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."

Comments

If we don't stop thepiratebay, the terrorists win!

[elrous0]

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.

The Grand Tube Experiment

[eldavojohn]

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)?

Re:The Grand Tube Experiment

[sanosuke001]

That's the problem; since it's automated, that 1% blocked could be anything. cnn/bbc/etc could be blocked for talking about a child porn news item. That would seem unacceptable to me.

As for the whole "think of the children" issue. There are child protection software packages available. Parents need to start taking responsibility for their offspring and stop expecting everyone else to bend over backwards for them. You brought them into this world, not me. You take care of their well-being. I'm all for "thinking of the children" when it doesn't adversely affect anyone else but this does. Therefore, it is unacceptable.

Re:The Grand Tube Experiment

[eldavojohn]

That's the problem; since it's automated, that 1% blocked could be anything. cnn/bbc/etc could be blocked for talking about a child porn news item. That would seem unacceptable to me.

Well, according to the last part of one of the articles

The trial is expected to use a blacklist of 10,000 banned Web pages, using the rumoured 1300-page blacklist held by the ACMA mixed with dummy data.

If that's true, they are simply going to blacklist a bunch of websites. I heavily doubt cnn/bbc/etc will ever negligently be put on that list. I know little to nothing about this scheme but if it's a blacklist, you probably have little worry about with major news sites. A lot more to worry about things labeled as "counter-culture" or "low brow humor."

Re:The Grand Tube Experiment

[cayenne8]

"The thing that worries me is that if we look at other technologies designed to "protect the people from themselves..."

I think we need to back up and examine that statement in itself. Why should the govt. be involved at all in technology or laws that protect people from themselves?!?!

Isn't part of being free, the freedom to fuck up?

Re:The Grand Tube Experiment

[poetmatt]

What you doubt, is not reality.

Remember the whole "5 9's" philosophy of uptime?

Well what if you reduce that back to 2 9's of uptime, which was like ....8 hours a year I believe. I think you know how big of a deal that even 1/10th of a percent can make, in that regards.

Now lets take this to an ineffective bloated government mandated filter, and you think it's going to work? Yeah, right. "we're only blocking 1% of the internet, and it happens to be every torrent sites (including linux ISOs) , and 0 child porn websites. I'm proud that the other 80% of the sites we filter are very effective".

Watch an almost identical quote to that come out of government mouthes if this is implemented.

Re:The Grand Tube Experiment

[gorbachev]

If that's true, they are simply going to blacklist a bunch of websites. I heavily doubt cnn/bbc/etc will ever negligently be put on that list.

They are doing something very similar in Finland. The biggest difference is that ISPs aren't required to filter based on the blocklist, yet.

An unnamed police officer (yes, apparently a single person) is in charge of what goes on the list and what comes off the list.

They recently put w3c.org on the list.

Obviously it was a mistake, but nevertheless it quite nicely demonstrated that any site can end up on the list.

Re:The Grand Tube Experiment

[Trentus]

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.

It has before been alluded that it is just like what China have implemented, even in the senate. To quote Senator Conroy (the nut in charge of the department for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy).

I was wondering if I could get the questions without being accused of being the Great Wall of China.

From http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11346.pdf.

No, you great twat, you can't, not when what you're proposing is so damn much like it.

Re:The Grand Tube Experiment

[uffe_nordholm]

If I remember correctly, the very same filter was used to deny access to www.lapsiporno.info/ (childporn.info). The only problem was the the blocked site was not about child porn per se, but about the child porn filter. Thus the filter was used by the Finnish police to silence their critics! "Very handy" if you happen to be the authorities and don't care about such things as freedom of speech.

Re:The Grand Tube Experiment

[TheNarrator]

They can block anyone's free speech and blame the whole thing on a mistake.

From what I've seen over the years, the incompetence defense works every single time. Officials can do something they want to do and blame it on a mistake and the public accepts it unquestioningly every single time. It's one of the most perfect propaganda techniques ever engineered.

Good On 'Em

[Paranatural]

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.

Re:Good On 'Em

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course in the long run government will win, as they always do. The business of government is simply too lucrative to resist. A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're sitting at the top of a trillion-dollar power pyramid.

There's a reason why no government in history (democracy or otherwise) has ever significant, permanently, and willingly reduced its revenue or power over the people. The reason is simple, although not many are willing to accept it (or admit it): more government benefits the people who make their fortunes in the business of government.

Make no mistake, governments only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetimes. We ought to sit down and think long and hard about this reality, because it is a perfect window into the true motives of government.

Re:Good On 'Em

[PontifexPrimus]

Nice quote on that topic:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken

I think that pretty much covers it.

Expect Government Response

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

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.
Frederick Douglass

These protesters are only protesting the symptoms and not the root causes of modern censorship. That is why they will fail.

Re:Expect Government Response

[Andr T.]

They will label the protesters pedophile sympathizers.

That will depend on how many people really show up and how clear the protester's leaders get the message through. If they convince the average Aussie the real reasons they are protesting, the 'bad' people can say anything they want. Just like people calling Obama a terrorist (and here I'm only making an analogy) - he got the message through.

These protesters are only protesting the symptoms and not the root causes of modern censorship. That is why they will fail.

To get people on the streets, you need the symptoms. And, when they are already there, you tell them about the theory behind that, and the root causes. But you need facts and impact on people's lives to make them care.

Re:Expect Government Response

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you precious? Go ahead, hunker down, keep your mouth closed, mind your own business, and refuse to participate until someone--ANYONE--makes a protest that rises to your standard of approval against those so-called "root causes". Meanwhile, teh pwers that be will take your pathetic silence as acquiescence and will heap even more restrictive control over your life.

The clbuttic error!

[David Gerard]

"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.)

Even Save the Children don't want the filters

[OzPeter]

A quote from this article in the The Age

"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."

What else can Aussies DO?

[redelm]

Although nicely social, demonstrations and protesting seems somewhat futile -- whinging you are unhappy and the perpetrators ought to fix it. Especially when they are stupid enough to not realize the level of discontent, they are likely to be stubborn as a matter of "principle" (most likely of power retention).

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.

10,000 out of 1 million

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Also known as 1 in 100, or 1%? Granted, 10,0000 sounds a lot better, but it's a bit disingenuous...

Allow me to fix that for them ..

[Zero__Kelvin]

"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.)

You got the ratio wrong!

[oskard]

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.

The best internet filter

[arthurpaliden]

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)

Re:With Rudd comes censorship

[cbiltcliffe]

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. :/

Et tu Australia?

[jeevesbond]

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.

Re:If we don't stop thepiratebay, the terrorists w

[yoshi_mon]

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.

Re:Wow, taking to the streets huh?

[pluther]

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?

Re:If we don't stop thepiratebay, the terrorists w

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If we don't stop thepiratebay, the terrorists w

[OriginalArlen]

OpenAustralia.org is your friend.

Re:If we don't stop thepiratebay, the terrorists w

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:If we don't stop thepiratebay, the terrorists w

[GospelHead821]

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.

Re:If we don't stop thepiratebay, the terrorists w

[riceboy50]

Someday we will as well if we don't stop it from happening.