what basis do you make that assertion? And why are you limiting it to only "political" speech? And in what circumstances do limits on free speech (political or not) "often" make sense?
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
big business and lobbyists for the music/movie/software studios who want to block torrent sites.
These issues are also a smoke screen, just like child porn and terrorists. The _real_ problem is free speech, that is what is under threat.
This was all planned. In "Between Two Ages" by Zbigniew Brzezinski he predicted the internet and the rise in free speech. This take down of the free internet is just the next step. Get us all hooked, get the world using it, then transform it into the greatest propaganda tool ever invented.
First they caught us in the "net". Now we are getting moved into the "grid".
We _must_ keep hold of the internet in its present form, this is very important.
OpenAustralia.org is your friend.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Parents have not exercised proper control over their children. Obvious on the face of it.
Government has recognized this lacking and is preparing to step up to the plate, at least in some minimal aspect.
This removes the need for any "parenting" in that specific area. Of course, since "parenting" is an obsolete concept that seems to have gone out of favor with June Cleaver we can expect further government action.
It is an obvious step. The government can't legislate "parenting" so they are going to (ineffectively) step into that role. The people have spoken, by not doing any parenting themselves. I believe we can expect similar action in the US sometime soon. The nanny state expands to fill all voids.
if they do this in the USA, there will be blood. end of story.
I didn't see any blood over the USA PATRIOT Act, did you?
have you heard of darknets?
No, in fact, I've seen outright approval of the PATRIOT Act. Too many people have the attitude "It doesn't hurt me in an obvious and immediate way and it just might help catch a terrorist, so it's a good thing!" A trivial application of critical thinking shows how it hurts EVERYBODY in subtle and long-term ways. It is one of many popular laws that exists because we base our decisions more on worst-case-scenarios than on rational cost-benefit analysis.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
So what you're saying is that THEY are actually Cardassians? child porn is a smokescreen for music torrents which are a smokescreen for free speech.
"a plan within a plan within a plan leading to a trap" seems very in-line with what you're describing. Hmm, this situation is alternatively terrifying and awesome, not sure how I'm supposed to feel as an old trek nerd and current music nerd.
Actually many Chinese get around those restrictions. However, there does seem to be a different psychology at work there, as well. The Chinese accept many restrictions we'd find outrageous.
actually that might be the kind of obstacle that would force an evolution of our networks and communications. i think that people usually respond well to adversity; in this case there are a lot of very intelligent and skilled people that want information that other people have. if barriers are thrown up in the way of the transfer of data they will find ways to use technology to overcome them or create new technology to do it. i kind of like the idea of "splintered cryptoed internets" because they are less easy for any one entity to control.
besides, if the entire network is illegal to be on, can you imagine how good the warez will be?
That's because for all the freedoms taken away/mangled by the patriot act, it's not immediately present in the mind of the average american. Americans just plain don't like to be bothered. Laws like the Patriot Act get passed because it doesn't affect the day-to-day grind. But, take away the ability to surf porn and chat up myspace and people will be pissed. God knows what would happen if some ISP decided to block fantasy football sites here.
Someday we will as well if we don't stop it from happening.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
A video site called Liveleak, that runs a few dozen new videos daily, ran a video of a russian circus family practicing, which involved an adult holding a child by the limbs and tossing/spinning him about. The aussie gov't is prosecuting an aussie for watching the video. Here's the appeal for support for the accused:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a77_1228162261
And the end result of that was that I set up a Tor relay and will never again trust the Finnish police, since it has proven itself to be willing to abuse its power - not a single one of the sites on the block list I sampled contained child porn.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Govmint plowing forward despite widespread protest from people and politicians, eh? How's that democracy workin' out for yeh?
Didn't have much time to react. The USA PATRIOT Act kept getting voted down in Congress. After 9/11, it was pushed again and made it into law in less than 48 hours.
Those that sought blood after it became law were apprehended, given orange jumpsuits, and placed into tiny rooms.
Write to your local MP and senators (especially write to those who hold the ballance of power in the senate).
The greens have already said they will oppose this in its current form (Whether they would accept it if it was 100% opt-in and voluntary I dont know)
If we can get enough people to oppose it (especially those on the liberal/national opposition in the senate) Kevin wont be able to pass the law necessary to implement the filtering.
Actually, in all seriousness, this is what scares me more than anything about this insane plan.
Because such businesses *will* spring up, and pedophiles and criminals will indeed flock to them. And within a very short space of time we will have laws introduced that make it not just impractical to bypass the filter, but *illegal* to circumvent it or to offer technology or services for doing so. From there we are but a short hop from making all but government approved (ie. backdoored) encryption illegal and from there to complete totalitarian control over society.
So this rather innocent sounding filter has the potential to cascade, through it's obvious flaws and the inevitable embarrassment of the government when they become publicized, to something much much more serious.
Regardless of how many pages it will wrongly block, or correctly block, it's not going to stop what it's apparently supposed to. This is common knowledge. Those who think it is a good idea will suddenly be miffed when their internet speeds drop by up to 75%, and they pay more than their fair share for these high speed connections. Let's see who will be in an uproar when you can't download your torrent of 'Desperate Housewives'. Let the reasonable people (who don't let any child near their house, let alone their computer) be allowed to opt out of this ridiculous filter, and we can get the already ridiculously slow internet speeds we pay a premium for.
In what way does the Patriot Act limit my access to porno? Blood in the streets.
Now wash your hands.